In Georgia, a bill to cut all ties with the American Library Association is advancing

[BrightShinyGirl]

Catholic priests and Catholicism has never had anything to do with true Christianity. Catholicism was always a pagan system with Christian terminology attached to it. In fact, the history of the Catholic church is that there were a bunch of Christians who would not buy into the pagan system just because the Christian labels had been slapped on, And the Catholic killed them just like the Roman empire had been killing Christians all along. When it comes to the theology of the Catholic church, there is very little in it that has anything to do with true biblical Christianity.

Which Protestant sects represent "true Christianity"?

 

[Gazzspeed]

The American Library Association is dominated by one ideology that is not embraced by the majority of Americans.

Curious... have all Americans been surveyed on this? Source information would be helpful for this post. As an outsider trying to understand why America seems to be imploding, I find it very difficult to get objective information. America was looked upon as a shining example of truth, justice, and democracy when I was growing up. Not perfect, but as close to ideal as could be found. I miss the days when the United States were united. Hoping that citizens can unite again some days with those values. In the meantime, supporting documentation for statements would be helpful in weeding out partisan rhetoric.

 

[JaySecrets]

Which Protestant sects represent "true Christianity"?

It's not about a sect or a denomination, though there are certain denominations and "sects", as you put it, that generally hold what I just described. Any church or denomination that doesn't teach what I just described, because that's what the Bible describes and the Book defined what identifies the followers of the Book, not a denomination, church, or group, is not, Biblically defined, true Christianity.

 

[InThe312]

It's not about a sect or a denomination, though there are certain denominations and "sects", as you put it, that generally hold what I just described. Any church or denomination that doesn't teach what I just described, because that's what the Bible describes and the Book defined what identifies the followers of the Book, not a denomination, church, or group, is not, Biblically defined, true Christianity.

Ok, so which denominations follow what you described? I think we're all looking for the opportunity to learn from you. I would like to find one of the churches, because after all, it takes one or more to gather for the magic sky wizard to show up.

 

[InThe312]

No that is exactly the wrong answer. If you want that kind of smut put into your child's eyes and your child's mind, You create a special event where you and your child and whatever parents want their child subjected to sexuality at a young age can bring your children to that event. You don't use a public space paid for by tax dollars to sexualize children. That's child abuse. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, those who are having these events that are highly sexual in nature for children should be put in prison for exposing a minor to explicit material.

Exactly what is sexual about someone in drag reading a story book? God forbid we have kids learn that there are people out there that aren't exactly like mommy and daddy. Also, this is not offensive to me at all and I support that we should have more exposure to people different than those we see around us every day. That's how we learn about the myriad of people and cultures that make up this crazy rock.

I imagine if we (as a world) invested more time talking to each other and learning about each other (especially religions), maybe we wouldn't invest so much time in trying to eradicate those that are different than us.

 

[JaySecrets]

Roman Catholicism traces its history to Jesus during the period of Roman occupation in the early 30s of the Common Era. Over a period of years after Jesus' life and death his followers spread out across the world to form a “universal” (Greek, katholikos) church with the bishop of Rome holding primacy.

Roman Catholicism traces it's history to 300 AD, with the Emperor Constantine. He realized Rome couldn't crush out Christianity by killing the Christians, because they were the only ones caring for the outcasts, the slaves, the the unwanted babies left on hills to die, had the first hospitals for that very reason, and, when they went to their deaths, they went singing, not screaming. Anyone can enjoy living the good life. These were rejoicing in suffering, helping their enemies, and had peace in death. You can't crush that out

So Constantine, in a brilliant political move, co-opts the Christian language instead, replaces the pantheon with "saints" , replaces Isis and her son with the Madonna and the Child, renames pagan worship rituals with Christian and psudo-Christian terminology, and the emperor eventually becomes the Pope and the Vicar of Christ on earth instead of a god.

That's the lite version.

 

[InThe312]

Roman Catholicism traces it's history to 300 AD, with the Emperor Constantine. He realized Rome couldn't crush out Christianity by killing the Christians, because they were the only ones caring for the outcasts, the slaves, the the unwanted babies left on hills to die, had the first hospitals for that very reason, and, when they went to their deaths, they went singing, not screaming. Anyone can enjoy living the good life. These were rejoicing in suffering, helping their enemies, and had peace in death. You can't crush that out

So Constantine, in a brilliant political move, co-opts the Christian language instead, replaces the pantheon with "saints" , replaces Isis and her son with the Madonna and the Child, renames pagan worship rituals with Christian and psudo-Christian terminology, and the emperor eventually becomes the Pope and the Vicar of Christ on earth instead of a god.

