Thursday, 21 September 2017

Personal Shopping at House of Fraser, Guildford

At the end of August I went along to a Womenswear evening at the House of Fraser store in Guildford as mentioned here.

Amanda had been chatting with Chloe (the Guildford store manager) and had come up with the idea that girls that go along to Surrey Swans might be interested in a Personal Shopping Experience.

September 16th is the date.

Myself, Amanda, Susie, Paula and Chloe (a different Chloe than the Guildford store manager) are the girls.

I collect sizes and clothing preferences from the girls and email them to Chloe (the Guildford store manager). These are passed on to Veda and Julie.

The plan for the afternoon is complimentary prosecco, a few hours of no obligation to buy anything clothing sampling and an hour devoted to makeup and cosmetics.

I arrive at Caffè Nero on the first floor of the store at just before 11:30 am. A trip to the right-next-door washroom later and I see Paula in line for coffee.

We sit and chat.

Amanda arrives.

I send a text to Chloe and Susie.

There is no mobile phone signal.

And then there is.

It’s about noon as we take the escalator to the ladieswear second floor where the personal shopping suite is located.

Chloe is there already.

Julie says hello and introduces us to Veda. Amanda has met them several times before. I’ve met them once before.

Susie arrives.

The suite has been recently refurbished.

A glass of prosecco.

Julie has selected some things for Paula and Chloe.

Veda has done the same for Susie, Amanda and me.

Dresses and skirts and blouses and coats come off and go on. Come off and go on. Come off and go on.

I like the dress. Veda looks and goes to get the smaller size. The smaller does fit better.

As things come off and go on there’s a dress and blouse that I like.

Veda and Julie offer advice without pressure. Assist with zips. Manoeuvre between the shopping suite and the shop floor getting alternatives.

The only really challenging thing is the tendency that a wig has to come off in sympathy with blouses and dresses.

Amanda, Chloe, Susie and Paula make their own selections.

Lauren, from, Clinique arrives with samples.

Susie volunteers.

Eyes and lips with hints and tips and explanations.

No pressure to buy.

Afterwards we chat. The consensus is that whatever we had expected from the day, the actual experience exceeded our expectations.

Heading for the car park, the alarm sounds as I leave the store. My thoughts return to a visit to the washroom at the end of October.

The security man smiles helpfully.

I wiggle my House of Fraser bag of clothes at the sensor. Nothing happens.

I wiggle my handbag. The siren wails.

I smile. I shrug.

He smiles. He shrugs.

I offer him a look into my handbag.

A quick inspection and he wishes me on my way.

My thoughts on the whole experience?

I think it is great that the people at House of Fraser in Guildford are so welcoming, friendly and accepting.

I felt that to them I was a person. A fellow human being.

I didn’t feel that they saw me as a trans person. I was simply a person.

And, for me, that is just exactly how it should be.

The thing … well one of the many things really … that I find so positive is that they made the effort to reach out and make it known that I was welcome just as me. As who I am.

It was clear that I, as a person, am welcome at the store at any time. If I need advice on clothing or on cosmetics then they are ready to help. I don’t need to be embarrassed or shy about it.

I know that I am also a potential customer and that it’s possible to argue that it would make no business sense at all for a store to make me feel uncomfortable. But there are businesses around that don’t see things that way.

So, for me, the afternoon was another step along the way. Each experience like this adds to my own sense of personal acceptance and confidence.

Chloe, Julie, Veda and Lauren have, in their own way, made a positive contribution to the lives of myself, Susie, Paula, Chloe and Amanda. And it’s by making differences to individuals that differences are made to societies.

Small days like this can make a big difference.

Here are a few pictures:

Andrea and Paula:

IMG_0464

Susie sampling a dress:

IMG_0450

Lauren touching up Susie’s eyes:

IMG_0471

IMG_0469

Womenswear at House of Fraser

A while ago Amanda, a friend from Surrey Swans, mentioned  that she’d been along to an evening ladies wear event at the House of Fraser store in Guildford. A few weeks ago (Thursday 31 August 2017) I went along to the Womenswear re-launch event at the store. Amanda plus over a hundred other people went along as well.

I heard about this particular event from Chloe, the manager of the House of Fraser store in Guildford.

I’d been given contact details for Chloe by Amanda who’d been chatting with Chloe who had asked if anyone from Surrey Swans might be interested in coming along to the store for a Personal Shopping Experience.

Several emails and telephone calls later Saturday September 16th 2017 between 12:00 noon and 3:00 pm was set aside for myself, Amanda, Paula, Susie and Chloe (not Chloe who is the store manager) to partake in the Experience. I’ll write a bit about that separately.

In a way, the Womenswear re-launch event was a kind of a prequel.

I wasn’t working on the day of the re-launch event, so had decided that it’d be a piece of cake to get to Guildford by 7:30 pm.

As the day approached, I checked the calendar again and noticed that the builders were due to be re-engineering the bathroom during that week.

This realisation released a cat amongst the pigeons.

Tuesday evening planning.

Windsor to Guildford, according to Google, typically takes 50 to 80 minutes.

An optimistic Andrea thinks … to be there by 19:15, she’ll set off by 18:15.

The house will be builder-free before 18:15.

Makeup needs to begin by 16:45.

This could be challenging.

Thursday arrives.

14:15 is nail polishing in the builder-free lounge.

16:15 select skirt, blouse and shoes. Transport these from the wardrobe where they are to the bedroom. Together with hair, boobs, bra and tights. The hallway is unoccupied.

16:40 shaving begins in the en-suite shower room. The door is closed. Occasional bangs from the not-too-distant bathroom.

Moisturiser.

The challenge begins. From round about now a visit from a builder could result in blushes.

Undress.

Panties. Bra. Breasts. Tights.

Foundation.

Powder.

Eye shadow.

Liner.

Mascara.

Blush.

Lipstick.

An unexpected sound.

A turn of the head … the bedroom door quietly closes.

Blushes.

Blouse.

Skirt.

Hair.

The sound of builders leaving.

Jewellery.

Perfume.

Shoes.

Time to go.

The drive to Guildford is uneventful. The car park on Leapale Road has plenty of spaces at 7:20 pm and evening parking costs £1.

A short walk to North Street.

