Discussion:
Obama to be prayer day no-show
(too old to reply)
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-08 01:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Yes, I know this is a theological forum and not a political one, but I
feel there is a relationship here.

It has become obvious to me that Obama's attendence of Rev Wright's
large black church in so. Chicago had little, if anything, to do with
worship. It had to do with political expediency. Honest, if one is
truly an evangelical Christian (Wright's church of the Protestant
persuasion and though not strictly Evangelical, it operates off
evangelical presuppositions) would he not emphasize prayer and
accentuate God's sovereign rule over the nations? This is Daniel's
great prayer (2:20ff). Paul taught that government was to be the hand
of God (and thus held to a higher accountability).

I know this comes across as verging on the fanatic, but does not this
presidency illustrate the biblical picture of how easily the actual
Antichrist will persuade and ultimately dupe the masses? I'm not
saying Obama is the Antichrist. However, it seems to me that he
illustrates that spirit. His entire cabinet is populated with pro-
choice abortionist exclusively, many of whom openly accept
homosexuality as a viable partnership. He is the most subtle
manipulative that I have witnessed since coming to political
awareness. And if these things are so, does that not reflect the fact
that God has "given us over" in Rom 1 fashion?

just my observance of the political realm from a biblical prospective.
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
2009-05-13 02:31:30 UTC
Permalink
On May 7, 8:44 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> Yes, I know this is a theological forum and not a political one, but I
> feel there is a relationship here.
>
> It has become obvious to me that Obama's attendence of Rev Wright's
> large black church in so. Chicago had little, if anything, to do with
> worship. It had to do with political expediency. Honest, if one is
> truly an evangelical Christian (Wright's church of the Protestant
> persuasion and though not strictly Evangelical, it operates off
> evangelical presuppositions) would he not emphasize prayer and
> accentuate God's sovereign rule over the nations? This is Daniel's
> great prayer (2:20ff). Paul taught that government was to be the hand
> of God (and thus held to a higher accountability).
>
> I know this comes across as verging on the fanatic, but does not this
> presidency illustrate the biblical picture of how easily the actual
> Antichrist will persuade and ultimately dupe the masses? I'm not
> saying Obama is the Antichrist. However, it seems to me that he
> illustrates that spirit. His entire cabinet is populated with pro-
> choice abortionist exclusively, many of whom openly accept
> homosexuality as a viable partnership. He is the most subtle
> manipulative that I have witnessed since coming to political
> awareness. And if these things are so, does that not reflect the fact
> that God has "given us over" in Rom 1 fashion?
>
> just my observance of the political realm from a biblical prospective.


Maybe congress should also pass a hate day, and we can all get
together and hate homosexuals and females who have abortions.
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-14 02:25:11 UTC
Permalink
On May 12, 9:31=A0pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina
triungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe congress should also pass a hate day, and we can all get
> together and hate homosexuals and females who have abortions.
>
Is it hate to want God's will for the society of men? Like Dives, or
the Rich Man in Luke 16, there are some who are going to wake up
to reality after it's too late to do anything about it. God has not
been
vague about these things.
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
2009-05-15 02:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On May 13, 9:25 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 12, 9:31=A0pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolinatriungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe congress should also pass a hate day, and we can all get
> > together and hate homosexuals and females who have abortions.
>
> Is it hate to want God's will for the society of men? Like Dives, or
> the Rich Man in Luke 16, there are some who are going to wake up
> to reality after it's too late to do anything about it. God has not
> been
> vague about these things.


Some parts of scripture condemn those who commit homosexual acts.
Because of this there are a few Christians who think they should speak
out against homosexuals. Scripture does not condemn a homosexual who
has not committed a homosexual act. I suggest that unless those
Christians know for sure that a person has committed such acts, they
should not condemn that person for committing such acts. There are a
lot of weird people in this world who rant and rave against
homosexuals, yet they have no proof that a particular homosexual has
committed a homosexual act.

I do not see any where in scripture that says it is a sin to be a
homosexual, to say that one is a homosexual, or for two people of the
same sex to live together.

So I suggest that even if one thinks that homosexual acts are sinful,
the condemnation should only come from one who witnessed the act. One
with a brain should save their hate for the act they witness or have
prove took place. Hate should not be based on speculation.
Chico
2009-05-18 04:30:50 UTC
Permalink
"George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus" <***@bayou.com>
wrote in message news:FE4Pl.1149$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On May 13, 9:25 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 12, 9:31=A0pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene
>> carolinatriungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe congress should also pass a hate day, and we can all get
>> > together and hate homosexuals and females who have abortions.
>>
>> Is it hate to want God's will for the society of men? Like Dives, or
>> the Rich Man in Luke 16, there are some who are going to wake up
>> to reality after it's too late to do anything about it. God has not
>> been
>> vague about these things.
>
>
> Some parts of scripture condemn those who commit homosexual acts.
> Because of this there are a few Christians who think they should speak
> out against homosexuals. Scripture does not condemn a homosexual who
> has not committed a homosexual act. I suggest that unless those
> Christians know for sure that a person has committed such acts, they
> should not condemn that person for committing such acts.

This is a nuance that most self-righteous Christians will not understand.



