Comments by "Scented-leaf Pelargonium" (@scented-leafpelargonium3366) on "GBNews"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@delawarr I hardly think so. You are so skeptical and judgemental of his character. Boris took the position, as he did previously as Mayor of London, to serve the British people. 🇬🇧
It's just a pity that people are so ungrateful and bent on incessant scrutiny that no one would survive if they were a political leader, and most of it fuelled by a one-sided inflamatory media who are happy to fan the flames of discontent rather than looking at some of Boris's achievements.
It's nothing to do with being adult. Children can spot lies too, and then often lie too afterwards.
The quotation is a leveller in that all people have told a lie at some time, otherwise they are a liar!
The job position is irrelevant. The British public have lied as much as Boris ever has (and he still protests innocence, but the LYING scathing, unforgiving British public don't believe him). 🙃
The Bible upon which Parliament forced Boris to swear by contains a judgement for EVERYONE, without exception, in the book of Revelation, where it says that ALL LIARS, from the highest to the lowest, will be cast into the lake of fire as a punishment! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 That includes all parents, teachers and Christian clergy who LIE repeatedly, wilfully and unrepentedly year in, year out, to innocent children about Santa Claus and his flying reindeer. 🎅 🦌🦌🦌🦌🦌 🤯 🔥🔥🔥
You only have to lie once to be a liar, and the vilification of Boris Johnson is off the scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@A.D.540 Well, seeing as you rely on the Biblical story of Adam & Eve as a written code for examples of perfect human unions, the Bible records that that the Edenic couple had two sons, Cain & Abel, without any evidence of any females being born. So is one to conclude by reading that same story that the whole human race descended from a pairing of these two brothers? 🤔
At least the Gospels record that Yeshua, later re-named "Jesus" by the Gentiles, had brothers AND sisters, even though not all sects of Gentile Christianity recognise even that much.
King Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived, had hundreds of wives and concubines, who later would cause Him to stray from the God of Israel to go to worship the foreign gods of his wives. 🤯
Funny how a man could have lots of women at once, but women did not have multiple men, at least not all at one time. Yeshua never married at all, so that wasn't that 'natural' to do either.
So Yeshua could be considered 'unnatural', which is the accusation many lob at homosexuals.
My own parents were "one man & one woman", the way it is "supposed to be," as you say, but the woman left when I was 12, leaving the man for another man, and the three siblings separated. So for all that people laud heterosexual unions for, a lot of them don't even last.
And if you're gay, the multi-partnered imperfect heterosexuals tell the homosexuals quite categorically that they can't have anyone. At least these unequal partners truly teach inequality!
1
-
1
-
@dareemmanuel6079 Fulfil does not mean to cancel or abolish. To fulfil is to carry something out to the last detail. That does not certify that God's Law is now defunct and useless. Yeshua, before His Name was changed by the Gentiles to "Jesus," did not advocate stoning on the occasion of the woman caught in adultery as He said, "Those without sin cast the first stone", so there was no one left to stone her, and the reason being that Yeshua obviously reminded them all of their own sin. He then told the woman not to sin again, not to be law-less and commit more adultery if there is no more Law to break as Yeshua has "fulfilled" it in the sense that you understand it.
The Bible describes SIN as a TRANGRESSION OF THE LAW, so how could the woman know what sin was if the Law no longer was applicable to anyone who had met Yeshua in Person?
So basically we can lie, steal and murder and there's now nothing that God can do about it, as you have removed the very mechanism by which He can judge, according to your law-less-ness.
You think you know too, but even Yeshua on that day will say to those who did great works in his name, (most likely "Jesus," not Yeshua), "I never KNEW you. Depart from Me, you who practice LAW-LESS-NESS." Even Paul when asked do we reject the Law, says, "God forbid! Rather we UPHOLD the Law." Yeshua Himself said that He came not ABOLISH the Law. You think it's "O.T." 🙃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swiftlydoesit8480 Yes, that's true, evolution and all kinds of theories are pushed on kids to accept without much 'choice,' and I guess all parents in all religions pass on their religion to their children, unless they decide to disengage with it themselves, which a greater majority do now.
I guess kids have little choice in the ideologies that adults put onto them until they grow up, but by that time sometimes it's too late for too much independent thought, unless one is a bit of a maverick. Most people are like sheep and tend to follow along, just like the Bible says. 🐑
I guess the woman has a parental right to object to a secular and sexualised agenda being presented to her child, as much as an atheist or Buddhist mother might object to their child being subjected to unwanted Christian doctrine, like when churches organise seemingly innocuous events for kids, such as summer camps and activities, or like a local church here, putting sweets ("candy") through the door of homes in the hope to entice some of them.
However, "LGBT lifestyle" as you put it cannot be erased from humanity any more than we can erase the "heterosexual lifestyle," and to grow up feeling "wrong" must be a very terrible thing.
Life as part of a minority group is not easy, and Christians themselves are beginning to realise this increasingly as their grip on society and morals lessens over the decades, making them too a marginalised minority group that many people love to hate, mock and condemn.
It's just a pity the two discriminated groups of human beings could not find common ground.
1
-
@templekanu6740 I would not say that Christians have always had "tolerant" views, considering they believe that they have the ONLY WAY to God, heaven and salvation, impugning all other religions as false, and therefore 'evil' and "of the devil" etc. 👺
Certainly for gay people I do not think there is much "tolerance," considering so many Christians intrinsically believe that homosexuality is wrong and a sin, and they spend much time condemning LGBT people in a very self-righteous way, yet ignoring many of the sins and imperfections a bit closer to home, and even secretly lurking among their own church pews!
Muslims for their part also object to schools for such teaching, as they uphold, in the same way as Christians do, that homosexuality is wrong, except they believe the Bible in a more literal way than Christians do by believing that homosexuals are worthy of death! Such is the love of God!
No doubt children taught these things by their religious parents will grow up being intolerant too, and as you advocate, will teach their children in turn "whatever they may wish."
It's only those that grow up realising what other people call an "absurdity" is actually a reality in their own lives that will end up being as equally intolerant of narrow-minded indocrinated Christians as they are of them. "Tolerance" means they won't actually stone them, that's all. 🙃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother were Queen Consort, as was Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII during the 20th century, but they were all addressed as "Queen," and called "Her Majesty," not in normal usage as "Queen Consort," although that was what they were, and it is no different with Camilla. She is Queen Consort, but still gets called "Queen" & "Majesty."
The only difference being written into the narrative here by objectors is based on views concerning Diana and the fact that Camilla (and Charles) are divorced and remarried.
It is personal rejectionism against the person of Camilla that breaks that royal tradition by trying to present to the world Queen Consort as something twisted into being something "un-royal," and of lesser status than it normally has been held so that it appears as something distant & cold.
The historic record record, however, shows no contradiction in being a consort and being called "Queen." One can show hosility if one wants, but one cannot change convention in this one case.
1
-
1