Dumb Political Correctness

I do fully understand that an open-mind is a slippery slope. Implicit in that comment is my definition of an open-mind:

1) Not indulging your base emotional instincts
2) Taking your time to confirm the information
3) Don't force a reconciliation to a desired truth that you currently believe
4) Do not be afraid of the truth no matter where it lands
5) Be curious
6) Do not be rigid by understanding your belief may be too literal
7) Faith is a choice at some point when you cannot prove it scientifically.
8) Understand your place of birth and parental beliefs may have greatly impacted what you believe to be true
9) Empathy is a great equalizer
10) Kindness in manner; never stubborn or defensive; always willing to listen; do not judge if you see no harm being done to others; understand that what is your truth may be in fact your hang-up

I just typed that up off the top of my head. I did not provide a list such as this to my children. I think they see where I'm coming from when we speak.

I have no issue with any of this. It's all good.

As far as Christianity goes, my children and I are being oppressed by their mother who unfortunately is mentally ill. We don't know what happened to her. Long story short, I divorced her and she appealed all the way to SCOTUS on the grounds that the no-fault divorce laws of Texas infringed upon her religious freedom; i.e. a blood covenant made with me to be bound for life. She lost her appeals and is now telling everyone that we are still legally married. I've had to send her a cease and desist letter from my attorney and she responded with an FU couched in biblical rhetoric the likes of which no one has ever seen.

My girlfriend thinks that myself and my children are suffering some level of PTSD because of this situation which has plagued us for a very long time. I am only telling you this because it has greatly impacted our faith. We are TRIGGERED (and I mean it) anytime we hear someone lead off with, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior." We want to run away.

But are we failing in our beliefs because of our trauma? Maybe so. We are trying to look at it as her failure and not the failure of Christianity. But the point is that one's experiences can greatly impact their emotions and their point of view. So if you are reading this, you have a point of view about my situation (and I'm telling you the absolute truth) and I have a point of view.

I totally understand this. If someone who claims to be a Christian tortures you unjustly, I can see why that would make you less than thrilled with Christianity, especially if she does that torturing in the name of Christianity as she does. Experiences absolutely do matter.

A few points to consider though. First, was your faith based on your ex-wife? I'm sure your initial thought is, "of course it wasn't based on my ex-wife." You might even be offended at even being asked the question, but really think about it. Lots of people abandon their faith when they find out some pastor did something terrible. (See Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Robert Tilton, etc.) How many Catholics have left Christianity over the sex abuse scandals? Plenty. Well, those people's faith was predicated on their personal expectations of a fellow human being whether they admit it or not.

By the way, I'm not saying this to look down upon those who abandoned their faith over the acts of other people. That isn't unreasonable, and frankly, it makes plenty of sense. However, my suggestion to them (and perhaps to you) is to reach for a faith that's based not on people but on a personal relationship with Christ - the one thing that never errs. Your ex-wife may have claimed to be very pious, but at her core, she is fallen person bound to err.

Second, have you considered the possibility that your ex-wife is full of crap? That might seem like a no-brainer, but I don't just mean that she's crazy and mistreating you and your kids. I mean that perhaps she's corrupted and/or deceived and acting against the wishes of God rather than in alignment with them as she claims. It's easy to play righteous and invoke God in a divorce as she obviously is, but she isn't the final authority. I'm not going to ask you to justify or explain why you sought a divorce. That's none of my business, but there are biblically sound reasons to seek a divorce. I just don't see you as the kind of guy to divorce for weak reasons.

But if I'm wrong about Jesus (meaning the Bible is literally true) and my ex-wife is correct about the blood covenant, then am I going to burn in hell? I haven't rejected Christ but like I told her former pastor (who has been a great comfort to me as he has tried to counsel her to let me go), "I'll never step foot into a church again except for a wedding or a funeral."

If her former pastor has counseled her to accept the divorce rather than trying to encourage you to stay with her, that suggests to me that he thinks the divorce is morally justified. So no, I don't think you're going to burn in hell for divorcing her. However, let's assume for the sake of discussion that your divorce was unbiblical. That would make you guilty of a sin (like all of us). It wouldn't make you guilty of an unforgivable sin.

As for promising never to attend a church again, that's your prerogative. However, let me give you my rationale for why I attend. It's not a favor to my pastor or God. They don't need my time, my attendance, or my money. Frankly, I attend for my own benefit. It keeps me tethered to God and helps me to keep my own life in perspective. I'm not one of these people who seeks a church that affirms my beliefs or my lifestyle. That's a waste of time. Who the hell am I to presume to be the authority of what's right for me? I may seem like a "good guy" and try to be that, but I'm a sinner who's full of wickedness despite my efforts. Therefore, so long as it's biblical, I want a church to challenge me and even make me uncomfortable at times. That's how I become a better man.

So before committing never to attend church again, just consider the possibility that church attendance might actually help if you find the right one. Will you go to hell if you don't attend? No, but I wouldn't close my mind to it.
 
I was referring to the ideas broadly. They are incongruent. What caveats will you add to "equal" to get it to also apply to "diversity"?

