Allie wrote: Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it. I truly do. Godspeed this Friday. We need to be praying. Maybe our time has finally come in this country that we must suffer loss like those gone before us. Gays are being used to persecute Christians.
You're welcome. Keep posting dear one. I enjoy your comments.
Allie wrote: The issue is men using women's restrooms. That has been the issue. Why mention single unit unisex bathrooms? These people don't want to use bathrooms that say "unisex" to accommodate them. They want access to gender designated restrooms. This gives pervs access to women and children not physically able to defend themselves. Jim is basically telling me and all reading these posts that we shouldn't use them in the first place and that if I do I am deciding to put myself at risk? What kind of foolishness is that? I am making no "Assumption" I am clearly speaking to what is posted. This is not funny and very grave. A college in Canada has had young ladies victimized because of this. Keep careying water for Jim. I will not join you.
I'm not carrying water for Jim. I just wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping he would clarify, but after reading more comments it appears your understanding of his post is right.
Allie wrote: Se what I mean? Talking abject foolishness about bus stations, Doctor offices, and home bathrooms. Jim, Trannies are not trying share a jon at my home or Dr offices. You compare my home bathroom with a public multi-stall restroom? The gas station single bathroom with a locked door from inside with public stalls where woman and children are vulnerable to the strentgh of a male pervert? Jim has completely showed his hand. Whoever engages Jim after this as a fellow laborer in the gospel is lacking in discernment.
You assumed Jim meant a locked stall door while he may have meant a locked door to a single occupancy unisex restroom. That's what I understood from his post and followup. Point being he should be asked to clarify.
A lot of things have happened in church history but aren't recorded in the Bible. Why not Mary's assumption then? Is everything which has happened in your own family's history written down in infallible records(I agree, the Bible is infallible)? As for Tom's proposition, then doesn't the record of the Bible saying Enoch was assumed take attention away from Christ? If Enoch or Elijah's experiences do not, why should Mary's assumption? I don't know what's wrong with believing that very possibly ancient Christians saw Mary taken into heaven. Does not and has not God wrought miracles to many others besides who we read about in the Bible? I think so.