Amanda is at the end of the line of people at the store entrance. We chat as we with just a few minutes.

The escalator takes us up a few floors where a glass of prosecco awaits.

We sip and chat.

Although I had received an information leaflet that described what would be happening, there is a sense in which I have no real idea of what to expect.

Over a hundred people. Almost all are ladies. Just one or two accompanied by men.

Seats lined along the side of the aisles in an L shape. Each with a goodie back of cosmetic samples.

Seats are taken and the fashion show begins.

The clothing is gorgeous.

A few hours to browse the shop, meet people and sample wine and gin.

I meet Chloe, the store manager. And also Veda and Julie who are to be involved in the Personal Shopping Experience.

And other people as well.

We have a look at the personal shopping suite.

I browse and collect ideas for September 16th.

The alarm goes off as I made my way to the ladies washroom. But no one panics.

All too soon it’s 9:30 pm and time to go home.

I loved the evening.

Another step along the way.

It was really a pleasure to meet people who were happy to go out of their way to make trans people welcome.

No one attending the event paid any undue attention at all. A few hello’s. Polite chit-chat.

Just an evening out.

In a way uneventful. Just as it should be.

Yet, in its own way, hugely significant for me.

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Pink Punters, Wolves and Friends

Last Saturday (August 5th) a few of us spent an evening (and a morning) at Pink Punters.

Related image

Travelling light I pack only 1 pair of shoes, 2 dresses, 1 skirt and 1 shirt. That’s in addition to the dress and shoes that I am already wearing. Together with the makeup and all the other stuff that needs to be taken.

The suitcase is by no means small. But quite a bit smaller than I’ve used in the past. And everything fits inside without having to sit on the top to zip it all up.

Laura arrives in Windsor a little after 5:00 pm and says hello to Sally. Soon we’re on the road  off with TomTom instructed to avoid motorways. The traffic is kind and we’re at the Campanile Hotel soon after 6:30 pm.

A text to Paula and to Susie to say that we’re in room 119 and we’ll be at the bar by about 7:00 pm.

The little card says there is a £100 fine for doing anything that impedes the effectiveness of safety equipment. We check the smoke alarm for condoms.

Laura tries a dress on. Andrea unpacks. Laura tries a skirt on. Andrea unpacks some more. Laura tries a dress on. 7:00 pm seems wildly optimistic.

7:10 pm at the bar. Hello Chloe and hello Sonia.

There is no Shiraz so it’s house red for Laura. And no Sauvignon Blanc so it’s house white for Andrea.

Susie and Paula arrive. Emma arrives.

We sip and chat.

Chloe has a cool new phone cover courtesy of Sonia. It has a picture of a howling wolf … maybe a bit like this:

Image result for howling wolf phone cover

Andrea learns that one way of receiving a new phone cover is to leave the current one on the roof of your car before setting off on a journey. Of course, the new cover is only any use if the phone isn’t inside it’s current cover when it gets left on the car roof. Or at least at the moment that you drive off.

Susie and I reminisce over Sparkle, giggling over the “please can I have a glass of Sauvignon Blanc” experience.

Talking with Chloe, Sonia, Paula and Susie, thinking about the love that people show, and also the apparent hatred.

19:33 … Andrea sends a text to Lucy:

Hi Lucy, we’re sipping things in the hotel bar, Andrea

Conversation continues.

“Is Lucy coming?”

Andrea nods. I sent her a text.

Andrea checks the address book on her phone. Lucy Surrey Swans.

Does Andrea know an other Lucy at Surrey Swans? Is a different Lucy sitting somewhere wondering who is sitting in which bar sipping what things?

Emma comes to the rescue. The number she has for the Lucy is the same as Andrea’s Lucy Surrey Swans. All is well. Or so we think.

19:57:

Hi Andrea, are you and the others at the bar? 

Lucy.

Lucy has a new number … or at least Andrea has an old one.

19:58:

We are yes, I texted your old number :)

Lucy arrives.

We talk of Indigo Girls in Brighton, along with Lucy Wainwright Roche.

Image result for indigo girls one lost day

on tour in the UK with Indigo Girls this summer!

And Bruce Springsteen.

Food and conversation follow.

From left to right it’s: Chloe, Emma, Paula, Sonia, Susie, Laura and Lucy.

P1090329_1067x800

The camera-girls arm is just about visible in the mirror at the back of the room.

It’s 21:20 and the plan is to change as need be and meet again at the bar.

Andrea suggests 21:30.

Stares of astonishment.

We compromise on a.s.a.p.

In room 119 Andrea takes off a dress and puts on a dress and a belt. Laura takes off a dress and puts on a skirt and a shirt and a belt.

a.s.a.p. for Andrea and Laura is 22:00. The girls at the bar waited very patiently.

It’s cool outside, but dry. The short walk through the car park and across Watling Street. The bus is noticeable by its absence. When it’s there it looks like this:

Image result for pink punters bus

Handbags are scrutinised. We part with £7 and ascend the steps. Drinks at the bar.

The evening passes quickly.

Dancing. Sipping. Chatting.

The pink room is still pink, my dress is black.

P1090331_1067x800

Another dance. Another drink.

Andrea stands at the bar, and, without a word, the girl serving the drinks places a half of Fosters right there in front of her. Magic!

There’s a cis girl with a tiara. Andrea wonders why. The girl points at a badge. Andrea says “Happy Birthday” to the princess.

The friend of the princess wears a dress and a beard. Andrea smiles thinking Eurovision kind of thoughts.

We chat a while. He prefers to not be called she. Is straight. Is not trans. But likes the dress.

“I have a very firm bum. Have a feel.” he says.

He does indeed have a firm bum.

Two other friends of the girl without a beard drop by. No beards. And bums of an unknown degree of firmness.

They dance.

Andrea chats.

Andrea dances. Alone and with the bearded and non-bearded ladies.

Where is Laura?

1:00 am and it’s time for Chloe and Sonia to head back across Watling Street.

We meet Felicia and Kirsten and chat a while. Kirsten is thinking of offering some kind of a makeover before Pink Punters service.

Laura re-appears having had a worrisome hour or so.

Before we know it, it’s 03:45 and time to wend our way back to the hotel. Punters is still busy. Watling Street is extremely busy.

