• Content

  • Joined

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Coreece last won the day on December 12 2021

Coreece had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

171 Good


Jump Profile

  • Freefall Photographer

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating
  • Wingsuit Instructor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The point in bringing up Disney in the discussion was to highlight how concerns over sexualized content in children's media are not limited to Christian/conservative viewpoints. That sentiment was reflected in a survey that reported on Disney's apparent emphasis on creating content that introduces sexual themes to young children. It queried respondents on their likelihood to continue doing business with Disney, as well as their inclination to support family-friendly alternatives. A significant proportion of Democrats (48%) indicated that they were now less inclined to engage with Disney, and 59% expressed a willingness to endorse alternative family-friendly options. So why do you think they had reservations about that? The survey came out shortly after an interview about their gay agenda and a rather bizarre preoccupation with adding queerness. “Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my, like, not-at-all-secret gay agenda, I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness. No one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.” So it's really no surprise if even democrats weren't receptive to such deliberate and creepy arrogance. Then I posted how even a transgendered clinical psychologist said that "some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media. . .and that it's gone too far." And then of course was the "Along for the Pride" clip highlighting that sentiment: But the bottom line is that parents are opposed to the idea of schools teaching their 5 year old about sexual identity given the possible impact of environmental factors on the development of sexual orientation. And I don't blame them in light of the personal bias and motivations of liberal educators, making them susceptible to using the classroom as a platform for indoctrination in the midst of an ongoing culture war where children are being used as political pawns on both sides.
  2. A few years ago I posted on how the word "snowflake" in this forum seemingly was used exclusively by the left for about 3 years against conservative posters here that have never called any of you guys a snowflake.
  3. Then what's the point of merely repeating what I've just said? You repeated it, albeit with additional assertions that go beyond my original comment. While it may indeed be accurate that certain individuals are unconcerned with morality as it pertains to this issue, others may view morality as a necessary precondition for national prosperity and the avoidance of divine judgement. As I stated in the past, this perspective risks falling prey to the perils of moralism. I recall expressing reservations about this, and if IIRC correctly Ron really didn't wholeheartedly agree with me - but I don't remember specifically in what regard. If individuals are apprehensive about the looming threat of judgement on the country,(and they shouldn't be if we look to psalm 37 for any sense of solace) they would do well to preach the acceptance of Christ, a message which Ron appears to be promoting. I don't see the part about homosexuals recognizing and addressing their sin as necessarily having to do with God's judgement on the country, but rather a means of removing obstacles that may impede their reconciliation with God, should they so desire. Another factor in what? What does that have to do with anything we’ve been talking about? What are you saying - that when Christians claim to be taking their anti-gay stance from the bible they’re actually just mad at Disney? I don’t get it. I'm saying It's a multifaceted issue and not as black and white as some are trying to make it out to be. It cannot be fully understood without examining the complex interplay of social, political, cultural and various religious factors/beliefs. Perhaps some individuals and Christians alike do not hold strong convictions against homosexuality itself, but rather feel uneasy about the social messages that their children are being exposed to. And on top of that, political agendas often co-opt these issues and create narratives in order to garner votes and secure support for ones political and/or religious or non-religious affiliation. It's no secret that politicians use divisive wedge issues to maintain power and influence. Republicans often appeal to religious voters while Democrats appeal to minority groups. However, once these groups become more fluid again, other emotional appeals will likely emerge and continue to divide us. Then what do you think he’s doing, because he’s clearly not simply following the bible. Again, going back to that biblical paragraph you posted, we know that Ron approves of Trump because he’s a greedy swindler, so it’s absurd to suggest he’s against homosexuality just because the same bible passage says so. I already told you what I think he's doing. And I haven't really been around this place over the past couple years so I'm not sure if that's the specific reason he approves of Trump or even believes that. Part of me thinks that just an inference on your part as you often do, and it isn't always fair or accurate. But anyway, given that this two-party system is often seen at as a choice between two evils, arguments like these can be leveled against Christians regardless of who they voted for. It's a catch-22 scenario that poses a loaded question. What's with your obsessive preoccupation with Ron anyway, lol. It's not my intention/desire to discuss/judge specific posters openly in a public forum ad nauseam - I mean a little here and there is ok, but damn dude.
