Justice is quickly becoming an endangered species in California as we all know. Progressive radical judges and DAs refuse to charge criminals, set bail, etc.

And after cries to "Defund the Police," local leftists are getting fed up.

Deal with it. You elected these morons. Enjoy living in your woke liberal shhthole

Good they voted for it so now you deserve it.

Useful idiots

Anything woke truly becomes broken and/or not sustainable.

(06-02-2023 07:12 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  Deal with it. You elected these morons. Enjoy living in your woke liberal shhthole

My thought exactly. Just keep voting D and see where the insanity takes you next.

What's really sad is that its not like they don't have a track record to look at.

That kool-aid Tommy and others drink must really cloud your common sense judgment.

VIRTUE SIGNALING feels so good until you actually have to put into practice.

Well, they are mentally ill after all. You can't place the same expectations of reason and logic on them like you can an emotionally stable person. In a different age they'd either be locked up as being mentally ill or they would be too afraid to show their illness. These days they are encouraged and even rewarded.

(06-03-2023 10:04 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Well, they are mentally ill after all. You can't place the same expectations of reason and logic on them like you can an emotionally stable person. In a different age they'd either be locked up as being mentally ill or they would be too afraid to show their illness. These days they are encouraged and even rewarded.

This is a very good point. Shame and stigma have been sidelined, at least to the extent of enforcing normal, healthy behavior.

This is not a sudden thing. It has been a gradual erosion for two (and probably three) generations. Roughly 25 years ago, when I decided to join a popular local church so that my kids would have the same Sunday School experience that had influenced me growing up, I participated in a new members meeting with the church elders. One of the older gentlemen, who I respected greatly, started the conversation with the pithy adage: “The only thing we do not tolerate is intolerance.”

I remember thinking at the time (but of course not speaking out) that this was not true. There were lots of behaviors that this church would not tolerate. And in fact that was one of the very reasons that I was joining. At least at that time, I was mostly right about that. But over the ensuing years, I saw that this was more than just a throwaway statement. That notions of “tolerance” were in fact gradually displacing common, healthy values. Not just with the church, but with society generally.

The older gentleman who made that statement has since past on. I don’t think that he really meant what he was saying, and I am certain that he would have no part in going along with what these notions of “tolerance” have wrought.

I’d also like to think that we are finally seeing the beginnings of a backlash. But it won’t happen overnight. I am now only a decade or so younger than the elder was who made that statement. I likely won’t be around to see what comes of American culture 25 years hence. But I am starting to see some hopeful signs that it will be for the better.

(06-04-2023 06:44 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-03-2023 10:04 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Well, they are mentally ill after all. You can't place the same expectations of reason and logic on them like you can an emotionally stable person. In a different age they'd either be locked up as being mentally ill or they would be too afraid to show their illness. These days they are encouraged and even rewarded.

This is a very good point. Shame and stigma have been sidelined, at least to the extent of enforcing normal, healthy behavior.

This is not a sudden thing. It has been a gradual erosion for two (and probably three) generations. Roughly 25 years ago, when I decided to join a popular local church so that my kids would have the same Sunday School experience that had influenced me growing up, I participated in a new members meeting with the church elders. One of the older gentlemen, who I respected greatly, started the conversation with the pithy adage: “The only thing we do not tolerate is intolerance.”

I remember thinking at the time (but of course not speaking out) that this was not true. There were lots of behaviors that not this church would not tolerate. And in fact that was one of the very reasons that I was joining. And, at least at that time, I was mostly right. But over the ensuing years, I saw that this was more than just a throwaway statement. That notions of “tolerance” were in fact gradually displacing common, healthy values. Not just with the church, but with society generally.

The older gentleman who made that statement has since past on. I don’t think that he really meant what he was saying, and I am certain that he would have no part in going along with what these notions of “tolerance” have wrought.

I’d also like to think that we are finally seeing the beginnings of a backlash. But it won’t happen overnight. I am now only a decade or so younger than the elder was who made that statement. I likely won’t be around to see what comes of American culture 25 years hence. But I am starting to see some hopeful signs that it will be for the better.

