Yet Again, At Planet Fitness...

[Hans Blaster]

It classifies as being on topic.

Again, I get that you think these things about gender segregation and transpeople should be, but it doesn't address your claim that these issues involving locker rooms or public restrooms are somehow related to Christian doctrine or culture.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Again, I get that you think these things about gender segregation and transpeople should be, but it doesn't address your claim that these issues involving locker rooms or public restrooms are somehow related to Christian doctrine or culture.

@BCP1928 is the one who first brought up "Western Christian cultural conventions" last Sunday in post #205, so pester him about it.

Not "convention" in general, just Western Christian cultural conventions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@BCP1928 is the one who first brought up "Western Christian cultural conventions" last Sunday in post #205, so pester him about it.

I noted that earlier to day in my multi-post quote. You're the one that said it was the best and only give me vagaries about the connection of Christian culture or influence on this topic.

 

[Pommer]

A woman who goes in a men’s restroom doesn’t pose a threat in most cases

How often does this occur, do you think?

 

[rjs330]

So who exactly are you going to keep out and how are you going to police it?

I've already provided the answer to that.

 

[rjs330]

This is a false teaching. No one is free to do what is evil, that violates the notion that morality and divine commandment are not obligations. They most certainly are.

Yes you are free to do evil. Just because it's immoral or wicked you are still free to do it. You don't get a free pass from it. You will still bear consequences for it. I may have obligation but I am free to ignore the obligation.
When it come to Christ we are all condemned already. Only believing in Him alters that. We are free to choose.

 

[rjs330]

Mostly just on forums to be honest. I'm not going to tell someone how to run their business but I will express my opinion when the subject arises.

Fair enough.

The reason I said that people seem to want to shower with the other boys is because the issue is privacy and it seems (you guys) seem to think that it's better to discriminate against trans women rather than just provide them with privacy.

You are certainly making disgusting false accusations. There is no sense in it.
I seem to recall that Trans people were offered their private spaces and they turned them down because they didn't want them. They wanted to strip down with the girls. They never asked for privacy. The woman have though.

But yes, I am specifically thinking of trans women because it seems that it what the conservative community would like to shove back into the closet like the old days. If someone truly identifies as a woman and they have altered their body to reflect that I think they shouldn't be required to use the public men's shower. Like we've said all along, they can vote with their wallets (or purses) and go to a place where they do provide privacy. My personal opinion is that if they still have a penis, they shouldn't be in the men's or the women's but the family restroom.

We don't want them in the closet. Just not in women's private spaces.
And it's their problem not ours. If they've altered themselves to the point where no one can tell the difference, no one is going to notice or say anything.

But if you look like a dude stay out of the women's restrooms.

 

[rjs330]

It's because conservatives are afraid a trans person will choose the improper restroom. Otherwise just having a men's or women's restroom is a non-issue. It only becomes an issue for conservatives when the trans community is brought into the equation.

We never used to have b I atantly obvious men in the women's room. They stayed out. So yes the trans identifying men caused this problem. Men are now using the lady's room and making the ladies uncomfortable. Why don't you care about the women? You just said yourself that if you have a penis you should stay out of the ladies room.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes you are free to do evil. Just because it's immoral or wicked you are still free to do it. You don't get a free pass from it. You will still bear consequences for it. I may have obligation but I am free to ignore the obligation.

That isn't real freedom in any meaningful sense.

 

[BPPLEE]

How often does this occur, do you think?

Never

 

[BPPLEE]

That isn't real freedom in any meaningful sense.

It’s free will isn’t it?
The Bible says choose who you will serve so I think everyone has a choice

 

[rjs330]

That isn't real freedom in any meaningful sense.

I didn't say freedom. I said free. No one on this planet really has pure freedom. Pure freedom would be to do whatever you want without consequence. No one has that on this planet. But you are free to do whatever you want, but we still face the consequences of that action. I said people are free to do whatever they want. That's a true statement. But no one has pure freedom to live a life with no consequences.

 

[FireDragon76]

I didn't say freedom. I said free. No one on this planet really has pure freedom. Pure freedom would be to do whatever you want without consequence.