At room 119 Andrea and Laura compare breast sizes. Detachable boobies are easy to compare. Laura’s puppies are considerably larger.

Makeup, dresses and skirts come off, nightwear goes on.

Alarm is set for 10:00. It’s nor far off 05:00 and time to sleep.

At 09:30 a text beats the alarm.

Shower. Shave. Makeup. A skirt and shirt for Andrea. Pack. Check-out. Drive home.

A lovely night with lovely people/

Sunday, 23 July 2017

Trans Rights–Some thoughts on Being and Choosing

I’ve been reading the article entitled “Choose your own gender WITHOUT seeing as doctor: Government to rip up rules on switching sex” in the Mail Online together with some of the comments made by people.

I’m saddened by the way that some people contribute to and make comments on articles like this without really seeming to think about the people that they are talking about.

I believe that for a person to be trans doesn’t make that person a sexual predator. It doesn’t make them a sexual deviant. Doesn’t make them into a person that wants to sneak into toilets and changing rooms to sneak peaks at people. Or go to rape crisis centres or prisons to abuse people.

I haven’t met anyone that identifies as being trans who says “I just woke up one morning and thought I’d like to be a girl” … or “boy”.

I know a lot of people that have faced years and years of struggling with a sense of guilt, shame and denial before reaching a position where they began to accept the fact that they are trans.

At Sparkle this year there were quite a few people wearing T-shirts a bit like this:

Image result for trans is not a choice transphobic is

The article “Check the Science: Being Trans Is Not a 'Choice'” provides some interesting reading on the subject. It includes these thoughts:

We should know then that to be transgender is not a choice.

It is not a choice when meta-analysis of suicide rates indicates that lifetime prevalence of attempted suicide in transgender individuals is ~40 percent as opposed to ~4 percent in the overall population. It is not the same as deciding whether you will wear a red tie or a green one.

It is a choice for us to educate those who mistakenly believe that allowing transgender people to use bathrooms appropriate for their identity endangers women and children. Such people either do not know transgender people or, more likely, know them but do not know they are transgender.

And those that believe that real sexual predators will be dissuaded by a sign on a bathroom door are truly lost.

It is a choice for those of us who study the complexities of biology and the human brain to inform those who are not neuroscientists so that they can understand why it is not “a choice” for transgender people; it is who they are.

And there is this comment:

Scott T. Parkhurst · Santa Rosa Junior College
Look, all I know is that transgender people are just humane beings who want to be left alone and be treated with respect just like everyone else....because they are everyone else.

And as far as using the restroom...for Gods sake, they...us, we, just want to go in and use it and hopefully wash your hands and then walk out and go about with your day!

They do not choose to be male or female because they are born male or female in their brain and not what is between their damn legs. They are trapped and they are in a lot of pain and suffer in silence and a lot of them do kill themselves and I can promise you the rate is VERY high.

A lot of you have sat and worked and talked to some and never knew it. They are the gender that they feel they are in their brain and soul. There's no questioning it.

Their not going/saying "Oh, I think I'll be a women or guy today so I it will be fun to dress up"...which I have a few folks write and think that's what transgender people do and or think.

Never in my law enforcement career have I ever had problems nor arrested a transgender person in a restroom for being inappropriate either.

But I sure did arrest mostly middle age white men who were doing nasty crap in there! And they were from all walks of life too....

So don't be so quick to judge each other if you haven't walked in ones shoes....Just my up close and on the job 2 cents. Thank you.

There are people around who are predators, molesters and abusers.

But is it right to allow such people to set the standard by which genuinely trans people are to be treated?

Is it right to make innocent people suffer because bad people exist?

The article in the Mail Online says: “Reforms to help transgender people choose their legal sex, which include speeding up the bureaucratic process, will go out to consultation in the autumn.“

Which means that at the moment nothing has changed.

It’s simply the beginning of a conversation and of a process.

And yes, of course there are and will be challenges to face and obstacles to overcome.

But please, let’s not write the whole thing off before it’s even started.

Transphobia and Misogyny

Please see here for a description of why I’m recording these discussions and comments.

Transphobia

The Article

The comment was made in response to the article: “Children In Britain Are Being Sent To Clinics To Be Told That They Are Transgender”.
The article was attributed to Theodore Shoebat.
The text of the comment was originally recorded here: http://shoebat.com/2017/07/10/children-in-britain-are-being-sent-to-clinics-to-be-told-that-they-are-transgender/#comment-3421045030
The comment was made by Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/) and addressed to Theodore Shoebat, the author of the article.
On 23 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article - (17 July 2017)
Hello Theodore,

Please could you confirm if I understand what you are suggesting.

You believe that the parents of all the children who have been referred to gender identity clinics should be arrested and executed?

And also that if any of the children cannot be rehabilitated then they should be stoned to death with stones?

Also I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if you have contacted any of the parents, children or medical staff involved in this to seek out their opionion to find out what's actually happening or if you're suggesting that executions should happen based on an one report at CP World?

I note on the web site of the American College of Pediatricians, that when asked "Does the College advise its members to refuse care to LGBQT-identified children and families?". It answers as follows:

"Of course not. As expressed in our mission, vision and values statement, the College and its members are committed to compassionately caring for all children regardless of their family structure, race, ethnicity, ideology or sexual preference. We physicians extend unconditional respect to our patients who may hold different views, and we ask that our own convictions and professional judgment be likewise respected."

Would you therefore say that members of the American College of Pediatricians should be subject to a similar punishment?

Thanks,
Andrea
As at 7 August 2017, no response had been made.