Someone posted a twitter link to the movie that Matt Walsh made. If you haven't seen it take an 1.5 hours to watch it. It shines a light on the darkness within the souls of those who are pushing the trans agenda. The medical professionals involved at every step of transitioning a child should be thrown in jail for inhuman experiments. The things they are doing both mentally and physically to kids - who if left alone will almost always outgrow their "gender dysphoria" - should be criminal.

The reason I quoted GD is because I'd bet a large percentage of these kids who are coming out as trans aren't legitimately suffering that condition but rather they're struggling under peer pressure and the pressures of woke adults who virtue signal themselves into safe spaces and acceptance due to their inclusiveness with no consideration given to the long term damage they are subjecting these kids to.

Again, my step-daughter started calling herself Hunter and wearing boys clothes, including binding her breasts, when she started 8th grade. She had one or two friends - she was always a little different anyway - who pressured her into joining their fantasy. During that entire school year this beautiful, creative and extremely talented young lady started showing signs of descent. Her grades plumetted, her hair and skin looked horrible all the time, she quit her art work, it was a bad time for her and her mother.

I advised her mother to basically ignore it, to not indulge the fantasy and to move her into a different school. She started high school at a different school where the transmentals hadn't yet established a foot hold and she started as a girl. But, her involvement as a "trans" person was well known and she suffered at that school as well. The next year they moved into my home and we sent her to a school out here in the sticks in which she thrived.

Fast forward a few years and she is now a sophomore at the U of M, dresses like a slut (lol, just kidding, she simply dresses like a very feminine and beautiful young woman) now and is happier than I've seen her in 10 years. She had a string of "boyfriends" she met online who were weirder than she ever was. I met a couple of them and they are what we are turning out as young men now. One of them was missing a spinal column I think, he moved like an amorphous blob and reminded me of SpongeBobs boss, Squidward. She has since met a law student at Rhodes College in Memphis and I am thrilled to report that even though he is likely a democrat - both his parents are English professors at that school - he at least looks and acts normal.

Let's hope that sanity and reason are making a come back.

(06-04-2023 06:44 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I’d also like to think that we are finally seeing the beginnings of a backlash. But it won’t happen overnight. I am now only a decade or so younger than the elder was who made that statement. I likely won’t be around to see what comes of American culture 25 years hence. But I am starting to see some hopeful signs that it will be for the better.

I was a cradle Episcopalian. My mother was raised Baptist, but her pastor growing up was a McCready with his divinity degree from Sewanee (you Tennesseans will probably appreciate the significance). Her views were actually more liberal than my lifelong Episcopalian father's.

Anyway, in my lifetime I've seen the Episcopal Church make any number of changes in the name of "tolerance" and "inclusion"--women priests, women bishops, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriage--to the extent that it now includes about 1MM members, whereas around 1950 that number was about 2.8MM. Except for the gay priests and gay bishops, I was generally okay with the changes. As a friend and priest once asked, "If women aren't supposed to preach the Gospel, how come the first three people in history to do so were named Mary, Mary, and Salome (mother of James and John, not daughter of Herodias)?" And I voted in favor of performing a same sex (female) marriage when I was on the vestry (governing board) of our church. As a former women's rugby coach, I've been invited to and attended several female-female marriages.

A couple of years ago, I attended diocesan council as a representative of my church, and came away with the distinct impression that straight white males were becoming an endangered species in the Episcopal Church, or at least in its leadership. I felt that my own views were far more closely aligned with those of the Diocese of Alabama in 1960 (for the record, in 1964 my church had an out gay male as vice-president of our youth group, and we had a black male as president of the diocesan youth group, so we were pretty liberal for Alabama even then) than with those of the Diocese of Texas in 2020. As a result, I moved to an Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) parish. ACNA is comprised of former Episcopal churches from several more conservative dioceses and breakaway congregations from dioceses that have gone too far left. I fully expect that there will be a lesbian bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Texas within 25 years. I do not expect there will be a lesbian bishop in ACNA ever.

The churches that are growing are the churches that have stuck to the basics. Conservative theology grows churches; liberal theology kills them.