  4. So not only is the Christian concept of sin not necessarily concerned with what is actually moral or good, the many Christians who argue against homosexuality absolutely are not concerned with what is moral or good, they've just singled out gay people as a group they can victimise to feel better about their own sinful lives that are actually damaging to other people? Well it's probably not as absolute as you're trying to say there, YMMV depending on the sect and your personal experience with sin including their own homosexual experiences and/or child molestation which is often confused with homosexuality. Another major factor is parents trying to shield their children from these influences. And I posted stats in another thread showing how even a majority of Democrats objected to Disney intentionally incorporating oversexualized or sexually suggestive content into children's entertainment. And it's not just Christians, it's people from a wide range of religions along with irreligious/atheistic individuals alike, including prominent figures in both conservative and liberal media. Even a transgendered clinical psychologist that has helped hundreds of teens transition stated in L.A Times that some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media, and that some clinicians are failing to subject minors to rigorous mental health evaluations before recommending hormones or surgeries. Excellent summation on current trends and how many people feel about these issues on all sides: You've done this several times now already, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that's what I think Ron is doing. I was thinking more of the Westboro Baptist types that Bill even brought up wrt to the self righteous aspect of 'gay bashing.' And interestingly enough, Ron is like the only person here that actually physically went out there to stand up against Westboro and shield families from their hate speech PGR. What have you done? Additionally, many here have commended Ron for his ability to 'turn the other cheek' and take the punches without striking back, and I admire that since it's something I've struggled with throughout most of my adult life.
  5. Well, like you I was baptized into that when I was a baby, if you're referring to Catholicism. Those indulgences are one of the things that sparked the reformation. They still may be counting me as a member after all these years, but I don't really identify with the Catholic church anymore.
  6. Ya well it's not always easy and scripture says that we should search our heart to make sure of that, on an ongoing basis: 2 Corinthians 13:5 - "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?" 2 Peter 1:10-11 - "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Galatians 6:9 - "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Hebrews 3:14 - "We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." Galatians 6:1 "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted." Sin is generally defined as any thought, word, or action that goes against God's Will/Word and is considered to be a rebellion against God. Throughout scripture there are many different types described, including lying, stealing, murder, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy along with the 'works of the flesh' such as sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like. These sins are often contrasted with virtues such as honesty, generosity, humility, love and 'the fruit of the spirit' such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Christ emphasizes the importance of repentance and forgiveness of sins. He teaches that sin not only involves actions but also thoughts and attitudes of the heart. He also emphasizes the importance of loving God and loving others, which are central to living a life free from sin. Overall it teaches that sin is a universal human problem and that all people fall short of God's perfect standards. However, through faith in Jesus Christ, people can be forgiven and restored to a right relationship with God. I think the many people single out homosexuality because it's like the one of maybe a few sins that they don't commit, if not the only sin. So it might give some a sense of self righteousness. But I think the main reason is that people are trying to say that it's not sin - and by doing so could prevent others from truly experiencing the power and love of God in their life and in the next. And I think there are many out there that want such a relationship. So let it be.
  7. You wouldn't know what a 'so called christian' was if he got up and punched you in the face, so stop trying to con me into thinking you actually care about that. Ron has been preaching the love of God through Jesus Christ and the repentance of sin which is what's referenced in the selected scripture above. People are free to reject that, but don't try to pretend that scripture doesn't call out sexual immorality as sin, regardless of your preference. The ones harboring hate and judgement in this thread are people like you, doug and normiss.