That's the lite version.

You're actually disputing the accepted history of Catholicism? FFS dude.

 

[BlueEyes1969]

Catholic priests and Catholicism has never had anything to do with true Christianity. Catholicism was always a pagan system with Christian terminology attached to it. In fact, the history of the Catholic church is that there were a bunch of Christians who would not buy into the pagan system just because the Christian labels had been slapped on, And the Catholic killed them just like the Roman empire had been killing Christians all along. When it comes to the theology of the Catholic church, there is very little in it that has anything to do with true biblical Christianity.

Another Nazi tactic. They decided what church communities were "authorized" and authentic "Christian" communities. All others were hunted and either exiled or exterminated. The pastors of those churches wore vestments with the Swastika on them and had to pledge to never speak about the failures of the socialist government. All churches were under the control of the German government. Indeed they became the State Church. The pastors who lived in Christ and reached the world the way he did, would not and could not keep silent. They were imprisoned for speaking out and were put to death. They were evangelical protestants, reformed protestants, Lutherans, Baptists and Roman Catholics. Claiming that priests were never Christians and merely "slapped" Christian labels upon the community of faith is both judgmental and is not Christlike.
Defining "Christians" by one's own. narrow view of what that means and trying to impose that on other believers is an abomination and dangerous in a country that DOES separate Church and State and allows persons of ALL faiths to practice their faith freely in this country. Jesus never started the "Church" or even commanded the concept of "Christian". That was done by followers, church councils and even governments throughout history. We are not just called to be sinners forgiven or to be followers of Jesus Christ. We are called to live as he did not only by faith but by our actions.
You are free to worship and live out your faith here. That would not be true in many parts of this world. Respect that others have the same right.

 

[JaySecrets]

Ok, so which denominations follow what you described? I think we're all looking for the opportunity to learn from you. I would like to find one of the churches, because after all, it takes one or more to gather for the magic sky wizard to show up.

Your snark and aggressive anti-theism aside, it's not about any one denomination. If you were to actually be interested, I would tell you to go to a local church, and ask their stance on what was just described as what makes a true Christian. If their statement of faith lines up, the rest is minor to that major.

 

[InThe312]

Your snark and aggressive anti-theism aside, it's not about any one denomination. If you were to actually be interested, I would tell you to go to a local church, and ask their stance on what was just described as what makes a true Christian. If their statement of faith lines up, the rest is minor to that major.

But but but, I asked you. Author of the book of JaySecrets, an addendum to the addendum to the rewritten a million times bible.

 

[JaySecrets]

Another Nazi tactic. They decided what church communities were "authorized" and authentic "Christian" communities. All others were hunted and either exiled or exterminated. The pastors of those churches wore vestments with the Swastika on them and had to pledge to never speak about the failures of the socialist government. All churches were under the control of the German government. Indeed they became the State Church. The pastors who lived in Christ and reached the world the way he did, would not and could not keep silent. They were imprisoned for speaking out and were put to death. They were evangelical protestants, reformed protestants, Lutherans, Baptists and Roman Catholics. Claiming that priests were never Christians and merely "slapped" Christian labels upon the community of faith is both judgmental and is not Christlike.
Defining "Christians" by one's own. narrow view of what that means and trying to impose that on other believers is an abomination and dangerous in a country that DOES separate Church and State and allows persons of ALL faiths to practice their faith freely in this country. Jesus never started the "Church" or even commanded the concept of "Christian". That was done by followers, church councils and even governments throughout history. We are not just called to be sinners forgiven or to be followers of Jesus Christ. We are called to live as he did not only by faith but by our actions.
You are free to worship and live out your faith here. That would not be true in many parts of this world. Respect that others have the same right.

It's not about what I think. It's about what the Book defined Christianity as. A Muslim is defined by what the Koran says Islam is. Mormonism is defined by the Book of Mormon. No one objects to that. But try to say that Christianity is defined by what the Bible says, and you object. "That's bigoted!" "That's Nazi"

That's stupid.

 

[InThe312]

It's not about what I think. It's about what the Book defined Christianity as. A Muslim is defined by what the Koran says Islam is. Mormonism is defined by the Book of Mormon. No one objects to that. But try to say that Christianity is defined by what the Bible says, and you object. "That's bigoted!" "That's Nazi"

That's stupid.