(06-04-2023 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The churches that are growing are the churches that have stuck to the basics. Conservative theology grows churches; liberal theology kills them.

I sense that’s probably true. But I didn’t have your level of stick-to-it-iveness. I just let my church participation lapse after my kids made it abundantly clear that they’d had enough.

(06-04-2023 07:23 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The churches that are growing are the churches that have stuck to the basics. Conservative theology grows churches; liberal theology kills them.

I sense that’s probably true. But I didn’t have your level of stick-to-it-iveness. I just let my church participation lapse after my kids made it abundantly clear that they’d had enough.

Mine slipped after my last year in a Catholic school and then was completely wiped away when the Catholic church refused to marry my former wife and myself because we didn't wish to attend their counseling sessions. This fat pig of a priest was lecturing us on gluttony and the sins of sexual activity. I may have sealed the deal when I asked him how he was qualified to lecture on either since he was morbidly obese and had obviously never had sex. We were asked to leave and I've been back once, for my mother's funeral.

We got married in the Japanese Gardens of a park in Memphis by a justice of the peace. It was beautiful.

(06-04-2023 07:32 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The churches that are growing are the churches that have stuck to the basics. Conservative theology grows churches; liberal theology kills them.

Mine slipped after my last year in a Catholic school and then was completely wiped away when the Catholic church refused to marry my former wife and myself because we didn't wish to attend their counseling sessions.

Several years ago, while I was still a member of the Episcopal Church, a 50-ish woman in our church married a Roman Catholic oil company executive, second marriage for both. When they met with the RC priest who was to marry them, they were asked about their intentions regarding church membership. The husband to-be replied that they planned to alternate between attending the Episcopal and RC churches, and that he fully expected his wife to take communion with him at both churches. When the priest said that would be impossible, the husband replied that in that case they would both attend the Episcopal Church. Since the husband was a huge donor to the RC church, the priest quickly changed course and said that he could make an accommodation.

They are getting the justice that they voted for, thus, the justice they deserve.

(06-04-2023 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 06:44 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I’d also like to think that we are finally seeing the beginnings of a backlash. But it won’t happen overnight. I am now only a decade or so younger than the elder was who made that statement. I likely won’t be around to see what comes of American culture 25 years hence. But I am starting to see some hopeful signs that it will be for the better.

I was a cradle Episcopalian. My mother was raised Baptist, but her pastor growing up was a McCready with his divinity degree from Sewanee (you Tennesseans will probably appreciate the significance). Her views were actually more liberal than my lifelong Episcopalian father's.

Anyway, in my lifetime I've seen the Episcopal Church make any number of changes in the name of "tolerance" and "inclusion"--women priests, women bishops, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriage--to the extent that it now includes about 1MM members, whereas around 1950 that number was about 2.8MM. Except for the gay priests and gay bishops, I was generally okay with the changes. As a friend and priest once asked, "If women aren't supposed to preach the Gospel, how come the first three people in history to do so were named Mary, Mary, and Salome (mother of James and John, not daughter of Herodias)?" And I voted in favor of performing a same sex (female) marriage when I was on the vestry (governing board) of our church. As a former women's rugby coach, I've been invited to and attended several female-female marriages.

A couple of years ago, I attended diocesan council as a representative of my church, and came away with the distinct impression that straight white males were becoming an endangered species in the Episcopal Church, or at least in its leadership. I felt that my own views were far more closely aligned with those of the Diocese of Alabama in 1960 (for the record, in 1964 my church had an out gay male as vice-president of our youth group, and we had a black male as president of the diocesan youth group, so we were pretty liberal for Alabama even then) than with those of the Diocese of Texas in 2020. As a result, I moved to an Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) parish. ACNA is comprised of former Episcopal churches from several more conservative dioceses and breakaway congregations from dioceses that have gone too far left. I fully expect that there will be a lesbian bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Texas within 25 years. I do not expect there will be a lesbian bishop in ACNA ever.

The churches that are growing are the churches that have stuck to the basics. Conservative theology grows churches; liberal theology kills them.