  8. Again, it's not my place to judge ultimately the spiritual condition of a specific person, nor is Trump held accountable to me in that regard. I'm not really familiar with his spiritual life, but there is a video from about 7 years ago that may provide some insight. In it he talks about Norman Peale a pastor that died in 1993. I'm not to familiar with him, but from what I gathered, he appears to have been one of the first to preach the prosperity gospel, a gospel to which I don't particularly subscribe. When Trump was asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness, he said 'I don't think I have. . .if I do something wrong I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture." How many people here are like Trump in that they don't seem to have a need or desire to ask for forgiveness, and don't bring God into that equation?
  9. Yes He did, Praise God. He gave hope to those that were deemed unredeemable. Those are passages about money changers that Jesus referred to as thieves, likely because they charged exorbitant exchange rates among other dishonest practices. Many tax collectors at that time were also considered thieves for overcharging and pocketing the difference to enrich themselves. There was one in particular named Zacchaeus, but Jesus accepted him just as he did with other sinners. Why do you think he accepted that thief, but not the thieves at the temple? (that we know of) Relevant Passages: Luke 19:1-10 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.” But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Matthew 21:31-32 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. John 8:10-11 Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' 'No one, sir,' she said. 'Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and leave your life of sin.'"
  10. It doesn't. And even if your warped analysis decides it does, who cares. Ok, so you don't care about that stuff, but then why do you feel the need to lie that it's not in the Bible? Or are you arguing semantics between the words 'enter' and inherit? Or do you really not know that it's listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." And note that it doesn't say homosexuality in and of itself, but rather the practice of if. Some translations say "men who have sex with men," which actually is a choice, regardless of who or what you identify as. And just because you don't care, doesn't mean that others don't, so why try to hinder those that could benefit from such passages? Like they say, he who has ears let him hear.
  11. Exactly, YOU were the one that made the claim, so I was asking YOU for facts to back that up since I was fairly unacquainted with the case, and election fraud in general. That's the way it works "professor."
  12. Would it help if the owner of Fox News admitted in a sworn deposition that their hosts endorsed the narrative of a stolen election? What helped is the full Complaint and Fox's Reply that I found in the midst of all this that lays out a detailed account in full context regarding defamation against dominion specifically, as apposed to a single piece of testimony about the "narrative of a stolen election," in general. And wrt your earlier comment about innuendo - Yes, that can be considered defamation, but it's much more challenging to prove compared to outright lies, and even then it's still difficult. I mean just because an audience is allowing their biased interpretation of the statements to dictate what's actually being said (or not said) doesn't automatically mean defamation. And even tho I think Dominion provided a comprehensive complaint, they'll still need to prove the 1.6 Billion in damages. But whatever, I do appreciate You and Weber at least trying to discuss this in good faith, unlike some people here.
  13. Do you really not understand how the media works? No wonder you fall prey to their tricks. Well that's exactly what I was trying to avoid by looking at the context of the info in Weber's NPR link, as I do with all media outlets. There was a time when I could just take your word at face value without having to do all that, but times change. I don't know if you're purposefully making unfounded assumptions and trying to twist my words because of some personal grievance you have against me for whatever reason, but if you keep it up, maybe I'll sue YOU, lol. Nevermind as it's doubtful this site makes that much money at all. Daily Ads Revenue: $7
  14. Not at all. Of course not, selective quoting and bad faith are your specialty.
  15. It really wasn't that hard to find Tucker calling her out for not having any evidence. An no, I wasn't fully convinced that Fox was in the clear, which is why I was asking questions. Who knew that Lou Dobbs was even a thing anymore? Then it's like oh, well he got fired, wonder what that's about? But the stuff I saw at that point was just as vague as everything else. Even Weber posted a link that listed just one question that he asked regarding the ability of these voting systems to be hacked. But ya, I should've just looked at the original complaints. One that I saw was just an incomplete redacted mess that was difficult to parse, but I found another one that gives everything that I was looking/asking for. It gives a list of exhibits, dates, screenshots, tweets, and complete transcripts in full context. And yes, Carlson is named at least 67 times and listed in several of the exhibits: "Fox repeatedly published defamatory falsehoods about Dominion, including by broadcasting and rebroadcasting the defamatory falsehoods of its on-air personalities Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, and their chosen guests. . ." Full Complaint: Fox News Reply: Thanks for nothing guys