Misogyny

The Article

The comment was made in response to the article: “How Modern Women Are Destroying Society (And Before You Scream Sexist, WATCH THE VIDEO)”.
The article was attributed to Theodore Shoebat. And I did watch the video.
The text of the comment was originally recorded here: http://shoebat.com/2017/07/19/how-modern-women-are-destroying-society-and-before-you-scream-sexist-watch-the-video/#comment-3428175333 
The comment was made by Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/) and addressed to Theodore Shoebat, the author of the article and maker of the video.
On 23 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article - (21 July 2017)
Hi Theodore,
Some of the statements made in this video are unconvincing and some appear to be incorrect.
As an example, there is an assertion that "most people do not agree with homosexuality".
If you look here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/... - the figures show that the assertion made in the video is incorrect.
Also there is this: http://www.people-press.org...
And it's not only "millenials" that feel this way.
If you don't trust these figures then perhaps you could point to alternative credible figures elsewhere and I'd be happy to take a look.
I can accept the argument that just because the majority of people are in agreement about something doesn't make that thing correct.
What I'm unhappy about is that statements are made that appear to be incorrect in supporting any kind of an argument.
There's quite an emphasis upon the wife of Lot in the video. The implication being that because one woman behaved in a particular way then all women are the same.
It's similar to someone saying "I read a story about someone that was gay that molested a child so all gay people are child molesters."
Or someone else saying "I know that there have been Catholic priests that have molested children, so all Catholic priests must be child molesters."
This kind of thinking is patently absurd.
I've re-read through the account of Abram (later Abraham) and Lot's lives as recorded in the book of Genesis from chapters 12 through to 20.
Here are some things that stand out to me.
Very little is said about Lot's wife other than that she "looked back" and what happened to her as a result of that.
There's a lot more about Abram and Lot.
Abram (and then later as Abraham), had a habit of pretending that he wasn't married to his wife. This resulted in his wife being used sexually on at least one occasion and also made Abram into a wealthy man. The people having sex with Abram's wife didn't know she was married to Abram. In fact Abram had led them to believe that she was unmarried and available. The only people to suffer as a result of this were the people that Abram lied to. Abram effectively made a prostitute of his wife.
Lot, who often seems to be characterised as a "righteous man" offered his virgin daughters to a mob of people, and said the mob could use them anyway they liked. Granted, this was to get the mob to not molest his visitors, but it's an appalling thing to do nevertheless.
Later, Lot allows himself to get so drunk that he has sex with his daughters. He was so drunk he couldn't remember doing it. They both had children as a result of having sex with their father.
I know gay people. None of them have prostituted their partners or had children with family members.
Yet I am told to believe that they are evil and that Lot and Abram are righteous?
The story of Abram, Lot and Lot's wife seem to say a lot more about the way that men have the potential to destroy society than it does about women.
To use the story of Lot's wife as a way of tarnishing the reputation of women without taking a look at the entire story in context seems to me to be misleading and disingenuous.
When Jesus told people to "remember Lot's wife" He wasn't making a statement about women. He was telling people not to look back when there was an urgent need to move forwards.
Please, if you are going to attack women and gay people do it with honesty and integrity and not, as appears to be the case here, by taking passages of Scripture out of context and tarnishing the reputation of large groups of people based on your experiences of a few.
Thank you,
Andrea
Randy Perez to Andrea Wright (24 July 2017)
There is no demographic group called "gay" just like there isn't a demographic group for thieves. Scripture is enough to attack, which is a good emotional manipulative word to make Theodore look like some time of abuser, sodomites and Women.
Theodore's overall point is correct. Men go out of their way toto please women, even being yes men. Even bars and clubs are set up to please women. Why? Because the men will go also.
God had homosexuals executed, yes even someone who picked up sticks on a sabbath. Yet He let Lot lived.
He even had someone executed for someone saying the equaling of OMG. Do you think those judgements were unjust?
Andrea Wright  to Randy Perez (24 July 2017)
Hello Randy,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I'm not sure what point you're making exactly in saying that there is no demographic group called "gay".
Time Magazine http://time.com/lgbt-stats/ has an article about efforts in the USA to define a gay demography. Similarly in the UK the Office For National Statistics have done some work to define this: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peop...
The point that I made was that the in the video Theodore asserts "most people do not agree with homosexuality". Yet there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case - in fact the evidence is that this assertion is incorrect.
Do you not think that if it were really true that "men go out of their way to please women" then that's a "man" problem rather than a "woman" problem?
It's interesting to take a look at the statistics regarding violence against women committed by men compared with violence against men committed by women.
The kind of thing that I mean is how many men rape women each year compared with women raping men. Or beat them. Or threaten them.
The World health Organisation has some information here: http://www.who.int/mediacen... and Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi....
Reading the Bible or a history book or a daily newspaper shows that where there are problems of violence and hate in the world - the kinds of thing that destroy society - the majority of the perpetrators of this are men.
I'm not, in any way, suggesting that all men are bad.
But asking me to believe that women are the main "destroyers of society" ... well ... I need actual evidence rather than pronouncements based on a couple of personal experiences and three words of Jesus that are taken out of context.
The point I made about Scripture was that if it's going to be used to make a point then the passages used should be used in context.
It's not enough to simply quote a few words and then make a big issue out of them. The way that the words "Remember Lot's wife" are used in the video does exactly this.
It's kinda like someone coming out with a headline that says "It's official: The Bible says 'there is no God'" without mentioning the words that come just before it that say "Fools say in their hearts."
Please could you point me to a place in the Bible where God has someone executed because they are homosexual - rather than because they are part of a group of people that want to gang-rape strangers?
You asked me if I think the executions that you mention were "just".
I've spent a while researching the incident mentioned in chapter 15 of Numbers about the man executed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
I think that for a person that believes that God only ever does just and loving things, and also believes that it was God that commanded the executions then the answer is maybe simple. The executions had to be an expression of justice and also of love. We just might not be able to see enough of the full picture to understand why.
For everyone else it's maybe more complicated.
In several posts on this web site I've asked people if they are willing to share with me why it is that they believe what they believe. I've mentioned the passage in 1 Peter 3:15-16 that says:
"but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence".
So far, no-one has done this.
The closest I got to a response has been "Why should I answer you when you appear to be sympathetic toward fags?".
I'd appreciate it if you'd take some time to explain to me why you believe, rather than just what you believe. Maybe this would help me understand why you believe in the justice and the love of God.
To me it seems that the New Testament defines a New Covenant.
The New Covenant doesn't talk about executing people.
I've just spent a while reading chapter 5 of Matthew's gospel.
Whatever the results of disobedience to God's laws might be in the afterlife, it's really difficult to find any talk of executing people for picking up sticks, saying OMG or being homosexual.
If you can find anything that really suggests that it's what Jesus would want you to do then please tell me where it says that.
Anyway, thank you again for your reply.
Andrea
Randy Perez to Andrea Wright (24 Jul 2017)
I dont care and God does not care that you have degenerates trying to make homosexuals a demographic group. GOD calls them an abomination.
You talk about domestic violence. It was the woman who chose these men. It was the woman who raised these men.
When Jesus Christ is ruling on Earth, He will ruling with a rod of iron. Very authoritarian, even though its the NT. Do you think Christ will let the unregenrate people sin without punishment when He sets up His Kingdom?
Andrea Wright to Randy Perez (24 Jul 2017)
Hello Randy,
Thank you for replying.
I'll try to respond with gentleness and reverence.
Firstly, I'm very much saddened that you weren't willing to share the reasons for your faith with me.
Is there a reason for that? Do you hate me? Or are you afraid of something? Or do you not have reasons for your faith?