So, we have scripture throughout the New Testament that clearly spells out sins. Homosexuality is repeated many times in Scripture as SIN. This is NOT my opinion but written in the Bible. If we decide what we want to pick and choose then we are no better the those non believers. I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God but never once if called out have I not owned the sin and asked for repentance.

It is written that we are to confront any member of the body of Christ with the SIN they are engaging in and in a mild and meek manner rebuke the SIN. Therefore, the sinner can make amends.

ANY CHURCH that condones SIN is NOT a Bride of Christ. Its just that simple even though some members are. You cannot toss your pearls to the pigs and expect you yourself will not become filthy.

We only have the BIBLE as our guide and if we start picking and choosing then we become our own gods.

Not to clash with AM but I have a totally different idea of INTOLERANCE. My idea of intolerance is not showing prejudice by their manner of appearance or culture unless it clashes with what I know is wrong in accordance to the will of God. At that point it is not intolerance just because I do not accept your sin. I have every right to reject that manner of lifestyle.

I will never attend any church that willfully sins against God. Sadly too many have chosen that path misusing and misleading Paul's affirmation of LOVE as all inclusive and adopting the sin themselves. Its nothing new it is all over the NT with Paul rebuking early churches numerous times. Big difference today is that we are supposed to condone SIN not rebuke it. SIN WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE GATES OF HEAVEN IN NO SHAPE OR FORM PERIOD and I do not care if my own brother or sister tries to tell me otherwise.

(06-04-2023 07:32 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 07:23 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The churches that are growing are the churches that have stuck to the basics. Conservative theology grows churches; liberal theology kills them.

I sense that’s probably true. But I didn’t have your level of stick-to-it-iveness. I just let my church participation lapse after my kids made it abundantly clear that they’d had enough.

Mine slipped after my last year in a Catholic school and then was completely wiped away when the Catholic church refused to marry my former wife and myself because we didn't wish to attend their counseling sessions. This fat pig of a priest was lecturing us on gluttony and the sins of sexual activity. I may have sealed the deal when I asked him how he was qualified to lecture on either since he was morbidly obese and had obviously never had sex. We were asked to leave and I've been back once, for my mother's funeral.

We got married in the Japanese Gardens of a park in Memphis by a justice of the peace. It was beautiful.

Now that is some funny stuff right there. Anyone who was truly of God would have acknowledged your questions not ran you off. Insecurity chose the latter.

The whole idea of Priests being celibate was all over money and land in the Middle Ages anyway. The Church wanted to keep the money so those in the Roman Catholic hierarchy could adorn their church with gold and eat off gold flatware. Disgusting when you think of what Christ stands for.

(06-04-2023 09:13 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Not to clash with AM but I have a totally different idea of INTOLERANCE. My idea of intolerance is not showing prejudice by their manner of appearance or culture unless it clashes with what I know is wrong in accordance to the will of God. At that point it is not intolerance just because I do not accept your sin. I have every right to reject that manner of lifestyle.

Not so much a "clash", but there is some confusion here. I suspect, as usual, that it is mostly on my part.

First, I think that there is a typo in your above quote. The bolded "not" should be removed, correct? In other words, you will tolerate the blue hair and nose rings. It is the actual pedo-grooming-type statements and behavior that you will condemn. Am I right about that?

If so, then we do have a slight difference of opinion. It is not my place to tell anyone how to dress or what to do with their own body. But I am going to be judgmental about it. It's not like I have much standing to do so, but that nevertheless is the "stigma" and "shame" that I was referring to in my earlier post.

Quote:I will never attend any church that willfully sins against God. Sadly too many have chosen that path misusing and misleading Paul's affirmation of LOVE as all inclusive and adopting the sin themselves. Its nothing new it is all over the NT with Paul rebuking early churches numerous times. Big difference today is that we are supposed to condone SIN not rebuke it. SIN WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE GATES OF HEAVEN IN NO SHAPE OR FORM PERIOD and I do not care if my own brother or sister tries to tell me otherwise.

I think we agree here. (And I think that this was also owl#'s point about the declining membership of the Episcopalian Church proper.)

