cont... who points out effeminacy as sin will not allow a man with a lisp or dressed in a pink shirt with rolled up skinny Jeans into the chapel because "he ain't dress'd proper!" like some backward Fundie goon. Preposterous Neil.
You astound me with you implied, loaded questioning. Are you trying expose the straw man you have created of my posts? If a person is a sinner, no matter the flavor, and comes to my church to hear the word of God, he or she is obviously welcomed. Seriously, what an insulting question. ALL are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. ALL need to repent. An effeminate man to a drunkard, to any man alive. You seem, SEEM, to not believe in any notion or validity to the reality of effeminacy. You ABSOLUTELY interpret scripture evidence as referring to male prostitutes or a command against clothing ALONE. You continually dodge the reality that scripture is absolutely concerned with the inward, spiritual man and try redefine feminine behavior in men as an "eccentricity".You get in a huff, arrogantly demand explicit evidence while missing the forest from the trees. A man is to act like a man, be a man, and NOT a woman. It is self evident the characteristics of a man and woman. That is why God says to Job "Gird up your loins (or dress for action) LIKE A MAN" Scripture assumes, unlike our gender bending society, that ALL understand how a man should act and how a woman should act. This is beyond absurd how how you have created...wait for it....a false dilemma by implying someone who poi
Neil, It is not the sound, lisp, inflection alone that is the issue here, come on already. There is a reformed pastor that I listen to I'm the radio that has a high pitched, soft voice, but I certainly attribute effeminacy to him. It the manner of speech, the demeanor of the person as well as the sound that exudes effeminacy from a man with these qualities. A mere lisp does not disqualify a person, that's absurd. Similarly absurd is your assertion that we are making a moral equivalence between lisping and transvestism. It's called effeminacy, Neil, effeminacy, which someone pointed out in 1 Cor 6:9. If you do not accept the unequivocal statement in scripture, that is not the fault of a perceived opinion or surmising on our part, but your own misunderstanding or unwillingness to accept what it states.
Neil, the old testament is merely concerned with the physical and not the spiritual? The passover was a physical event, but a spiritual shadow of the Christ. The NT is the revelation of those shadows manifested in the person of Christ who clarified the OT. How the act of murder has an inward beginning. Likewise, effeminate behavior, speech, and demeanor points to an inward state. The "we should know" is in the scripture which is its own demonstration. We should know because it is commanded to know. Plus, I didn't say God is not concerned with appearance, but it is not for appearance sake alone. I disagree with not being concerned with the why because the why is implicit in the command. "So God is narrow minded, not seeing the Big picture as you do?" Rather immature Neil. I am sure you know the logical fallacy name for jumping to conclusions. Lastly, if a man acts and talks effeminate, he is effeminate. That, Neil, is an objective observation and not opening a subjective can of worms. I would suggest you contemplate the reality of Romans 12 as it relates to gifts. You are obviously gifted with an intellectual acumen, but I am gifted with the understanding of human nature. I appreciate your gift and, though you disagree with me, should appreciate the gifts of others. We are not a
Neil, I refer back to my original post, as Christians we should know that when men sound like a woman (not soft spoken) it is not a neutral phenomena, but an indicator of effeminacy. I could careless what the researchers conclude, I know the true nature of man. That is not a category fallacy because I am not held to worldly parameters which would make that assertion. Man, by nature, is blind to the truth, but that is overcome by grace, hence my original post. Further, your assertion that Deut 22:5 speaks only to clothing is rather silly hermeneutic. Seriously, God is merely concerned with the OUTWARD APPEARANCE and nothing else? You accuse me of induction while you isolate a verse to an opposition to clothing and not recognize the WHY a man would even contemplate wearing women's clothing in the first place. The word of God backs that assumption up. Much like the Ten Commandments include the positive and negative. Jesus makes that clear in the Gospels. Simply, an effeminate sounding man doesn't merely sound effeminate, but will manifest his effeminacy in his demeanor, regardless if researchers recognize it as such.
Neil, When I say we I am assuming you know the difference between a man and woman and know that "valley girl" is referencing NOT a sound, but a manner of speaking. Scripture doesn't exhaustively explain the intricacies of creation or all minute attributes of gender, but it is inferred or assumed. This article does highlight the murkiness that gender Benders have created in our culture, so much so that tolerance for effeminacy has crept into the visible church. My demonstration is provided by you willful denial or minimization of the scriptural evidence. Deut 22:5 assumes the man dressing up as a woman is acting (demeanor and talk) like a woman. The object of the verse is not the material clothes, but the internal state of the mind and soul. Likewise, in Romans 1, Paul does not exclude the effeminate, passive homosexual when he was referring to those who burned with passion for one another(speaking of men). The act of homosexuality isn't a static act that is divorced from an effeminate, reprobate mind and demeanor. Feminine speech is a conclusive indicator of an effeminate spirit, regardless if the man performs a homosexual act.