This is a humanistic philosophical notion (one that most don't even adhere to anymore, believing that sort of freedom is actually nonsensical and incoherent), but it isn't compatible with Christian thought. In the words of St. Augustine, "Service to God is perfect freedom".

Every human is obligated to do what is good and right, regardless of their eternal destiny, because God's nature is perfectly good and just.

 

[rjs330]

This is a humanistic philosophical notion (one that most don't even adhere to anymore, believing that sort of freedom is actually nonsensical and incoherent), but it isn't compatible with Christian thought. In the words of St. Augustine, "Service to God is perfect freedom".

Every human is obligated to do what is good and right, regardless of their eternal destiny, because God's nature is perfectly good and just.

Yes, but we are free to ignore that obligation. In fact the Bible states most will. The service of self is the human condition. No one lives a life of good and right. That's why there are eternal consequences.

Service to God through Christ is Freedom because we are made free from the consequences of our actions in God's eyes. Even if a believer sins they are made righteous through forgiveness for CHRIST'S sake.

We may still suffer consequences on this planet but won't in the world to come.

In the end we've all served someone. The majority of people serve themselves. A few try to serve thier fellow man, but in the end its not good enough. A small minority serve God through Christ and receive forgiveness for the times of failure.

And this topic is evidence of that. This dude used service to self to enter the women's space and abuse them emotionally and mentally for his own gratification. All because liberals provided him with a convenient excuse.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, but we are free to ignore that obligation.

This is an appallingly sad and wrong thing for a Christian to say.

Perhaps Pentecostals and Fundamentalists need to stop lecturing those of us in "liberal" Mainline Protestant churches about how we've supposedly abandoned a "biblical worldview", because what you are describing sounds more like a secular Enlightenment notion of freedom, than historic Christianity.

 

[BPPLEE]

This is an appallingly sad and wrong thing for a Christian to say.

Perhaps Pentecostals and Fundamentalists need to stop lecturing those of us in "liberal" Mainline Protestant churches about how we've supposedly abandoned a "biblical worldview", because what you are describing sounds more like a secular Enlightenment notion of freedom, than historic Christianity.

I think he is just saying we have free will. God doesn’t make us obey him. It’s a choice.

 

[rjs330]

This is an appallingly sad and wrong thing for a Christian to say.

Perhaps Pentecostals and Fundamentalists need to stop lecturing those of us in "liberal" Mainline Protestant churches about how we've supposedly abandoned a "biblical worldview", because what you are describing sounds more like a secular Enlightenment notion of freedom, than historic Christianity.

No it's not. It's absolutely Biblical. In fact Jesus said it.

And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil.

Evil deeds are evidence men love darkness rather than light. They did not choose to fulfill thier obligation.

So why is this appauling? Remember Jesus parable where the Lord sent servants and his son to people and they killed him? They had an obligation and ignored it. They chose murder instead.

How is my statement that we are free to ignore our obligation, but not free of the consequences if that choice appauling?

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Joshua understood this. I stand with Joshua.

Paul says this,

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:5, Romans 8:6, Romans 8:7, Romans 8:8 - New International Version

See, even though we have an obligation the flesh is hostile to God and DOES NOT SUBMIT TO GODS LAW.

How is my statement so appauling?

 

[FireDragon76]

I think he is just saying we have free will. God doesn’t make us obey him. It’s a choice.

Western Christianity up until the Enlightenment did not teach human freedom as the cause of salvation, and in many churches (Lutherans and Reformed), it still isn't relevant. Furthermore, a great many contemporary philosophers and neuroscientists don't believe free will is a coherent concept.

 

[BPPLEE]

Western Christianity up until the Enlightenment did not teach human freedom as the cause of salvation, and in many churches (Lutherans and Reformed), it still isn't relevant. Furthermore, a great many contemporary philosophers and neuroscientists don't believe free will is a coherent concept.

Yeah, I don’t agree with Calvinists.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, I don’t agree with Calvinists.

You need to explain how people read the Bible for centuries and didn't see "choosing whatever you want" as compatible with Christianity. Because what you are describing is potentially more revisionist of notions of truth than just allowing people to use whatever bathroom or locker room they need to use.