--448C83412ED.1242617503/Main.local--
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-18 04:30:50 UTC
Permalink
On May 14, 9:42=A0pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina
triungus <***@bayou.com> wrote:
>
> I do not see any where in scripture that says it is a sin to be a
> homosexual, to say that one is a homosexual, or for two people of the
> same sex to live together.
>
I also do not see anywhere in scripture that it is a sin to look at
porno on
the internet but there are certainly enough defined principles that we
can easily discern that it is a rebellion against God's revealed will.

Your argument attempts to dismiss by overstatement.

> So I suggest that even if one thinks that homosexual acts are sinful,
> the condemnation should only come from one who witnessed the act.

Who is condemning? Who are you writing against? Me I suppose
but you conclusions are wrongly based. Over the years, most who
come on SRC in support for either homosexuality or transgenderism,
do so with the mind of supporting the practice thereof. You have
no justification for accusing me of judging, let alone condemning
the one who's sexual inclination is either one of these. But the
history of our discussions here have not been mere inclination but
rather practice without guilt. Neither of these are biblically
acceptable
practices. Even beyond that, the inclination to such is understood to
be depraved, a bent of the old nature which is to be warred against.
>
>=A0One
> with a brain should save their hate for the act they witness or have
> prove took place. Hate should not be based on speculation.
>
The act is merely the effect. It is the cause that must be addressed
and dealt with. If you knew someone had a strong murderous
inclination,
would you remain passive until the "act" had been performed?

--4916534147D.1242617535/Main.local--
sillyputty
2009-05-21 02:06:27 UTC
Permalink
On May 17, 9:30=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

> Who is condemning? =A0Who are you writing against? =A0Me I suppose
> but you conclusions are wrongly based. =A0Over the years, most who
> come on SRC in support for either homosexuality or transgenderism,
> do so with the mind of supporting the practice thereof. =A0You have
> no justification for accusing me of judging, let alone condemning
> the one who's sexual inclination is either one of these.
Being TG/TS is not a sexual 'inclination;' it's a medical condition
that most likely happens in the womb where there's a mix-up of fetal
hormone balance at critical stages of fetal development. It's a gender
issue, not sexuality. Just like homosexuality, being transgender is
not a choice.

To attempt to 'change' or 'cure' someone whose GLBT would be like
trying to cure left-handedness.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net
news
2009-05-22 01:48:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 May 2009, sillyputty wrote:

>
> To attempt to 'change' or 'cure' someone whose GLBT would be like
> trying to cure left-handedness.
>


B - exactly! and left handedness also was considered "sinister" hence the
term "sinistral hand" and thought to be a devil trait...because simply..it
was more rare than the usual. People fear what they don't understand. Fear
is borne of ego and needs to be cast out by perfect love.

I.M.O
Bren
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-26 00:43:29 UTC
Permalink
On May 20, 9:06=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> Being TG/TS is not a sexual 'inclination;' it's a medical condition
>
Give me, give us all a break! I suppose you want to bring up this
old "gene" theory. I suppose that adultery is a medical condition
as well. This is the old sin excuse looking for an avenue to place
the blame on anything other than self.
>
> that most likely happens in the womb where there's a mix-up of fetal
> hormone balance at critical stages of fetal development. It's a gender
> issue, not sexuality. Just like homosexuality, being transgender is
> not a choice.
>
Of course it's not a choice. It's an inclination. A sinful
inclination
even as adulterous eyes are. Choice only enters in once an individual
has a true conversion experience. Only then is choice a capacity:
to chose to live according to the flesh or according to the Spirit.
There is no third option. It's really not that difficult to
adjudicate
from biblical principles. The issue isn't whether or not I have a
sinful inclination, whatever that maybe, it's whether or not give in
to it. The unbeliever has no choice. He will always satisfy self.
The believer on the other hand, experiences to one degree or another,
the Pauline experience of Rom 7. Truthfully and historically, this
chapter expresses not a new believers experience but rather a
mature believer. The irony is, the more mature one becomes in
his/her faith, the less he/she sins but the more egregious those
sins become. The regenerate doesn't become less conscious
of sin and guilt as they walk a holier life, but more conscious of
it's stain on everything. You apparently have not experienced
this level of the Christian walk yet.

It is not our abilities which prove what we really are,
it is our choices. [Lord Dumbeldor, Harry Potter]

Stop this whyyyyyyyyyyy'n about having a TG inclination.
Everyone has their cross to bear. "Either get busy live'n
or get busy die'n." (Shawshank Redemption)
> To attempt to 'change' or 'cure' someone whose GLBT would be like
> trying to cure left-handedness.
>
> Tara's Transgender Resourceshttp://tarasresources.net
G***@aol.com
2009-05-27 03:20:12 UTC
Permalink
On May 25, 7:43=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 20, 9:06=3DA0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> > Being TG/TS is not a sexual 'inclination;' it's a medical condition
>
> Give me, give us all a break! =A0I suppose you want to bring up this
> old "gene" theory. =A0I suppose that adultery is a medical condition
> as well. =A0This is the old sin excuse looking for an avenue to place
> the blame on anything other than self.
>
> > that most likely happens in the womb where there's a mix-up of fetal
> > hormone balance at critical stages of fetal development. It's a gender
> > issue, not sexuality. Just like homosexuality, being transgender is
> > not a choice.
>
> Of course it's not a choice. =A0It's an inclination. =A0

Is being heterosexual a choice, inclination, neither or both?