At this point I'm so honestly lost at the very idea that it's impossible to have diversity and equality (unless by "equality" you mean "exact outcomes for every single person", which you don't get even without diversity either) that I really don't know what to say from here.

Here, a black actress is accusing black Americans of practicing "overt white supremacy" because they told her she talks like a white girl.

Fresh Prince took down this "you aren't black enough" line of thinking brilliantly a couple of decades ago, back when the left would have wholeheartedly agreed with the show's message.

The San Francisco Giants have allegedly banned Aubrey Huff from the 2010 World Series reunion because he's a Trump supporter

There are other Trump supporters on the roster. The difference is Huff has a history of being an insufferable dick about it.
 
At this point I'm so honestly lost at the very idea that it's impossible to have diversity and equality (unless by "equality" you mean "exact outcomes for every single person", which you don't get even without diversity either) that I really don't know what to say from here.

I am talking about concepts. How is something equal and diverse? Apply that to people if you like. In what way would you have to define both in order to say that people are both?

I think it is obvious that people are diverse. No 2 people are alike. Even siblings who are the most similar genetically are very different people.

So that leaves the equal side. How can people, when we know each is so different, be described at equal? How are they equal? There are some things that are common to all people, so I understand the idea. I could explain where I think people are equal and diverse but I was curious to see what someone else would say. Sorry you couldn't think of anything.

I tend to think treating people as individuals tends to emphasize the diversity. Forcing people to be all the same thing, live the same life, etc. would be tyranny to me. Allowing people to pursue their own life as diverse people is my idea of freedom.

But then there are common human elements that every individual possesses and that should be respected. We are all equally human, who equally need respect as a human (though some people earn more respect than others), and equal treatment under the law of the land. But that is as equal as I can see. The balance still seems much more on the diverse and unequal side to me.
 
That's not my idea of good parenting. Am I all alone in thinking this?

My sense is commenting on it is a minefield. It sort of reminds me of that Bloomberg speech in Europe before his fellow intelligentsia where he was saying Iowans are too ignorant to understand why they should be happy let grown men wearing dresses watch their daughters pee in the little girls room.
 
I have no problem with y'all embracing hypocrisy. Just don't point at others cognitive dissonance while not admitting your own. You've made a deal, one the bible specifically says not to do, but as long as you are ok with it who am I to judge. We all have our inconsistencies.
This argument is commonly known as "Argumentum Ad Hominem -Circumstantial Subcategory", and is a fallacy. Whether Trump is acceptable to a voter over any alternative is not dependent on that voter's special circumstance, be they a Christian, Republican, Muslim, or Democrat. Stating that a Christian should reject Trump because not doing so would be a violation of scripture is a circumstantial fallacy (specific to the circumstances of the Christian), and does not affect the Truth or Untruth of the argument that Trump was the better choice at the time he was elected. Additionally, if a Christian were to reject every candidate that violated scripture, they would never vote.
 
This guy is back to defend his state of Texas girls wrestling title. They call this stuff "intersectionality." Watching them come after each other is kind of weird. It's hard to see how this actually qualifies as "feminist." Seems to me more like it is erasing females.

ERTe9OzWsAUHRqY.jpg


ERTe9OdXUAANEyv.jpg
 
As I noted on Twitter today...when the East German Olympic team took performance enhancing drugs, it was evil. When trans do so, it is "stunning and brave."
 
As I noted on Twitter today...when the East German Olympic team took performance enhancing drugs, it was evil. When trans do so, it is "stunning and brave."

There was a great story from 1970s era US women's Olympic swim team when they were changing in the dressing room. The the doors busted open and they heard a bunch of males voices entering. She said everyone in the facility starting diving and scrambling for towels. But it was the East German girls team walking in.

Here is a doc about all that
 
Last edited:

And this is where they go over the top. Most people don't really care where people use the bathroom if they're not making an issue of it and don't even mind some accommodations. This school has a single-use bathroom for anyone to use. That is more than fair. However, people get concerned when they say, "you MUST let me take a dump and pull my junk out in front of you and your kids or you'll get sued" and bring the power of the state to force it.

And it's so sad. Running a school and educating children is a tough job. It has to be distracting and difficult to do their jobs while brining a stupid-*** issue like this into the school, especially an elementary school. And even beyond the bathroom issue, how dare this sack of **** force a bunch of elementary school children to deal with this idiotic issue at such a young age. Respect these children's innocence.
 
John R Lott Jr (Texas Public Policy Foundation) says data shows that since 2000, in 20 states where teachers are allowed to carry in school, not one shooting or gun injury has taken place in those schools.
 
not one shooting or gun injury has taken place in those schools.

You know how I know the bolded part is absolutely true?

Because if a gun accident would have happened at a school we wouldh have heard about it nonstop for a week on every news channel.

That's 20 years with teachers having guns in schools without one incident.
 
This is so retarded. Might as well go for unisex on all sports. Why even have two separate gender classes when "gender is a fluid concept?" Let them all compete as men. And goodbye Title IX. Think of the money schools like UT will save when it can eliminate the costs of all those scholarships tied to all those programs

 

Recent Threads

Back
Top