Neil, Certainly not on trial, but this is a discussion forum. You can't expect to pass a judgment with impunity. it is clear in scripture that mrn are to not only dress like men but act like men. God tells Job that, is clearly proclaimed by Paul and we all know by nature the differences between men and women. This article is representative of the murkiness created by the gender Benders, hence why it is on a Christian website to highlight the growing degeneracy of our culture. The dots shouldn't have to be connected for you Neil, that was my original point on my first post.
Neil, Deut 22:5. Make the inference. I do not make any illogical conclusions, anecdotal empirical evidence, and am not some worked up Fundie. It is quite embarrassing for an articulate brother in Christ to use his obvious firm grip of language to box another brother in with the very judgment he accuses his brother of committing. Your pointing out a perceived inclination on my part to accept a scientists position over your trust in God is neither true or illogical. Calling someone a Fundie and accuse them of foolish speculation reveals your arrogance and unwillingness, at least in this dialogue, to measure yourself by the very scripture revealed by God in whom you profess to trust.
Neil, Thinly veiled arrogance hidden behind a profession if faith while creating a strawman case against my posts is equally judgmental. Plus, your final statement implies that I do not trust God, but scientists. There are sins of commission and omission. You may point out that hasty generalization is a sin, but so is blunting the edges of truth as it relates to subject at hand. Tolerance of sin is equally forbidden as rash judgment.
Neil, Come on now, why do you feel compelled to split hairs on such an obvious subject? The article mentioned "Valley Girl" dialect, which goes beyond the mere sound of speech. Unless you do not get out much or watch TV, it should "noonday sun" clear that men young boys and men are overtly effeminate that is reflective in the manner in which they speak. Besides, there's a big difference between opinion and observation. Can some men speak softly and not be effeminate, certainly, but that is not what is being presented here in this article. It presents inflection and dialect with an emphasis on the effeminacy of it.
Neil, Surely an astute Christian man as yourself would recognize the obvious willful "gender confusion" of the Western world. Likewise, Scripture is clear on men acting as men and not women, even down to the appearance. Judgment of fruit is quite biblical and needs be taking place. The article clearly identifies the articulation as being "feminine" which is queer for a man to do.
The researchers said that do not know where this is coming from. It is the effeminate saturation of our culture. Boys want to be girls and men want to dress like women. This is a first world phenomena; in the entire history of the world there has not been the lack of danger or threat of war as it had been since WWII. The West, which would include Australia historically, has become soft and effeminate. Men don't gather food, build their own or defend their land anymore. I'm not calling for war or Amish living, but let's be honest on this forum people.
GsTexas wrote: Why doesn't he just come right out and say it: Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, and that sodomites need to repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.
That is right GS, He has been given a platform to speak the truth, in love, and give a reason for the hope that is in him. Some may think that "in love" means using ambiguous wording, like Warren does, to soften the blow of reality. Homosexuality is certainly not the only sin we are to denounce and abhor, but it is the battle of our generation and should not be given a foot hold in our conversation and witness. There is a way to present, to share without being hypocritical or pharisaical, but we must stand against homosexuality, heresy, abortion, gluttony, and every vice that is rampant in our society by presenting the truth, with grace, without equivocation to the watching world.
"If you like your health insurance, you can keep your insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period." Bold face lie perpetuated by Obama and cronies because they knew they needed the young to work as the ACA beasts of burden. Except for 5 states the supposed "Affordable" act will increase premiums for plans, some by 200% or more. In my state, on average...82% for men. Anyone making $80k or less will be pushed into Medicaid of which will, and has, pushed doctors out of practice because the ACA will force them to accept Medicaid patients. This is the biggest snake oil, huckster villainy ever to be perpetrated on the this country by the government. It will not get better, it get worse. It is nothing but a redistribution of wealth to expedite the Progressive power grab. So, stay on your parents plan as a grown child mooch and enjoy that "facit" of the ACA. BTW, your doctors appt. will be in 6 weeks.
Keynesian "we'll be dead" spendthrift mentality is crushing the economy. The fruit of the "cradle to grave, chicken in every out" nonsense is coming to bear. The Nanny state experiment has run out of other people's milk to give those who did not work or earn it. Hello Greece!
Barry, Certainly agree with your thoughts on faith and what it DOES not hinge on, but I was asking how he reconciles two very antithetical worldviews ( Christianity and worldly Democrat/Liberal worldview). Just having a discussion, not discrediting someone's faith.