Jesus spent time talking with people that the religious zealots of the time would have preferred to have stoned. Do you think he was mistaken in doing that? Chapter 8 of St John's gospel is worth reading.
I'm still listening if you change your mind.
Just to clarify a few other things.
The term "demographic group" isn't defined anywhere that I know of in the Bible. If I'm wrong please let me know.
Demography is defined as the "scientific study of human populations, especially with reference to their size, structure, and distribution".
The gender and sexuality of people reflect aspects of the structure of a society - whether those people are an abomination or not.
If you don't care about demography I'm not quite sure why you mentioned it in the first place.
I didn't specifically mention domestic violence. I wrote about rape, beatings and threats.
Am I correct in understanding that you think that women who are raped, beaten and threatened actually caused it themselves?
Do you have scriptures to back this idea up?
Also I didn't mention anything about the time when "Jesus Christ is ruling on earth" or what conditions would be like then. I'd be interested if you would tell me which passages of scripture you are basing your understanding on. I don't know enough about the topic at the moment to be able to answer your question.
I actually wrote about the things that Jesus said and about living in the here and now. That in the here and now the New Covenant as described by Jesus isn't compatible with executing people because of their gender or sexuality. Again I'd be interested to know if you can point me to any part of the New Testament to show that I'm mistaken in believing this.
So, thank you again for taking the trouble to reply.
I'd appreciate it if you could give this some more thought and reply again.
Andrea 
Randy Perez  to Andrea Wright (25 July 2017)
"I'll try to respond with gentleness and reverence." You have been gentle, but rude as well. You should stop ignoring what I said.
"Firstly, I'm very much saddened that you weren't willing to share the reasons for your faith with me." I already told you why I agree with Theodore about topic.
"Is there a reason for that? Do you hate me? Or are you afraid of something? Or do you not have reasons for your faith?" There you go with your gentle rudeness and false assumptions. I already told you why I agree with Theodore.
"Jesus spent time talking with people that the religious zealots of the time would have preferred to have stoned. Do you think he was mistaken in doing that? Chapter 8 of St John's gospel is worth reading."
This is called mercy not tolerance. Just because God gives people second chances does not mean that he let's it go unpunished. If you were consistent you would take chapter and say, "You see, now we can't punished thieves and murderers."
"The term "demographic group" isn't defined anywhere that I know of in the Bible. If I'm wrong please let me know.
Demography is defined as the "scientific study of human populations, especially with reference to their size, structure, and distribution".
The gender and sexuality of people reflect aspects of the structure of a society - whether those people are an abomination or not." So according to you, thieves l, rapist, and murderers and a demographic group.
"If you don't care about demography I'm not quite sure why you mentioned it in the first place." Gentle, but rude. Gentle, but rude. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. I basically said, "I don't care about man's definition of the use of words." I'm more concerned about what God considers a demographic group. In other words, If God was in front if you and you asked Him what would He say.
"I didn't specifically mention domestic violence. I wrote about rape, beatings and threats." Okay? So? You didn't refute anything I said.
"Am I correct in understanding that you think that women who are raped, beaten and threatened actually caused it themselves?" No, I said they chose men that are bad so they are going they get hurt. I say the exact same things to men who complain about their wife. They chose women that are trash. Women choose trashy men.
"Do you have scriptures to back this idea up?" The first Chapter of proverbs is about warning people to be careful who they choose their friends. Why? Because they may lead you astray into a world of sin. In 1st Corinthians, Paul tells Christians to marry other Christians. Why? To prevent a bad marriage a land to raise Christian children. Many places in scripture tells you "Do not be deceived." If you are deceived, it is your fault for not seeking God's wisdom, which is what The entire book of proverbs is essentially about.
"Also I didn't mention anything about the time when "Jesus Christ is ruling on earth" or what conditions would be like then. I'd be interested if you would tell me which passages of scripture you are basing your understanding on. I don't know enough about the topic at the moment to be able to answer your question." I mentioned it because when Jesus is ruling here on earth, He will be ruling under the NT. Although He will be ruling under the NT, He will still rule authoritarian. I have scripture for this.
Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star.
Read the entirety of Psalm 2.
Daniel 7:18'But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come
Basically, When Christ comes Christ will be the King of all. He will be the highest Authority Figure as King with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ will give people who truly believed in Him before His coming glorified bodies. Bodies that have no imperfections and probably have access to see and go through dimensions that We can't see in our fallen state. You can see this on Luke after He was risen. Bodies that are perfect and amazing in everyway. The people who did not believe in Him before His return, some will be spared of the lake of fire be allowed to live in the New Universe under one condition. They must live under the authority of Christ. Christ will give the Glorified believers land where the degenerate people live so that the Glorified people of God can rule over the degenerate people. Angels because they act more like soldiers would probably be like the enforcing what the Glorified people made into law. The laws that glorified people will write will be laws that Christ Himself tells them to write, so We won't do our own Will, but His will be done. Very aspect our our lives will be dictated by Him, but it'll feel like we are doing our own Will because we would be glorified.
"I actually wrote about the things that Jesus said and about living in the here and now. That in the here and now the New Covenant as described by Jesus isn't compatible with executing people because of their gender or sexuality. Again I'd be interested to know if you can point me to any part of the New Testament to show that I'm mistaken in believing this." I already explained this. God will Rule very authoritarian. Even if He doesn't execute people, He will possibly put people in Prison in His kingdom. But in the OT there were no prisons. So we see the nature of God's justice that God doesn't like prisons. Since He won't put people in Prison, He would probably have them Whipped or executed, or pay the person harmed. The rule over the nations is to be strong, but it is to be loving also. To those who obey it, it will be a shepherding; only those who resist it will be dashed in pieces. 
Andrea Wright to Randy Perez (25 July 2017)
Hi Randy,
Thank you for your reply.
And I apologise if I've ignored what you've said or if I've been rude at all. That wasn't my intention.
When I asked you to share the reasons for your faith with me I wasn't asking why you agreed with Theodore about this specific topic. You had already explained some of those reasons.
I was wondering what it was that led you to have faith in Christ. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, and I would honestly appreciate it if you could share that with me.
I was trying to avoid false assumptions by asking questions rather than making statements, and apologise if this seemed rude. I was wondering why you hadn't shared your faith with me and realise now that I hadn't made it sufficiently clear.
You mentioned mercy as opposed to tolerance. I hadn't mentioned either, but I agree with you. Though I also think that the word mercy includes connotations of forgiveness as opposed to punishment. The point that I was trying to make, though, is that Jesus talked with people that were sinners. He didn't verbally abuse or physically abuse them. He didn't make death threats.
Maybe there will be a time for punishment and reckoning.
But when I think about the way that Jesus dealt with people, that time has not yet arrived.
So it saddens me when I see people saying and writing stuff that gives the impression that they believe that gay people or trans people or a whole load of others who commit "crimes" that society doesn't classify as crimes should be thrown into prison or even executed just because they are gay or trans. I just don't see that attitude in the life of Christ.
So far as demographics are concerned, I was trying to use definitions accepted by people that "do" demographics - the Office for National Statistics and the sources mentioned in the article in Time magazine for example. I don't classify these people as being "degenerates trying to make homosexuals a demographic group". As I said, I don't know what God's definition of demography is which is why I asked if you could point me to one. I wasn't at all intending to be rude. I was simply asking why you'd used the term if you weren't willing to use the definition of it that seems to be used by demographers. Particularly since I hadn't used the term in my original comment on Theodore's video.
When I mentioned rape, beatings and threats to women I wasn't exclusively talking about it in a domestic setting. Women get raped, beaten and threatened outside of the domestic environment. But even then, the point I was making was that if you look at the facts, men are typically more involved in doing things that destroy society than women are. It's not just about women choosing bad men. I was pointing out that modern men probably put more effort into destroying society than do modern women.