Is it the same for everybody, or for some a choice and for others not
a choice?
news
2009-05-28 01:11:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 May 2009 ***@aol.com wrote:

>
> Is being heterosexual a choice, inclination, neither or both?
>
> Is it the same for everybody, or for some a choice and for others not
> a choice?
>

B - is my being left handed a choice? No. This is what I am. I could try
and write with my right hand but I would not be me..nor living at my best.
In the old days people called such people evil...or that they were
courting evil after all it talks about the sheep being on the right side
in the Bible. After a long while people finally got it through their
skulls that this is just a rare thing, not a bad thing and most took the
"sin" out of sinistral.
May it happen so with homosexuality. I couldn't be gay if I tried...and
no one could change me....so why do some think it can be done the other
way around? best you will have is a person who lives half a life never
having a true full sexual relationship and will be married off to a person
that they can never feel really sexual towards,maybe having children and
then coming out again when they are old and through with the crap of
caring what the neighbours think.

God loves us all and could not care less about who we have sex with as
long as we are safe and loved and loving towards another... In MY opinion
of what I believe is God speaking to me.

Blessings of the creator,
Bren.
G***@aol.com
2009-05-29 01:07:15 UTC
Permalink
On May 27, 8:11=A0pm, news <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 ***@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is being heterosexual a choice, inclination, neither or both?
>
> > Is it the same for everybody, or for some a choice and for others not
> > a choice?
>
> B - is my being left handed a choice? No. This is what I am. I could try
> and write with my right hand but I would not be me..nor living at my best=
.
> In the old days people called such people evil...or that they were
> courting evil after all it talks about the sheep being on the right side
> in the Bible. After a long while people finally got it through their
> skulls that this is just a rare thing, not a bad thing and most took the
> "sin" out of sinistral.
> May it happen so with homosexuality. I couldn't be gay if I tried...and
> no one could change me....so why do some think it can be done the other
> way around? best you will have is a person who lives half a life never
> having a true full sexual relationship and will be married off to a perso=
n
> that they can never feel really sexual towards,maybe having children and
> then coming out again when they are old and through with the crap of
> caring what the neighbours think.
>
> God loves us all and could not care less about who we have sex with as
> long as we are safe and loved and loving towards another... In MY opinion
> of what I believe is God speaking to me.
>
> Blessings of the creator,
> Bren.

I did not ask about homosexuals but rather I asked about
heterosexuals.
news
2009-06-03 03:11:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2009 ***@aol.com wrote:

> On May 27, 8:11=A0pm, news <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 May 2009 ***@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Is being heterosexual a choice, inclination, neither or both?
> >
> > > Is it the same for everybody, or for some a choice and for others not
> > > a choice?
> >
> > B - is my being left handed a choice? No. This is what I am. I could try
> > and write with my right hand but I would not be me..nor living at my best=
> .


> I did not ask about homosexuals but rather I asked about
> heterosexuals.


B - and? I was answering to those against homosexuals.

Bren
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-28 01:11:37 UTC
Permalink
On May 26, 10:20=A0pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
> On May 25, 7:43=3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 9:06=3D3DA0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> > > Being TG/TS is not a sexual 'inclination;' it's a medical condition
>
> > Give me, give us all a break! =3DA0I suppose you want to bring up this
> > old "gene" theory. =3DA0I suppose that adultery is a medical condition
> > as well. =3DA0This is the old sin excuse looking for an avenue to place
> > the blame on anything other than self.
>
> > > that most likely happens in the womb where there's a mix-up of fetal
> > > hormone balance at critical stages of fetal development. It's a gende=
r
> > > issue, not sexuality. Just like homosexuality, being transgender is
> > > not a choice.
>
> > Of course it's not a choice. =3DA0It's an inclination. =3DA0
>
> Is being heterosexual a choice, inclination, neither or both?
>
> Is it the same for everybody, or for some a choice and for others not
> a choice?
>
You've missed the logic of the argument, the dynamic
of the design. Self edification is man's sole inclination
apart from the glorious grace of God whereby He
regenerates us unto faith.

Heterosexuality is God's design. It's not an inclination
as it is self validating. Homosexuality and the like
reveal the depravity of man due to the fall. Is this not
part of the Pauline argument in Romans? Men do not
seek to honor God, but to only to glorify self. And if
Mother Teresa was not born from above, then all that
work was, in truth, no as selfless as we think. It was
only to seek merit, self being the end of all things.

The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.

Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
cravings of self. And what is Paul's teaching in
Romans about the regenerate? It is that though
he has been regenerated spiritual, he yet carries
about within himself, that old man, the flesh and
all its carnal cravings. What Christian has not
cried right along with Paul, "O wretched man that
I am."
G***@aol.com
2009-06-03 03:11:57 UTC
Permalink
On May 27, 8:11=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
> lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
> to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.
>
> Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
> you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
> cravings of self. =A0And what is Paul's teaching in
> Romans about the regenerate? =A0It is that though
> he has been regenerated spiritual, he yet carries
> about within himself, that old man, the flesh and
> all its carnal cravings. =A0What Christian has not
> cried right along with Paul, "O wretched man that
> I am."