You opened the book(s). What makes you so sure you're right? You even bring up Mormons who are Christians by their own definition. You're condemning at least 4 billion people to burn in hell.

 

[JaySecrets]

You opened the book(s). What makes you so sure you're right? You even bring up Mormons who are Christians by their own definition. You're condemning at least 4 billion people to burn in hell.

If you want apologetics... Which is a subject not covered on this thread but I can give you some great books if you actually want to read them and are willing to read what is given there. But the short answer is that there is ubiquitous amounts of evidence for the claims of the Bible and so on and so forth. As for the Mormons, The Mormons believe Jesus was less than God. They believe he was a God. Believe that Satan is Jesus' brother. They believe that they will end up on some weird planet out there. And they also believe that they ultimately can evolve into gods themselves. In other words, they can call themselves Christian all day. They are not Christian.

 

[Wifetheif]

I have over forty years in the library biz. I work in a small public library now but for thirty-five years I worked in one of the largest academic libraries on the east coast. The ALA is a mostly useless organization that librarians MUST join if they want to advance. It does some good but as far as the day to day running of a library of any size they are irelevent. Their current president said some amazingly stupid things that only harm the organization. To most librarians on the ground the ALA is largely out of touch and out of mind. While I do not defend the Georgia legislature is doing. IT MAY be the thing that finally makes the heads of the ALA to stop promoting idiots and making them president of the organization. Remember this organization spent its members money to OPEN A VIRTUAL LIBRARY IN SECOND LIFE! Pointless! Stupid! A waste of money! That is what the members yelled.The leaders ignored them and opened the stupid useless library anyway instead of giving the money to a struggling rural library. ALA = American Loser Association.

 

[JaySecrets]

But but but, I asked you. Author of the book of JaySecrets, an addendum to the addendum to the rewritten a million times bible.

A very easily disproven claim. We have more manuscript evidence of what the scripture actually originally said, than we do all the writings of Socrates and Plato combined. By a lot. The entire Old testament text can be found in its original languages in a museum in Israel. It is literally the museum that the Jewish people use to preserve their sacred texts. If you take our modern translations of scripture and go to Israel and compare what is said in our modern translations to what is in those ancient texts and manuscripts there, You will find that there is no significant difference. In addition, the New testament, Even if we didn't have so much manuscript evidence that what was originally written is what we have today that no serious scholar would even question that aspect of it, we also have the letters between the 1st century pastors where they were actually quoting those texts. Using those letters alone, we can reassemble the entire New testament minus a couple verses that have little to do with theology. And surprise surprise, it reads with no significant difference from what we have in our translations today. This idea that the Bible was rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten is just foolish. It's an argument without any basis in manuscript evidence.

But this is not an apologetics thread so I will leave that there. If you want to do some research, try a book called 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist'. The single best resource on evidence and apologetics along these lines I've ever come across. There's a lot of other books I could recommend, Lee Strobal and Josh McDowell being two of the best authors on the subject, in my opinion. But for One stop shop, this book will help. I will link it here since you challenged the thought. If you're interested in actually doing some research, feel free to use the link and get the book and read it or do the audiobook version that this links to.

https://www.audible.com/pd/I-Dont-H...CJ2MyueSqhD0xSrAK2hoCApMQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

[JaySecrets]

Exactly what is sexual about someone in drag reading a story book? God forbid we have kids learn that there are people out there that aren't exactly like mommy and daddy. Also, this is not offensive to me at all and I support that we should have more exposure to people different than those we see around us every day. That's how we learn about the myriad of people and cultures that make up this crazy rock.

I imagine if we (as a world) invested more time talking to each other and learning about each other (especially religions), maybe we wouldn't invest so much time in trying to eradicate those that are different than us.

And that may be your view and that's fine. You can hold that view. What you cannot do is use the public library system to foist that view on families who don't agree with you. If you want to have public discourse, do the effort to create the places for the discourse that you want to have. I'm actually actively involved in doing just that in an area that is a heart mission for me. I didn't insist that some taxpayer-funded organization come out and support my views because my views are equally as important as everyone else's and so you should pay for the space in which the conversations are going to have the I want to have. I didn't do that. I have been doing the work and putting the effort in so that I can be actively involved in creating the space to have those conversations that I deem important. Those who disagree with the conversations being had there aren't going to have to be there and they don't have to see them or hear them. They don't have to pay for them. They can go about their lives and I'm good with that.