Thank you for the insight you gave me in your understanding of the end times - if that's the correct term.
But, do you not think that this isn't where we are at just at the moment?
I had thought that Jesus wanted, and would still want, his followers to live and behave as he described in Matthew chapters 5 and 6.
Anyway, thank you for taking the trouble to reply to me.
And if you would be willing to share what it was that led you to faith in Christ I would be very appreciative.
Andrea 
Randy Perez to Andrea Wright (27 July 2017)
What led me to Christ was the fact that the universe can't create itself. Someone who is eternally existent and powerful had to create the universe. That is number one. Number two is the eye witness testimony of the apostles. You may say, "they claim to be eye witnesses, but they could be lying." But this is absurd. How do I know they weren't lying? Because when they were spreading the gospel, they were persecuted, beaten, jailed, mocked, lived in poverty, and executed for spreading the gospel. People lie so that they can get out of trouble, to get rich, or to get women. The apostles life were made much more difficult. This is how I know that their EYE witness testimony is true.
"Though I also think that the word mercy includes connotations of forgiveness as opposed to punishment."
No, forgiveness is not harboring a grudge over someone. This does not contradict punishing someone.
"The point that I was trying to make, though, is that Jesus talked with people that were sinners."
Theodore talked with people who were sinners.
"He didn't verbally abuse or physically abuse them. He didn't make death threats."
He said "it is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs" when talking about The woman. Even when talking about The New Jerusalem it says no dogs allowed and the context was about sinners. He called the scribes and Pharisees brood of vipers. Death threats? He made threats of sending people to Hell forever, which is called the second death. In terms NT, God killed people. He even killed Christians for lying. Look at Jesus of the Book of revelation when He is sending the messages to the Christ Churches.
"But when I think about the way that Jesus dealt with people, that time has not yet arrived."
Look at the final verse of Matthew."All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" In other words, there was a time when Christ didn't have all authority in Earth. I believe He had all authority in Heaven, but not on earth. When he was risen from the dead and glorified, that is when all authority was given to him on earth. When Jesus said my kingdoms not of This world, that was before He was Risen. Now His kingdom is not originated from world, but now owns it.
"So it saddens me when I see people saying and writing stuff that gives the impression that they believe that gay people or trans people or a whole load of others who commit "crimes" that society doesn't classify as crimes should be thrown into prison or even executed just because they are gay or trans. I just don't see that attitude in the life of Christ."
Being sad won't change anything. You're still wrong. You dont see that attitude, but I see it. Not only do I see it, I provide scripture. You admit it yourself that Christ will send Homosexuals and all types if weird people to the lake of fire forever. Which is worse? Putting them in Prison where they can get reformed or putting them in lava forever? Your problem is with Christ, not with me.
Concerning demographics. God calls these people sinners. That is Number one identifier. That is how God sees them. There are two groups of people in this world. Children of Adam and children of God.
"But even then, the point I was making was that if you look at the facts, men are typically more involved in doing things that destroy society than women are. It's not just about women choosing bad men. I was pointing out that modern men probably put more effort into destroying society than do modern women."
Little crimes here and there do not destroy society. Also, it is the women who raise these men. The women are the ones who are raising these rapist and murderers and thieves. When men were the head of the household and respected as an authority figure, that is when Crime rate was lower.
"Thank you for the insight you gave me in your understanding of the end times - if that's the correct term."
That wasn't the end times. That was after the end times.
"But, do you not think that this isn't where we are at just at the moment?"
Yes That is where we are at this moment because all what I described was under the NT. The NT is here an active His kingdom come, His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. His kingdom is already here because the Kigdom of heaven is within us and wherever two or more Christians gather, that is where Christ will be.
"I had thought that Jesus wanted, and would still want, his followers to live and behave as he described in Matthew chapters 5 and 6."
Oh we will because like He demanded in Chapters 5-7, but we Will also behave like he commanded, through his apostle Paul, in Romans 13. 
Andrea Wright to Randy Perez (1 August 2017)
Hello Randy,
Thank you that you were willing to share that.
Like you, I have a great respect for people that are willing to die for their beliefs.
In reaching out to you I’m trying to understand what it is that makes you feel and think the way that you do.
The scriptures that you mentioned help in that, together with your description of how it was that you came to Christ.
The comments that I made at the beginning of this discussion thread challenged some of the statements made in Theodore’s video.
For example. Theodore said "most people do not agree with homosexuality".
In the UK and the USA this statement is incorrect. It has nothing to do with demography. The statement is simply incorrect.
The video emphasises the idea of “remembering Lot’s wife” as though Jesus was using this statement as a way of suggesting that all women are like Lot’s wife and that Jesus was making some kind of a comment about women who sympathise with homosexuality. This isn’t at all what Jesus was saying. To use the story of Lot’s wife as a mechanism for tarnishing all women is to misrepresent what the story is about.
I also made the point that statistically men do more things that contribute to damaging society than do women. This isn’t just my opinion. This is true.
You categorised rape and violence against women as being “little crimes here and there.” Surely they are more than that?
Of men who are rapists, murderers and thieves you said “… it is the women who raise these men. The women are the ones who are raising these rapist and murderers and thieves. When men were the head of the household and respected as an authority figure, that is when Crime rate was lower.” I’m still trying to figure out your meaning. It seems that you are saying that if a man rapes a woman, the person really at fault is the rapists mother. If that’s what you’re saying then I believe that you are wrong. If you’re saying something else then please let me know.
When I mentioned that Jesus talked with sinners, you said “Theodore talked with people who were sinners”
Yet on the video Theodore says of his “sodomite” cousins “I have two cousins who are sodomites. And guess what? I don’t talk to them. … I refuse to speak to these people because they are perverts”. He also says “Sodomites should be put to death. I would take my two cousins and have them executed, yes. It wouldn’t bother me in the least bit. Firing squad, whatever. It doesn’t bother me.”
So, I’m not convinced that you’re right in suggesting that Theodore talks with sinners. At least not with people that he classes as being “sodomites”.
As you will know, there are people that disagree with the way in which you interpret some of the scriptures that you quote. We could discuss eschatology, but that wasn’t the purpose of my original comment in this discussion. I’m not saying that I’m unwilling to. So, if you’d like to then please say and we can talk about that.
Personally, I don’t think that there is an after-life or a lake of fire.
I know that what I think doesn’t affect what is true.
But also, what you think doesn’t affect the truth either. And, at the moment, there is no incontrovertible way of proving the truth of what the Bible says about these things. Even amongst people that say they believe what the Bible says, there is disagreement.
You mentioned that being sad doesn’t change anything. But actually, it does. It can have a powerful impact on changing people. I’m speaking from experience here.
Maybe what you meant was that “being sad doesn’t change the truth”. And I agree with that. But there isn’t a way of proving that your views are the truth.
I’m ok with a person that says “this is what the Bible says …” so long as the Bible actually says that. Even if I disagree with it and don’t believe it personally.
What I’m not ok with is when people think it’s ok to punish other people for simply being who they are, when the things that they do don’t hurt other people. Even if there is a passage in a book that gives the impression that it’s ok to do that.
So, Theodore’s views on this are, to me, way off the mark.
I think that the early Christians were people that were willing to die for their faith. I don’t think that they killed for their faith. So, it saddens me that, because of his faith, Theodore thinks that it is ok to have people killed. I also firmly believe that he is wrong.
The video is disturbing because it paints opinions (a person’s interpretation of the Bible) as being “the truth” and then says it is OK for people to be killed based on these opinions. It also misrepresents the meaning of Jesus’ warning about remembering “Lots wife” and makes statements that are factually incorrect. 
As at 7 August 2017 there has been no reply from Randy. 