If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
doing homosexual acts?
news
2009-06-04 02:42:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 ***@aol.com wrote:

>
> If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
> doing homosexual acts?

B - and animals are one of the purest of Gods creations in my beliefs. I
personally think we make the physical more important than the spirit which
is why so many human beings have a problem with homosexuality. If people
could get out of their bodies for once...they'd see that the act is not
important but the energy behind it is. Any adults coming together in love
or joyous sacred lust within responsibility (vis a vis condoms and
caringness)
is an act of joy and pleasure which is a sacred thing that the creator
gives us....it is far more spiritual first, mechanical and material
second.

I.M.O
Bren
l***@hotmail.com
2009-06-04 02:42:51 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 10:11=A0pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
> On May 27, 8:11=3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
> > lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
> > to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.
>
> > Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
> > you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
> > cravings of self. =3DA0And what is Paul's teaching in
> > Romans about the regenerate? =3DA0It is that though
> > he has been regenerated spiritual, he yet carries
> > about within himself, that old man, the flesh and
> > all its carnal cravings. =3DA0What Christian has not
> > cried right along with Paul, "O wretched man that
> > I am."
>
> If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
> doing homosexual acts?
>
Rom 8 Even the natural world suffers the effects
of the fall. But more succinct, animals are not
per se homosexual. That is because animals are
not moral beings. This is the NT condemnation of
those who have lost all moral conscience, they are
animals. Look at both 2 Pet 2 and Jude.
G***@aol.com
2009-06-09 03:14:15 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 9:42=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:11=3DA0pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 8:11=3D3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
> > > lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
> > > to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.
>
> > > Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
> > > you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
> > > cravings of self. =3D3DA0And what is Paul's teaching in
> > > Romans about the regenerate? =3D3DA0It is that though
> > > he has been regenerated spiritual, he yet carries
> > > about within himself, that old man, the flesh and
> > > all its carnal cravings. =3D3DA0What Christian has not
> > > cried right along with Paul, "O wretched man that
> > > I am."
>
> > If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
> > doing homosexual acts?
>
> Rom 8 =A0 Even the =A0natural world suffers the effects
> of the fall. =A0But more succinct, animals are not
> per se homosexual. =A0That is because animals are
> not moral beings. =A0This is the NT condemnation of
> those who have lost all moral conscience, they are
> animals. =A0Look at both 2 Pet 2 and Jude.

You state that animals are not per se homosexual. In your opinion, are
humans per se homosexual?

Of course humans are animals. But, in this part of this discussion,
we can ignore that fact.
G***@aol.com
2009-06-09 03:14:16 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 9:42=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:11=3DA0pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 8:11=3D3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
> > > lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
> > > to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.
>
> > > Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
> > > you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
> > > cravings of self. =3D3DA0And what is Paul's teaching in
> > > Romans about the regenerate? =3D3DA0It is that though
> > > he has been regenerated spiritual, he yet carries
> > > about within himself, that old man, the flesh and
> > > all its carnal cravings. =3D3DA0What Christian has not
> > > cried right along with Paul, "O wretched man that
> > > I am."
>
> > If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
> > doing homosexual acts?
>
> Rom 8 =A0 Even the =A0natural world suffers the effects
> of the fall. =A0But more succinct, animals are not
> per se homosexual. =A0That is because animals are
> not moral beings. =A0This is the NT condemnation of
> those who have lost all moral conscience, they are
> animals. =A0Look at both 2 Pet 2 and Jude.

Some animals are homosexual!
See:

www.cfa.arizona.edu/herp/psedo_copulation.pdf

and

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3D2394198
news
2009-06-10 00:35:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 ***@aol.com wrote:

> On Jun 3, 9:42=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 10:11=3DA0pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > On May 27, 8:11=3D3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
> > > > lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
> > > > to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.
> >
> > > > Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
> > > > you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
> > > > cravings of self.


B - actually heterosexuality is also about satisfying the cravings of self
as well. To me there is no difference except that there are same sexes
involved. Adultery,murder,rape is never about considering another person's
feelings but the rest "homosexuality, Transgenderism," is about being ones
true self which is being honest to others which is in my opinion very
godly and sacred. I find it weird and insulting when people connect loving
another unrelated adult and becoming themselves with adultery,rape and
murder. I find that kind of thinking disgusting and anti-Christ.

In my opinion of what I believe is God speaking to me,
Bren
l***@hotmail.com
2009-06-11 02:33:24 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 9, 7:35=A0pm, news <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> B - actually heterosexuality is also about satisfying the cravings of sel=
f
> as well.
>
But it is legitimize by God if it is between a husband
and a wife. Outside of that moral parameter, in all
cases it is sin. No one is here making a case of
fornication, adultery or other sensual lusts/cravings,
such as greed of things and money to gain them.