The very fact that you've determined that someone else's children should and could and must even be exposed to a drag queen because you don't have a problem with it and you think the children should be exposed to it, ignoring the fact that the children's parents don't want their children anywhere near that, especially at a young age, shows your disregard for parental rights and the autonomy of a family.

Society doesn't get to dictate what is good for that child. The parents do. You don't get to dictate it either. Nor does the government. Any government, society or group of people who think their values or focuses should trump and will trump the individual families and parents, these societies have always devolved into dictatorships, and have lost their freedoms and liberties to the power of an overbearing government.

It's not about whether or not you like it. It's about the parents rights to protect their children from what they deem necessary to protect them from until the time they deem proper to expose them to it in the way they choose. Not the way you choose or when you choose. You aren't the parent.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

A very easily disproven claim. We have more manuscript evidence of what the scripture actually originally said, than we do all the writings of Socrates and Plato combined. By a lot. The entire Old testament text can be found in its original languages in a museum in Israel. It is literally the museum that the Jewish people use to preserve their sacred texts. If you take our modern translations of scripture and go to Israel and compare what is said in our modern translations to what is in those ancient texts and manuscripts there, You will find that there is no significant difference. In addition, the New testament, Even if we didn't have so much manuscript evidence that what was originally written is what we have today that no serious scholar would even question that aspect of it, we also have the letters between the 1st century pastors where they were actually quoting those texts. Using those letters alone, we can reassemble the entire New testament minus a couple verses that have little to do with theology. And surprise surprise, it reads with no significant difference from what we have in our translations today. This idea that the Bible was rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten is just foolish. It's an argument without any basis in manuscript evidence.

But this is not an apologetics thread so I will leave that there. If you want to do some research, try a book called 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist'. The single best resource on evidence and apologetics along these lines I've ever come across. There's a lot of other books I could recommend, Lee Strobal and Josh McDowell being two of the best authors on the subject, in my opinion. But for One stop shop, this book will help. I will link it here since you challenged the thought. If you're interested in actually doing some research, feel free to use the link and get the book and read it or do the audiobook version that this links to.

https://www.audible.com/pd/I-Dont-H...CJ2MyueSqhD0xSrAK2hoCApMQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

The Torah still exists and is still read and argued over by rabbis. I don’t know much Christian doctrine, but my naive impression is that much of what Christians are taught about the “Old Testament” contradicts Jewish teaching, and it’s our book. The Law isn’t meant to be followed by gentiles.

 

[InThe312]

If you want apologetics... Which is a subject not covered on this thread but I can give you some great books if you actually want to read them and are willing to read what is given there. But the short answer is that there is ubiquitous amounts of evidence for the claims of the Bible and so on and so forth. As for the Mormons, The Mormons believe Jesus was less than God. They believe he was a God. Believe that Satan is Jesus' brother. They believe that they will end up on some weird planet out there. And they also believe that they ultimately can evolve into gods themselves. In other words, they can call themselves Christian all day. They are not Christian.

So you think every other religion and god out there lacks the evidence that your god has? You really are a fool.

And ubiquitous is not a quantity. At least try and use big words properly.

 

[InThe312]

A very easily disproven claim. We have more manuscript evidence of what the scripture actually originally said, than we do all the writings of Socrates and Plato combined. By a lot. The entire Old testament text can be found in its original languages in a museum in Israel. It is literally the museum that the Jewish people use to preserve their sacred texts. If you take our modern translations of scripture and go to Israel and compare what is said in our modern translations to what is in those ancient texts and manuscripts there, You will find that there is no significant difference. In addition, the New testament, Even if we didn't have so much manuscript evidence that what was originally written is what we have today that no serious scholar would even question that aspect of it, we also have the letters between the 1st century pastors where they were actually quoting those texts. Using those letters alone, we can reassemble the entire New testament minus a couple verses that have little to do with theology. And surprise surprise, it reads with no significant difference from what we have in our translations today. This idea that the Bible was rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten is just foolish. It's an argument without any basis in manuscript evidence.