Friday, 21 July 2017

Discussions on homophobia

Please see here for a description of why I’m recording these discussions.

The Article

The discussions took place in response to the article: “Only Homophobes Will Make It To Heaven And All Non-Homophobes Will End Up In Hell”.
The article was attributed to Walid Shoebat.

Discussion with PaulF

The text of the first discussion was originally recorded here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walidshoebat/only_homophobes_will_make_it_to_heaven_and_all_non_homophobes_will_end_up_in_hell/#comment-3421006308
The discussion was between myself Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/), and PaulF (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_xmVDERDvoP/) PaulF frequents the following other communities: https://disqus.com/home/forum/cherald/, https://disqus.com/home/forum/telegraphuk/, https://disqus.com/home/forum/spectator-new-www/ and https://disqus.com/home/forum/spectatorwww/
On 21 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article - (16 July 2017)
I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.
 
PaulF to Andrea Wright - (16 July 2017)
What God says in the Bible aren't my opinions. They are the truth.
Andrea Wright to PaulF - (17 July 2017)
Hello Paul,

Please could you explain why it is that you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

I ask this in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15
".. in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence".


Thank you.
PaulF  to Andrea Wright (18 July 2017)
Hello Andrea.'Faith is by hearing, and hearing is by the word of God' (Romans 10:17).That is exactly how I came to believe it. By hearing it; giving my attention to it.But my faith is not only my doing. It is the work of God in me. As Jesus says, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one whom he sent" (John 6:29).If you don't yet believe, my advice is, pray for the gift of faith. God is certainly willing to give it to you.
Andrea Wright to PaulF (18 July 2017)
Hello Paul,
Thank you for sharing that with me.
It makes sense to me that faith in something or someone can only come about by hearing about that thing or person. And I appreciate you taking the time you've given to answering my query.
I was wondering as well, though, if there was any particular aspect of what you hears or any experience that led you to believe in the truth of it?
I think I understand as well, that belief and faith could be something that God gives to people as He works in their lives,
However, in reading John 6, it seems that Jesus is saying that people do the work of God when they believe in the One that He sent, rather than the work of God is to give belief to people.
Of course that's not to say that God doesn't increase people's faith.
Anyway, apologies if I'm misinterpreting that.
I'd be interested in hearing if there were any specific things that led you to your faith.
Thank you for your patience.
As at 7 August 2017 there was no reply from PaulF.