Study 2 Pet & Jude.
>
> To me there is no difference except that there are same sexes
> involved.
>
Except that God reveals His anger against immoral
cravings of the flesh with a special note on bestiality
and homosexuality. Rationalizations don't come into
play here because the Word of God revealed to us
is plain is its moral code.
G***@aol.com
2009-06-09 03:14:16 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 9:42=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:11=3DA0pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 8:11=3D3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
> > > lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
> > > to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.
>
> > > Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
> > > you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
> > > cravings of self. =3D3DA0And what is Paul's teaching in
> > > Romans about the regenerate? =3D3DA0It is that though
> > > he has been regenerated spiritual, he yet carries
> > > about within himself, that old man, the flesh and
> > > all its carnal cravings. =3D3DA0What Christian has not
> > > cried right along with Paul, "O wretched man that
> > > I am."
>
> > If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
> > doing homosexual acts?
>
> Rom 8 =A0 Even the =A0natural world suffers the effects
> of the fall. =A0But more succinct, animals are not
> per se homosexual. =A0That is because animals are
> not moral beings. =A0This is the NT condemnation of
> those who have lost all moral conscience, they are
> animals. =A0Look at both 2 Pet 2 and Jude.

There are many homosexual animals!
For details: Google the two articles listed below

Gay penguin pair raising chick

and

Gay animals out of the closet?
l***@hotmail.com
2009-06-04 02:42:52 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 10:11=A0pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
> On May 27, 8:11=3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The whole teaching of Rom 1-3:20 is that man is
> > lost, dead, incapable and undesiring, i.e uninclined
> > to seek after God's glory from a pure selflessness.
>
> > Adultery, homosexuality, TGism, murder, rape, etc.
> > you fill in the blank, all are about satisfying the
> > cravings of self. =3DA0And what is Paul's teaching in
> > Romans about the regenerate? =3DA0It is that though
> > he has been regenerated spiritual, he yet carries
> > about within himself, that old man, the flesh and
> > all its carnal cravings. =3DA0What Christian has not
> > cried right along with Paul, "O wretched man that
> > I am."
>
> If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
> doing homosexual acts?
>
Let me add this brief note on Rom 1. By application,
what Paul wrote now defines the US a nation abandoned
by God. If you are old enough, it is not hard to see the
progression in America which Paul outlines in Rom 1:24,
26,28. Homosexuality among men began to come out
of the closet in the mid to late 60's. In the early 70's
I did volunteer work with my nana in a hospital ward
where homosexual men were dying of this strange,new
disease, later called AIDs. Then, as Paul's description
elucidates, lesbianism started to come to fore in the
late 70's early 80's, to where today, to see women
couples hardly raises the common eyebrow. Though
not a majority, there are a high number of lesbians
working in the factory I am currently employed.

And thirdly, which brings us back to the title of this
thread, common sense, godly wisdom, statesmen
instead of politicians, have all become a thing of the
past. The last 3 or 4 places of employment have
really opened my eyes compared to the international
university ran laboratory I use to work at. Manage-
ment has no common sense. And labor has no
work ethic. Is it any wonder that America as an
economic power has seen its best days and now is
merely living on life support.

God turned self-reliant America over to its degrading
passions and as time went on, to depraved minds
that have lost all sense of wisdom. Homosexuality
is a pass=E9 earmark. Abandoned by God. And if
America, a nation founded on Christian principles,
is abandoned by God because it has long since
abandoned Him, then what does that say for the
rest of the world. Europe left God decades ago.
The East is even further removed. Can it be long
before, as in Lot's case, the Church is taken out
of the world before it suffers the wrath of God for
its own unrighteousness? I think not.
news
2009-06-04 02:42:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 ***@aol.com wrote:

>
> If homosexuality is caused by the fall, why do we find other animals
> doing homosexual acts?

B - and animals are one of the purest of Gods creations in my beliefs. I
personally think we make the physical more important than the spirit which
is why so many human beings have a problem with homosexuality. If people
could get out of their bodies for once...they'd see that the act is not
important but the energy behind it is. Any adults coming together in love
or joyous sacred lust within responsibility (vis a vis condoms and
caringness)
is an act of joy and pleasure which is a sacred thing that the creator
gives us....it is far more spiritual first, mechanical and material
second.

I.M.O
Bren
sillyputty
2009-05-28 01:11:37 UTC
Permalink
On May 25, 5:43=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 20, 9:06=3DA0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> > Being TG/TS is not a sexual 'inclination;' it's a medical condition
>
> Give me, give us all a break! =A0I suppose you want to bring up this
> old "gene" theory.
Genes may play a part. Also the fetal hormonal mix-up=A0previously
advanced may also be a cause. We do know that portions of the brains
of male-to-female transsexuals have female structures (source upon
request). This is documented scientific evidence - not some mumbo-
jumbo religious belief. Try contacting a few surgeons who perform SRS
instead of relying on questionable religious jargon.

> I suppose that adultery is a medical condition
> as well. =A0This is the old sin excuse looking for an avenue to place
> the blame on anything other than self.

This is the old excuse of lumping transsexuality in with negative
traits such as alcoholism and pedophilia. The letter are destructive;
the former isn't.

> Of course it's not a choice. =A0It's an inclination. =A0A sinful
> inclination even as adulterous eyes are.

Semantics. It's neither a choice nor an inclination, but a medical,
biological condition as I said. Oh, I read your Bible quotes - not one
directly addresses transsexuality. I suggest reading the medical and
scientific evidence before making judgments.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-26 00:43:29 UTC
Permalink
On May 20, 9:06=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> To attempt to 'change' or 'cure' someone whose GLBT would be like
> trying to cure left-handedness.
>
can a leopard change it's spots?
can a rotten tree produce good fruit?