My decision to stop attending my church was due to a mix of laziness and to a realization that there was a declining relevance to my day-to-day life and that of my kids. It was not some principled stand on how the church was becoming too "tolerant" (however that is to be defined). But I suspect that if I were still attending, that I would be having greater and deeper differences with how my former church has evolved during the last few decades. Still good people, and I still know and am friendly with many of them. But it is no longer something that seems meaningful to me - - at least not in the corporate sense.

" This fat pig of a priest was lecturing us on gluttony and the sins of sexual activity. I may have sealed the deal when I asked him how he was qualified to lecture on either since he was morbidly obese and had obviously never had sex."

It's like when this Italian told the pope when he was lecturing him on marriage. "If you don't playa the games, you don't maka the rules".

It's almost identical to my doctor who tells me that I needed to get my weight down and she wasn't taking her own advice as she is pretty fat.

(06-04-2023 09:42 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 09:13 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Not to clash with AM but I have a totally different idea of INTOLERANCE. My idea of intolerance is not showing prejudice by their manner of appearance or culture unless it clashes with what I know is wrong in accordance to the will of God. At that point it is not intolerance just because I do not accept your sin. I have every right to reject that manner of lifestyle.

Not so much a "clash", but there is some confusion here. I suspect, as usual, that it is mostly on my part.

First, I think that there is a typo in your above quote. The bolded "not" should be removed, correct? In other words, you will tolerate the blue hair and nose rings. It is the actual pedo-grooming-type statements and behavior that you will condemn. Am I right about that?

If so, then we do have a slight difference of opinion. It is not my place to tell anyone how to dress or what to do with their own body. But I am going to be judgmental about it. It's not like I have much standing to do so, but that nevertheless is the "stigma" and "shame" that I was referring to in my earlier post.

Quote:I will never attend any church that willfully sins against God. Sadly too many have chosen that path misusing and misleading Paul's affirmation of LOVE as all inclusive and adopting the sin themselves. Its nothing new it is all over the NT with Paul rebuking early churches numerous times. Big difference today is that we are supposed to condone SIN not rebuke it. SIN WILL NOT ENTER INTO THE GATES OF HEAVEN IN NO SHAPE OR FORM PERIOD and I do not care if my own brother or sister tries to tell me otherwise.

I think we agree here. (And I think that this was also owl#'s point about the declining membership of the Episcopalian Church proper.)

My decision to stop attending my church was due to a mix of laziness and to a realization that there was a declining relevance to my day-to-day life and that of my kids. It was not some principled stand on how the church was becoming too "tolerant" (however that is to be defined). But I suspect that if I were still attending, that I would be having greater and deeper differences with how my former church has evolved during the last few decades. Still good people, and I still know and am friendly with many of them. But it is no longer something that seems meaningful to me - - at least not in the corporate sense.

Yes you are correct that although I may not care for how some want to present themselves with a myriad of LOOK AT ME styles such as nose ring, hair color, tattoos etc I can tolerate that and hold no ill will nor do I look down at them and say things behind their back or make fun of them. Not my nature. At my point in life NOTHING SUPRISES ME ANYMORE NOTHING.

I grew up on a 15 acre farm my teenage years and we had to put rings in hog's noses. Sometimes as many as 10 plus to keep them from rooting out of the pen. Every time I see people mostly younger girls and women with nose rings still reminds me of a hog's snout.

Tolerance to me is dealing with something I don't really care for but its just a different life choice and it doesn't cross the line of being immoral.

I do not believe anyone is intolerant when they disapprove of behavior that not only is damning but also destructive to our way of life. I am not intolerant if I disapprove of snorting cocaine.

SJWs and the Democratic think tank have a way of distorting things and using MSM to perpetuate their false flags. Illegal aliens are now migrants. And although they came here illegally and our laws somehow protect them from deportation we are supposed to be TOLERANT. Wrong use of the word.

I equate Illegals to being the same as thieves. The thief stole your horse but you are unable to get justice or your horse back until Big Brother deems it ok in their eyes and you are insert any name calling word(s) because you are upset.

The erosion of the middle class is the number one goal of Democrats and having millions and millions of illegals to bring down the standard of living is what they and their corporate team are all about as well as drowning out all dissenters.