But this is not an apologetics thread so I will leave that there. If you want to do some research, try a book called 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist'. The single best resource on evidence and apologetics along these lines I've ever come across. There's a lot of other books I could recommend, Lee Strobal and Josh McDowell being two of the best authors on the subject, in my opinion. But for One stop shop, this book will help. I will link it here since you challenged the thought. If you're interested in actually doing some research, feel free to use the link and get the book and read it or do the audiobook version that this links to.

https://www.audible.com/pd/I-Dont-H...CJ2MyueSqhD0xSrAK2hoCApMQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

None of the original texts from the bible still exist in physical form. The language the copy is written in is pretty irrelevant to fact that the bible is just a giant book of the telephone game. For that matter, you can walk into any book store and find 48 different versions of the bible. Sure, they are supposedly based on the original, or at least the version that was interpreted for that version, but clearly the words and meaning differ. And there are literal different versions of the bible with certain parts added, certain parts removed. All done by scholarly men, much smarter than you who based their decisions to made changes on what they believed god really wanted. The prophet Joseph Smith spoke directly with god. How do you (not the general you, you specifically Jay Almighty) dispute that good ol' Joe didn't actually talk to god?

Anyway, you're right because you know better than 4 billion Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists that your god is the one true god who put us all here to fuck around and find out apparently. At least he left us with an instruction book, unlike any other religion, sect, cult, blah blah blah

 

[InThe312]

And that may be your view and that's fine. You can hold that view. What you cannot do is use the public library system to foist that view on families who don't agree with you. If you want to have public discourse, do the effort to create the places for the discourse that you want to have. I'm actually actively involved in doing just that in an area that is a heart mission for me. I didn't insist that some taxpayer-funded organization come out and support my views because my views are equally as important as everyone else's and so you should pay for the space in which the conversations are going to have the I want to have. I didn't do that. I have been doing the work and putting the effort in so that I can be actively involved in creating the space to have those conversations that I deem important. Those who disagree with the conversations being had there aren't going to have to be there and they don't have to see them or hear them. They don't have to pay for them. They can go about their lives and I'm good with that.

The very fact that you've determined that someone else's children should and could and must even be exposed to a drag queen because you don't have a problem with it and you think the children should be exposed to it, ignoring the fact that the children's parents don't want their children anywhere near that, especially at a young age, shows your disregard for parental rights and the autonomy of a family.

Society doesn't get to dictate what is good for that child. The parents do. You don't get to dictate it either. Nor does the government. Any government, society or group of people who think their values or focuses should trump and will trump the individual families and parents, these societies have always devolved into dictatorships, and have lost their freedoms and liberties to the power of an overbearing government.

It's not about whether or not you like it. It's about the parents rights to protect their children from what they deem necessary to protect them from until the time they deem proper to expose them to it in the way they choose. Not the way you choose or when you choose. You aren't the parent.

I am the parent of my children you fucking wanker. I have a right to have my children take in the content and education that I desire. You said it yourself so many times. If other parents disagree with me, they can go fuck themselves because I'm always 100% right about what I teach my children, whether I choose to vaccinate them, where I send them to school and whether or not I indoctrinate them into your cult. My view is the right view and I definitely want to make sure that my children know that, and if I catch a couple of strays along the way to indoctrinate into my cult, even better. You don't get to tell me what to do with my children. If I want to host a drag story book reading at my public library for all the families that aren't like you, I have the right to do that. Don't come if you don't want to. It's only for COVID vaccinated kids anyway. Right after story time, we're pushing to have the bible removed from the library because kids really shouldn't be exposed to all that death and destruction, homosexuality, beastiality, alcohol abuse, magic, foot fetishes, prostitution, etc. etc. Bet you'd be pretty upset if a state went on a mission to remove bibles from all public libraries.

 

[JaySecrets]

I am the parent of my children you fucking wanker. I have a right to have my children take in the content and education that I desire. You said it yourself so many times. If other parents disagree with me, they can go fuck themselves because I'm always 100% right about what I teach my children, whether I choose to vaccinate them, where I send them to school and whether or not I indoctrinate them into your cult. My view is the right view and I definitely want to make sure that my children know that, and if I catch a couple of strays along the way to indoctrinate into my cult, even better. You don't get to tell me what to do with my children. If I want to host a drag story book reading at my public library for all the families that aren't like you, I have the right to do that. Don't come if you don't want to. It's only for COVID vaccinated kids anyway. Right after story time, we're pushing to have the bible removed from the library because kids really shouldn't be exposed to all that death and destruction, homosexuality, beastiality, alcohol abuse, magic, foot fetishes, prostitution, etc. etc. Bet you'd be pretty upset if a state went on a mission to remove bibles from all public libraries.