Call it what it is -sin. Then get on in your walk to live
after Christ, forsaking self, forsaking the old man and
its depravity but be transfigured by the renewing of
your mind by learning and memorizing and making
Scripture a part of your life. Feed the Spirit not the
flesh.

And have mercy on some who are doubting,
save others, snatching them out of the fire;
and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the
garment polluted by the flesh. [Jude 22-23]

Confused
Convinced
Committed

Judging by your advocating posts over all this
while, you are characterized by the last of these
three apostate followers. You are committed to
your TGism to the point of Rom 1:32. Jude,
unlike Paul, does not call the assembly to
excommunicate as in 1 Cor 5:11; Tit 3:10-11;
2 Cor 11:3; Gal 1:8-9. Even John in 2 Jn 8-22
and Christ in Mt 18:17. But there is another
side of Paul as in Rom 16:17; 2 Cor 5:11.

So I encourage you to suck it up! So what if
you have this TG inclination? The issue is not
that you have a sin nature, a fallen inclination.
The issue is, who is Lord in your life? Your
sinful inclination or Jesus Christ? Your advocacy
of TGism and defense of homosexuality presently
leaves the readers little doubt that it is not the
latter. I have a sinful inclination just like everyone
else but you don't see me or others here advocating
their broadway unto death. But the apostates
can't help themselves. 2 Pet 2:12ff
Jani
2009-06-03 03:11:57 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RWGSl.562$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On May 20, 9:06=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>>
>> To attempt to 'change' or 'cure' someone whose GLBT would be like
>> trying to cure left-handedness.
>>
> can a leopard change it's spots?
> can a rotten tree produce good fruit?
>
> Call it what it is -sin. Then get on in your walk to live
> after Christ, forsaking self, forsaking the old man and
> its depravity but be transfigured by the renewing of
> your mind by learning and memorizing and making
> Scripture a part of your life. Feed the Spirit not the
> flesh.
>
> And have mercy on some who are doubting,
> save others, snatching them out of the fire;
> and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the
> garment polluted by the flesh. [Jude 22-23]
>
> Confused
> Convinced
> Committed
>
> Judging by your advocating posts over all this
> while, you are characterized by the last of these
> three apostate followers. You are committed to
> your TGism to the point of Rom 1:32. Jude,
> unlike Paul, does not call the assembly to
> excommunicate as in 1 Cor 5:11; Tit 3:10-11;
> 2 Cor 11:3; Gal 1:8-9. Even John in 2 Jn 8-22
> and Christ in Mt 18:17. But there is another
> side of Paul as in Rom 16:17; 2 Cor 5:11.
>
> So I encourage you to suck it up! So what if
> you have this TG inclination? The issue is not
> that you have a sin nature, a fallen inclination.
> The issue is, who is Lord in your life? Your
> sinful inclination or Jesus Christ? Your advocacy
> of TGism and defense of homosexuality presently
> leaves the readers little doubt that it is not the
> latter. I have a sinful inclination just like everyone
> else but you don't see me or others here advocating
> their broadway unto death. But the apostates
> can't help themselves. 2 Pet 2:12ff


Transgender is not an 'ism' or an 'inclination'. I assume from your posts
that you're male - how would you react if your physical body was female, and
you were expected to behave, in all respects, as female? Would you 'suck it
up' and spend your life as a woman? Or would you expect people to treat you
as what you *are*, rather than what they see? How would you go about getting
them to do that?

Jani
l***@hotmail.com
2009-06-04 02:42:51 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 10:11=A0pm, Jani <***@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:

> Transgender is not an 'ism' or an 'inclination'. I assume from your
> posts that you're male - how would you react if your physical body
> was female, = and you were expected to behave, in all respects, as
> female? Would you 'suck = it up' and spend your life as a woman? Or
> would you expect people to treat y= ou as what you *are*, rather
> than what they see? How would you go about gett= ing them to do
> that?

I would do as I now do.... I play the cards that I've been dealt. We
all suffer the effects of the fall. However, from the two transgenders
that I have daily contact with, they both run in homosexual circles.
Normal? I don't know. But from what I have read being advocated by
transgenders in these various news groups, if they are an adequate
representation of the whole, they and their ideals do not follow
conservative biblical principles.
sillyputty
2009-06-05 01:03:45 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 7:42=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:11=3DA0pm, Jani <***@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Transgender is not an 'ism' or an 'inclination'. I assume from your
> > posts that you're male - how would you react if your physical body
> > was female, and you were expected to behave, in all respects, as
> > female? Would you 'suck it up' and spend your life as a woman? Or
> > would you expect people to treat you as what you *are*, rather
> > than what they see? How would you go about getting them to do
> > that?
>
> I would do as I now do....
You do not know this. Remember the saying, "Until you walk in
someone's shoes..."

Until you know what it's like to be born transgender you won't know
how you will react. In the 40-plus years that the medical/
psychological community has dealt with the TG/TS population no one has
been 'cured,' except through cross-gender living, hormone therapy and
sex reassignment surgery. No amount of religion, counseling,
exorcisms, aversion therapy, etc has successfully 'cured' one of being
TG/TS.

