I think 1517 hit the nail on the head with his use of the term "gender bending." This is at the root of all this nancy-talk/up-talk/sissy-talk; the role-reversing, Satanic, gender-bending society of the end of the end times. Men being transformed into women, and women into men; if not physically, in spirit. Wives assuming the role of husbands (headship), and husbands submitting to wives; "bad girls"; effeminate men; homosexuality of both genders. And, "feminism" at the heart of it. Come quickly, my dear Lord Jesus Christ; come quickly.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: He has been a true gentleman in this discussion.
Gentlemen don't evade pertinent questions.
If you want to find mud to throw at secular society, there's plenty already available which is far more Scripturally defensible. Such as, for example, oath-breaking, a problem even within organized Christianity.
Neil, not sure why you keep giving 1517 a hard time. He has been a true gentleman in this discussion. Your points are well taken, but from the article:
"But now a team says that this way of speaking is becoming more frequent among men.
The findings were presented at the Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in California.
"We found use of uptalk in ALL OUR SPEAKERS, despite their diverse backgrounds in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, bilingualism and gender," said Amanda Ritchart, a linguist at the University of California who led the research.
"We believe that uptalk is becoming more prevalent and systematic in its use for the younger generations in Southern California," she added."
It doesn't say that this is they way NORMALLY speak, which is what you are talking about, it is saying they are adopting this style of talking (which is why they made a point about happening in such diverse groups), which is 1517's point. He is obviously objecting to people taking on the mannerism of the homosexual community and trying to make them the norm. I know you don't support that. But again your points are well taken, some people are just wired that way and it has nothing to do with their lifestyle choice.
And you refuse to answer my simple questions: Would you deny church membership to a funny-acting person (pick whatever adjective you like)? Very simple: Yes or No.
The rest of that intemperate rant is irrelevant or a Strawman of my position. Looks like you cannot or will not answer my request for a precise definition of demeanor, so you "demean" me instead, a standard tactic of the lost cause.
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
1517 wrote: Neil, .. It the manner of speech, the demeanor of the person as well as the sound that exudes effeminacy from a man with these qualities.
That's a quibble; just add "demeanor" to my question & it still stands. Would you exclude such a person from church or not? And just what is "effeminate demeanor?" Don't tell me it's "obvious to everyone"; make it explicit! If you cannot define it precisely, you do not really know what you're talking about.
BTW, Paul's "Rogue's Gallery" in 1 Cor. 6:9 is no help here since "effeminate" there [Strong's G3120] pertains to male prostitutes etc., very different from someone who acts eccentric. The person who posted it originally was cherry-picking from the lexicon.
In my opinion its not the fact that they are speaking in a effeminate voice that's sinful, but the condition of their heart that leads them to speak that way (being gay, and purposely trying to sound effeminate). Its one thing if a man naturally has a high pitched voice, but purposely speaking effeminate to try and sound gay is another.
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.
For those of you who insist on moral equivalence between Valley Girl "uptalk" & transvestism (Deut. 22:5) & male prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:9), I ask this: Would you refuse church membership to the 1st as well as the latter two? Should churches have a speech "litmus" test?
I'm assuming, of course, that no other objection to their character exists.
Some homosexuals are not obvious in that they don't have the same mannerisms as most do, Rock Hudson for one had a deep voice and so did his partner that was with him when he died. The world of homosexuals puzzle me, anyway. One of my cousin''s partners was a grandmother and another was married,had long hair and a son and looked much different than my cousin( who died at age 38). You could not tell her from a man. The husband divorced his wife and named my cousin as the reason.