First it's not about whether you have a right to have a drag story time. It's about whether my tax dollars should be paying for it. It's not about whether or not your belief system should be available for your children and for other families like yours. It's about whether or not my children who maybe that week is the only chance they have to get to the library should have to be exposed to your drag show when they walk in. It's about whether or not they're going through the shelves and then coming across books that push values that not only disagree with the ones I'm teaching them, but also viciously attack the values I'm teaching them, And that book is geared toward them at 5 and 6 years old. If you want to have the drag show you are perfectly capable of doing the kind of work I'm having to do to create spaces for the conversations I'm seeking to have involving restoring voice to the people society right off like the homeless and the addict and the ex-con and so on and so forth. I am actively seeking out a space where that can take place, doing the work to organize and get all of the necessary moving parts together, taking a great effort to do so, because it matters to me. And because this is not something that is a heartbeat thing for the wealthy family that's down the street from where I live, I'm not expecting that their tax dollars pay for what I'm doing. Nor am I expecting that they are required to be exposed to it or have their children exposed to it. Do I hope they get involved of course. Do I think they should have to support it whether they agree with it or not, absolutely not.

As for the content in the Bible, yes it does accurately portray the history of man. That means it mentions things like incest and violence and all kinds of other dark things that happen in the history of man. But there are few things you're ignoring in the process. One it never glorifies wrong behavior. It never says it's okay to do it. In fact, it is condemned and the outcome of each of those situations is horrific. There are men with multiple wives, but those men's lives are turned into train wrecks of lives because of the outcome of their choice of behavior. The outcome of the incest that happens with Lot and his daughters is not only a ruined relationship between father and daughters, it is also two new nations that become warring Nations and later on end up being a major problem in the history of the world. People are painted warts and all in that text, but they are never justified in their behavior when it's wrong behavior, and it is always shown to be wrong.
Second, especially when it comes to sexual situations, The Bible never goes into graphic detail. It does not start describing techniques and other such things. It states that it happens and it states the consequences. The books that those who are pulling away from the library association are opposing, not only do they glorify and treat as good and wonderful things that they are train and rear their children to understand to be wrong, in these books, certain sexual behaviors are described uncomfortably accurately and graphically in texts that are supposed to be for children.
To say that bad things are talked about in the Bible and use that as a basis to say it's the same as the books that you are defending, or the same as the events you are defending in public spaces that are paid for by tax dollars, is disingenuous and it smacks of you not having studied and read the entire book that you're attacking. On the conservative side, we read the books before we make assumptions about them.

 

[JaySecrets]

None of the original texts from the bible still exist in physical form. The language the copy is written in is pretty irrelevant to fact that the bible is just a giant book of the telephone game. For that matter, you can walk into any book store and find 48 different versions of the bible. Sure, they are supposedly based on the original, or at least the version that was interpreted for that version, but clearly the words and meaning differ. And there are literal different versions of the bible with certain parts added, certain parts removed. All done by scholarly men, much smarter than you who based their decisions to made changes on what they believed god really wanted. The prophet Joseph Smith spoke directly with god. How do you (not the general you, you specifically Jay Almighty) dispute that good ol' Joe didn't actually talk to god?

Anyway, you're right because you know better than 4 billion Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists that your god is the one true god who put us all here to fuck around and find out apparently. At least he left us with an instruction book, unlike any other religion, sect, cult, blah blah blah

There are tons of evidences and proofs and answers for every statement you made. Because this is not an apologetics thread I will not get into that here. Besides to get into that part of the discussion would take a whole lot longer than anyone here wants to deal with. Suffice it to say that the manuscript evidence isn't required to have the original documents. It's about consistency of the copies of the documents we do have. How close are those copies to the original, how widely copied was it, how consistent is one copy with the next with the next with the next with the next, so on and so forth. When I talk about manuscript evidence, this is the stuff I'm talking about.

There's also a very good answer to your question about the texts of Muslims or Smithy Joe versus the Bible. The very short version of that is still far to lengthy to get into here if I were to do any justice to someone who hasn't dealt with these kind of apologetics. That is exactly why I gave the link above to one of the best one-stop shop resources if you want to actually read some very solid evidences and answers to deal with these questions. You aren't the first to ask them. And they have been answered at length. So I would again encourage you to go to that book since it really does a good job of taking a lot of other books that have been written so much that they're ubiquitous, and condenses the apologetics down to a level that it's easy to read and digest. If you're not willing to do that simple research, I don't know what to tell you. You choose to believe what you choose to believe and you won't see anything else.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

First it's not about whether you have a right to have a drag story time. It's about whether my tax dollars should be paying for it.