We need to understand that God created more than one gender. Just
because Adam and Eve are the characters depicted in the simplistic
folk story doesn't necessarily mean there only exists two sexes or
genders (inter-sexed people blow the two-sexes only view out of the
water). Indeed, some non-Christian religions include transgender
people, such as American Indian (winkte or two-spirit) and Eastern
Indian (bardache). It is Christianity that doggedly sticks to the two-
gender only dichotomy.

> However, from the two transgenders
> that I have daily contact with, they both run in homosexual circles.
> Normal? I don't know. But from what I have read being advocated by
> transgenders in these various news groups, if they are an adequate
> representation of the whole, they and their ideals do not follow
> conservative biblical principles.
And why should they? Conservative Christianity is just one branch of
Christianity and the various denominations certainly don't always
agree on what the Bible says; even people in the same denomination
don't agree. The more I attend church and various church functions the
more I realize there are differing interpretations of Bible passages.
No one holds lock, stock and barrel on what the Bible really means.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net
l***@hotmail.com
2009-06-09 03:14:15 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 4, 8:03=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> You do not know this. Remember the saying, "Until you walk in
> someone's shoes..."
>
There you go again, whining about how special your handicap is.
Everyone has trials. Everyone has their own cross to bear.
Get over it. Stop this whining.
>
> Until you know what it's like to be born transgender you won't know
> how you will react. In the 40-plus years that the medical/
> psychological community has dealt with the TG/TS population no one has
> been 'cured,' except through cross-gender living, hormone therapy and
> sex reassignment surgery. No amount of religion, counseling,
> exorcisms, aversion therapy, etc has successfully 'cured' one of being
> TG/TS.
>
ibid
>
> We need to understand that God created more than one gender. Just
> because Adam and Eve are the characters depicted in the simplistic
>
simple, not simplistic. Perhaps you don't understand the distinction.
>
> folk story
>
Well there you go. You think God treats us morons. You think He is a
God who hides behind confusion and lies. That is not my God and
certainly
not the God of the Scriptures.
>
> doesn't necessarily mean there only exists two sexes
>
next you'll be trying to get us to believe in evolution and how
there was another sort of gender in the beginning from which,
magically, both present day genders suddenly erupted out of.
>
>or
> genders (inter-sexed people blow the two-sexes only view out of the
> water). Indeed, some non-Christian religions include transgender
> people, such as American Indian (winkte or two-spirit) and Eastern
> Indian =A0(bardache). It is Christianity that doggedly sticks to the two-
> gender only dichotomy.
>
Then why do you continue to come to a Christian NG and whine
about your special case? Yes, Christianity is exclusive and in
many things, dogmatic. But it is not our individual interpretation
of reality, but God's revelation. In essence, all you do here is
shake your fist at God publicly. Grow up and get a life.
>
> > However, from the two transgenders
> > that I have daily contact with, they both run in homosexual circles.
> > Normal? I don't know. But from what I have read being advocated by
> > transgenders in these various news groups, if they are an adequate
> > representation of the whole, they and their ideals do not follow
> > conservative biblical principles.
>
> And why should they? Conservative Christianity is just one branch of
> Christianity
>
i.e. just another opinion. Is that it. Then there is no true truth,
just
"whatever is right in their own eyes." You can't have it both ways.
If
you want to believe in a God, capital G, then you have to accept the
absolutes which flow out of that Person.
>
>and the various denominations certainly don't always
>
That is why it has to be sola scriptura. There has to be something
which is fixed. Something other than some man made arbitrary
absolute. That is why there are rules of interpretation, one of which
that is foundational to all understanding, that scripture interprets
scripture.
>
> agree on what the Bible says;
>
In doctrinal statements, there is little difference between even
RCism
and conservative Reformed when it comes to theo proper. The problems
arise when application becomes confused with interpretation.
>
>even people in the same denomination
> don't agree. The more I attend church and various church functions the
> more I realize there are differing interpretations of Bible passages.
> No one holds lock, stock and barrel on what the Bible really means.
>
That is why the fundamental hermeneutic is scripture interprets
scripture. A doctrine finds no inconsistency through all the pages
of scripture. There a different economies, but the basic doctrines
of the OT do not conflict with those in the NT.

It would do you a world of good to study 2 Pet 1:15-2:1. Might I
suggest an word study series which looks at the Greek, which
has no agenda to mate with, but real exegesis. Wuest's word
studies would be an introduction to that world of specificity. I'm
sure you could find one of his studies at abebooks.com for
a couple of bucks.
shegeek72
2009-06-10 00:35:21 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 8, 8:14=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> There you go again, whining about how special your handicap is.
> Everyone has trials. =A0Everyone has their own cross to bear.
> Get over it. =A0Stop this whining.
Is someone who has club foot who seeks treatment whining? Is someone
who was born with any handicap who seeks treatment whining? It's the
same with transsexuality. They are merely seeking treatment for their
condition. It is not a 'cross to bear,' as you think.

Besides, who are you to judge TG/TS people? You owe myself, and all TG/
TS people, an apology.

> > Until you know what it's like to be born transgender you won't know
> > how you will react. In the 40-plus years that the medical/
> > psychological community has dealt with the TG/TS population no one has
> > been 'cured,' except through cross-gender living, hormone therapy and
> > sex reassignment surgery. No amount of religion, counseling,
> > exorcisms, aversion therapy, etc has successfully 'cured' one of being
> > TG/TS.
>
> ibid
Tossing off facts as 'ibid' indicates your gross ignorance of the
subject.