Discussion with Trevor

The text of the second discussion was originally recorded here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walidshoebat/only_homophobes_will_make_it_to_heaven_and_all_non_homophobes_will_end_up_in_hell/#comment-3421656152
The discussion was between myself Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/), and Trevor (https://disqus.com/by/trevorsgreene/) who maintains a journal here: http://atrevorsjournal.blogspot.co.uk/ and writes from what he describes as a Catholic-Orthodox perspective. He poses his own question on his Disqus profile: Am I a Christian or not simply because I chose to become Anglo-Catholic?
On 21 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article -  (16 July 2017)
I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.
Trevor to Andrea Wright - (17 July 2017)
A man sticking his johnson in another man's butt ok with you?

A woman licking another woman's hoo-ha ok with you?

A man having his way with a horse ok?

A woman allowing a horse to penetrate her ok?

Say yes to any of the above and you are damned.
Andrea Wright  to Trevor - (17 July 2017)
Hi Trevor,

Thanks for that.

Is this what you believe the Bible says because you believe it to be the Word of God and the truth?

If so then I'd like to ask you the same thing that I asked Paul.

Please could you explain why it is that you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

Again, I ask this in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15
".. in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence".


Thank you
Andrea
Trevor to Andrea Wright - (18 July 2017)
You failed to answer the questions.
Andrea Wright to Trevor - (18 July 2017)
Hello Trevor,

First, my apologies, I'd misinterpreted your reply.

I had thought that the questions were rhetorical and had been asked in that way to indicate a list of beliefs that would lead to a person being damned.

I am, of course, happy to answer your questions with what I hope is gentleness and reverence.

Do I think it is OK for two men to love each other?

Well, it's not something for me personally, but I think it's better for people to love each other than to hate each other.

I think the way that you phrase the question is, perhaps, a little over-dramatic.

Love between two men needn't be all about "A man sticking his johnson in another man's butt". Just as marriage between a man and a woman isn't only about "A man sticking his johnson in a woman's hoo-ha". Both ought to be about love.

I think the same applies to love between two women. Not for me personally, but love is better than hate.

The sexual relationship thing with horses is illegal in the UK where I live, and I'm happy with it remaining illegal. So I'm not OK with that.

I'd be happy to provide more information on why I think this way if you're interested.

And as I said before, I'd be honestly interested if you're able to answer my questions.

Why do you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

Thanks again,

Andrea  
Trevor  Andrea Wright - (19 July 2017)
So you answered poorly. God's Words is crystal clear on who WILL NOT enter the kingdom of heaven and He leaves no room for personal interpretation over whom will not enter.

It is why sodomites and their allies reject the Orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures and created the blasphemous "Queen" James Bible in order to justify their continuing in sins. It is why Romans 1 declared without apology "God gave them up to their own lusts," and at the end of Romans 1, St. Paul, without blinking, declared those who approved of the sodomites lifestyle were also worthy of death.

That's why people of your ilk have done more damage to Christianity because you opt to use "pick and choose" of the Scriptures to justify continuing in sins instead of adhering to how the Scriptures were interpreted by the Church through the ages.  
Andrea Wright  Trevor - (19 July 2017)
Hi Trevor,

Thanks for your reply.

I notice that you didn't answer my two questions.

In reading 1 Peter 3:15 I think it's saying that Christians should be always prepared to explain why they believe what they believe.

And this is all that I'm asking.

Mentioning specific verses from Scripture helps me understand what you believe, but not why you believe it.

I'm not quite sure how I've done damage to Christianity since I don't claim to be a Christian, I'm just a person that's trying to reach out and find out why you believe what you believe.

I notice that towards the end of Romans 1 Paul includes people that "have no love, no mercy" in the list of the types of people that are in trouble.

Verse 32 says "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

To me this seems to be talking about people who not only do these things but also approve of others doing these things.

I checked it in several different translations and they all seem to say this.

It doesn't seem to say anything about people who do not actively condemn a certain lifestyle. It's about people who adopt that lifestyle and also approve of it in others.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.

Either way, it would help me if you would explain how and why it was that you came to Christ.

Also, do you believe that all Scripture should be understood literally without any room for interpretation - for example the account of creation in the book of Genesis.

Thanks again for your time.

Andrea.
Trevor to Andrea Wright - (19 July 2017)
Why should I answer you when you appear to be sympathetic toward fags?
Andrea Wright to Trevor - (19 July 2017)
Hi Trevor,

Thank you again for replying.

You asked why you should answer me.

Well, I've been looking at 1 Peter chapter 3 again. I've included verses 8 to 17 below so you can read it in context - it's taken from the New American Bible (Revised Edition), but reads pretty much the same in other translations.

In saying "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope" it does use the word "anyone" - it doesn't say "anyone except people that you think are sympathetic toward fags".

To use your phraseology, the meaning seems "crystal clear."

So really, if you were to answer me I'd see it as an act of obedience to the Scriptures that you believe to be the word of God.

Thank you,
Andrea


The passage in full (1 Peter 3: 8-17) reads as follows:

Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble. Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. For:

“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep the tongue from evil
and the lips from speaking deceit,
must turn from evil and do good,
seek peace and follow after it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears turned to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against evildoers.”


Now who is going to harm you if you are enthusiastic for what is good? But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.
 
Andrea Wright to Trevor - (21 July 2017) Pending
Hello again Trevor,
At the moment I'm assuming that you either don't have an answer to my questions or that you're not prepared to answer them because you believe that I appear to be "sympathetic towards fags."

If you don't have an answer then it leaves me saddened that you aren't able to explain what it is that led you to having the beliefs that you have and yet are so vocal in expounding them.
If you aren't prepared to answer me because you believe that I'm "sympathetic to fags" then I'm saddened because it seems that you choose to be disobedient to the very Scriptures that you hold to be absolutely true in all circumstances.
The other possibility is that you haven't had the time to answer but that you will do in due course. If this is the case then I apologise unreservedly for jumping to conclusions and await your response with interest and also humility.
Thank you again,
Andrea
As at 7 August 2017 there has been no reply from Trevor.