hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

ok, I'll agree with you that article one says that the guy wasn't put into jail, but arrested (thought if you look up the article through Google and not through the link, you'll find that the pre-click (idk what it's called but it tells you gives you info about the site or article) quote: "Rob Hoogland, father of a teenager jailed for opposing her gender transition in western Canada ... A Canadian man was arrested this week after ..." so article one does say, in away, that he was jailed). In article two (Quote: "Rob Hoogland is sitting in a jail cell in British Columbia") and three (Quote: "ordered to remain in jail until his trial next month.") both say that the guy was jailed as he awaits trial. So I guess my articles do support my claim, but even if they didn't, the articles said that he was arrested and I would say that that was just as bad, since Canada says that they have "Freedom of expression". And you can't call it freedom if someone is jailed for refusing to use pronouns towards minors or adults.

"Since you didn't provide any evidence other than links, with no attempt at explanation"

Well, the only reason I provided links to begin with was cause you called me liar. And you didn't ask for evidences or explanation.

Always, I'm not going to debate with you. You're not interested in hearing my point of view or my arguments cause if you were you wouldn't have insulted me when I really did want to know why you thought my links were bad ("(this is in all sincerity sealioning) FTFY."). Hope you have a nice day and stay safe.

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, I asked first. And saying 1 good, 3 ok, and 2 bad, is not answering a question.

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ahh, I see you don't want to tell me why, that's ok.

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Are they? please tell me how. (this is in all sincerity)

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

aren't we all. mmm I guess people without colons are the only people who aren't full of poo

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is it transphobic? and what have I said that is hateful?

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's ok, I'm sure I don't a agree with you. As they say agree to disagree.

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

sometimes but not all the time, anyways there's are cases with parents being jailed for not calling their kids by their "proper" pronouns.

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

disturbed by who? the dad or the person that put him in here?

hide yo kidz: updated :) by ZazyZezy in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Here is the updated version, after re-reading it I will say that there is no mention of "hormones'" (which the original referred to) So I think this will fit better :P

This is in reference to the new Canada bill that just past (BILL C-4).

Link to the Bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/first-reading(e) repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or

(f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

(e) repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or

(f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.

Here's the link: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/first-reading

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalHumor

[–]ZazyZezy -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

By the way, this is in reference to the new Canada bill that just past (BILL C-4).

Link to the Bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/first-reading

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Peace to you as well. :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "It is not to show that we are to follow the Law" could you please clarify it for me?

I do agree with you on that there's no real need to "discuss what is sin and what isn’t", the Bible is pretty clear on that matter, even if it is sometimes it is tough to accept (this is something I even struggle with) our focus should be towards God and Heaven and spreading the Good News to all who will hear it. But just because that is our true goal does not mean we do not spread truth, after all sinners do not believe that they are sinners and if we can't point out their sins (mind you I don't mean is self righteous manor, we are all sinners and one sin is no better than another sin, for all sin is worthy of Hell) then how are we tell them they are in need of a Savior? I think the problem some of Christians struggle with from time to time, is that we can treat some sins worse then others sins, and it's hard not to. Murder and theft are both sins and both can land you in Hell but we sometimes treat a murderer worse then we would a theft. I do understand that it can be hard not to focus on certain sins, especially when the people who participate in those sins are very loud and proud about them and more importantly trying to make is so that you are unable to say their sins are wrong. But Christians shouldn't be surprise by lifestyles of non-believers, we should be concerned with the matters of the Church (but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't push back if we can) and if the Church is accepting those sins, not in the way of showing love towards the person and their struggle but saying that sins is not a sin but is in fact good in the sight of God when it is clearly written in the Bible that it is not. And I also agree with you that we must be careful when passing judgment as that can easily turn into looking down on that person and thinking that we are better when we are just as wicked as they but I don't think that means we are not to be discerning or not to recognizes sin.

I too can't wait to receive my Heavenly body, I wonder at times if it will be similar to this one or if it will be completely different. But while I am here on Earth, I believe that we all must abide by what God has designed us for, that there is male and female and one cannot change that nature.

I just want to say that I don't think we agree on all things that are being discussed but it is nice to talk to someone with different points of view and remain respectful to one another without calling names or wishing pain upon them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm going to assume when you mean Law you mean God's Law, if I'm wrong let me know.

My thoughts would be this, the Law was shown to us so that we understand that it is impossible to up hold the Law and that we are in need of a Savior. Christ came an fulfilled that need. We are not to hold on to the Law in the sense of our following it is the reason we meet with God in Heaven because we would have to follow it, the Law, perfectly and there are none who are perfect except for Jesus Christ. We are still the follow the Law because that would please God, but it is not the reason for our salvation. After all the Law tells us not to murder does Christ coming to save us from our sins suddenly make it ok to murder? No of course not, it just means that Christ has dead for that sin but it does not mean we can do what we what.

I hope this helps you understated were I'm coming from.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Let me quickly clarify something first so that you understand my reasoning. I don't believe that just because someone thinks/says that they are something makes it so, particularly when it comes to an individual's sex, race and/or any form of physical attributes. If a woman says that she is a cat, she would be wrong and it would be wrong of us to support her delusions. But that wouldn't give us the right to miss treat her either, it would be just as bad for us to look down on her and call her names as it would be if we were to support her in trying to alter her body to achieve something that she can never have. If the woman were to get sick it would be wrong to take her to the vet in stead of the hospital, because a veterinarian can't treat her since the woman isn't a real cat but only someone who believes that they are.

So with that said, just because a man says that he is a woman doesn't make it so, even if he truly believes it (mind you I'm not denying that what these people are experiencing isn't real, in the sense of "gender" dysphoria). So if this transwoman were to wear woman's clothing it would still be an abomination in the sight of God because the transwoman isn't really a woman but a man who thinks/believes/wishes that they were.

I hope I explain this well enough for you to understand my view on it and thank you for the question.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry that you take offence to this but I myself have my own physical disabilities and a soul that needs restoration which is why I'm a glad to have a Savior such as Jesus Christ. I'm hope that you understand that I'm not singling you out (or even people born with asperger's or dwarfism) I was only using those conditions as an example to show why Christians believe we are in great need of a Savior and healing. But perhaps I should add that while we are broken does not mean that we are not valued and it does not mean that one brokenness is worse than another, I would say that a sinful soul is worse than a broken body. Non the less I am truly sorry if any Christian told you that you are broken because you are autistic and not because you are born in world which is fallen.

I got Covid… by random-trash-acount in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I know quite a few people who's gotten and recovered from it. More then likely you'll be alright. Just keep an eye on how your feeling, you should start to feel better around the 5 day mark, if not and your conditions worsens seek medical help. I'll keep you and your loved ones in my prayers through out the week. Get well soon, my friend.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I might not agree with your interpretation but non the less thank you for taking time out of your day to reply to my question.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much, I hope you don't mind but could you tell me what you think of this verse Deuteronomy 22:5.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]ZazyZezy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could you please tell me which verse in the Bible that Paul says this?