MY, MY MY,....fuck off, your MY doesn't over ride the rights I hold.
Again asI've posted before; you're acting like you hold some higher right than the rest of society because you have faith your version of the sky gods is the right one...It doesn't work that way.

Don't like you tax dollars supporting something, vote out the people who supported that legislation,and vote in ones who will reverse it.

That is how it works.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There are tons of evidences and proofs and answers for every statement you made. Because this is not an apologetics thread I will not get into that here.

Bullshit, just you hiding again behind your beliefs. These threads go off the rails on and on tangents all the time. The only thing here stopping you from offering up a defence, is you. Either defend your claims, or as we say...STFU

 

[JaySecrets]

MY, MY MY,....fuck off, your MY doesn't over ride the rights I hold.
Again asI've posted before; you're acting like you hold some higher right than the rest of society because you have faith your version of the sky gods is the right one...It doesn't work that way.

Don't like you tax dollars supporting something, vote out the people who supported that legislation,and vote in ones who will reverse it.

That is how it works.

Oh that's exactly why Trump was elected to begin with, because he was at least in his behavior... I would say for more pragmatic reasons than for actual principal reasons... supporting those values in his policies. That's why he's being supported by many people on the conservative side. You would be surprised what my actual position on his run now is... It's most certainly not what you think it is. It's why I would heavily support a Tim Scott run for president. But that's exactly how we function.

Funny thing is we don't riot in the streets, we don't burn down businesses, we don't stomp people to death because they're wearing a hat that supports someone that we don't like, we don't walk around saying that people we disagree with need to be shut down and not only should we disagree with what they say but we should be anti the person that says it. We don't do any of this. In fact, everything I just described are trademarks of what those on the left do.

If there's a speaker who a espouses is a liberal point of view on a college campus, many of us actually go to hear them and take notes so we know it was said and so we hear the perspective presented. And then we simply pay to have a speaker come to that campus (as opposed to what happens often with that liberal speaker where the campus pays to have him come and then won't have the same funding for a conservative voice) to present the other point of view. In return, when that conservative speaker shows up the liberal students and the liberals in that college community riot and sometimes make it so dangerous that the speaker can't show up safely or when he speaks or she speaks. They get shouted down and screamed down to where they can't get the words out of their mouths. Again, this comes from very specific actions that your side has taken over and over and over again.

My funding does not belong going to your drag show or to books that attack the values that I am trying to instill in my children. And no one is saying that yours should do the same. You are saying that a drag show should be allowed at the library, but I'm relatively certain that if we decided to hold an Evangelical Christian revival meeting at the library, and we held that during normal operating library hours, and we said well if you don't like it just don't come during that time, not only would you be outraged, you would be suing the library for allowing it, and you would be quoting a very misquoted line and misapplied line about separation of church and state, even though the line separation of church and state doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution.
In other words, you don't want the library to be a space for equal and full conversation. You want people who oppose your point of view pushed out and only your point of view presented. We on the other hand are not trying to have church services in the library during library hours, we pay for or find the spaces for conservative speakers and those who would present a conservative point of view using our own resources and we don't have them due conservative speeches in the library. The reason you haven't been exposed to those speakers is because those speakers are happening in our places that we paid for. And given where we are at culturally, that's how it should be. We're not even saying pull every liberal book off the shelves. There are many books in the library that push atheism, evolution, anti-theism, Hinduism, Islam, homosexuality, and the list of things in these books that we disagree with go on and on. You might be surprised to know that we actually pick them up to read them to know what those perspectives are. In fact, parents who are responsible and train their children, they actually are having their child read a book about atheism and then having that child go through and see if they can identify and make a case against the flawed logic in that book. When they are old enough and mature enough to handle that.

But a 5-year-old has no defense against Timmy has two mommies and Susie has two daddies. A 5-year-old has no defense against the overtly sexual references in books that explain sexuality to a kid who has no business being exposed to it yet. A 5-year-old has no defense against a drag show. These are adult conversations. The objection is dragging children into those conversations. And the fact that the library association in question does that, they should be cut off.