> next you'll be trying to get us to believe in evolution
Me believe in evolution? Nooooo! Not me. Next thing ya know they'll be
claiming the Apollo moon landings weren't faked and the earth is
round!

> there was another sort of gender in the beginning from which,
> magically, both present day genders suddenly erupted out of.
Perhaps. You cannot deny that intersexed people exist and they are
proof that nature produces more than two sexes/genders.

> Then why do you continue to come to a Christian NG and whine
> about your special case?
To perhaps educate people, such as yourself, that 2000 yr. old
writings cannot give one the latest scientific and medical findings on
the subject of transsexuality.=A0

> Yes, Christianity is exclusive and in
> many things, dogmatic. =A0But it is not our individual interpretation
> of reality, but God's revelation. =A0In essence, all you do here is
> shake your fist at God publicly. =A0 Grow up and get a life.
Time to get out of your bubble and experience the real world. You
could start by attending some services at GLBT-friendly churches. They
would probably be eye-opening.

> It would do you a world of good to study 2 Pet 1:15-2:1. =A0Might I
> suggest an word study series which looks at the Greek, which
> has no agenda to mate with, but real exegesis.

You may be surprised that I have and they do not agree with your
beliefs. Might I suggest checking out a few links:
http://www.gires.org.uk/Web_Page_Assets/Etiology.htm
http://www.avitale.com/Essaylist.htm

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net
l***@hotmail.com
2009-06-11 02:33:24 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 9, 7:35=A0pm, shegeek72 <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> Is someone who has club foot who seeks treatment whining? Is someone
> who was born with any handicap who seeks treatment whining? It's the
> same with transsexuality. They are merely seeking treatment for their
> condition. It is not a 'cross to bear,' as you think.
>
When was the last time you read someone on a
Christian NG complaining how horrible his/her life
was and how unfair God was because of a club foot?
Beyond that, even if there was such a person,
a club foot does not remotely enter into even the
fringe of morality. Paul's word for effeminate is
clear. He also was clear in his denunciation of
men with long hair and women with short. If you
would spend as much time researching the
culture of that day as you do whining here, you
might understand what Paul was actually
teaching.
shegeek72
2009-06-24 23:13:24 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 10, 7:33 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> When was the last time you read someone on a
> Christian NG complaining how horrible his/her life
> was and how unfair God was because of a club foot?
You're reading into my posts that I'm 'whining.' Since my transition
I'm very happy. On whining: I've encountered much more whining from
fundamentalist Christians than from the GLBT community. It seems they
can find something wrong with just about anything.

> Beyond that, even if there was such a person,
> a club foot does not remotely enter into even the
> fringe of morality.
And neither does being GLBT. No where in the Bible does it address
transsexuality and Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, yet he
spoke on all manner of wrongdoing and unfairness. You'd think if
homosexuality, or transsexualtiy, was such an evil as some Christians
paint Jesus would've said something.

You also conveniently avoided the fact that intersexed people prove
nature produces more than two sexs/genders

> He [Paul] also was clear in his denunciation of
> men with long hair and women with short.
Where? Jesus had long hair!

As for effeminacy, where the writer speaks on that is in regards to
the archaic 'men lowering themselves to the status of women.'

> If you
> would spend as much time researching the
> culture of that day as you do whining here, you
> might understand what Paul was actually
> teaching.
I've read and researched the Bible for many years and continue to do
so. The more I do I find context and proper translation of prime
importance. What may be someone's 'truth' is, more often than not,
opinion.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net
l***@hotmail.com
2009-06-30 00:39:51 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 24, 6:13=A0pm, shegeek72 <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> And neither does being GLBT. No where in the Bible does it address
> transsexuality and Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, yet he
> spoke on all manner of wrongdoing and unfairness. You'd think if
> homosexuality, or transsexualtiy, was such an evil as some Christians
> paint Jesus would've said something.
>
The argument from silence is the weakest of all arguments.
>
> You also conveniently avoided the fact that intersexed people prove
> nature produces more than two sexs/genders
>
And weeds grow in my garden and bugs eat my flowers
and mosquitos bite me. They're all products of the fall.
Adam & Eve. You wander off in arguments based on
silence while there is a biblical world of just what God's
standards are. Rom 2
>
> > He [Paul] also was clear in his denunciation of
> > men with long hair and women with short.
>
> Where? Jesus had long hair!
>
You've been watching too much TV. He was a Nazarene
not a Nazarite.
>
> As for effeminacy, where the writer speaks on that is in regards to
> the archaic 'men lowering themselves to the status of women.'
>
Bibliotheca Sacra, vol 166, no. 662, April-June 2009. You can
purchase your copy at DTS.edu. Kirk MacGregor submits an
article titled, Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 a Prohibition of Homo-
sexuality? One of the chapters is titled, The Significance of
Hair Lengths For Sexual Differentiation. In that chapter, he
reviews the Grec-Roman social customs as well as the Jews
of that era. He refers often to Philo's (~35AD) comments. For
instance a quote on p. 211.....

[condemning male homosexuals Philo writes)..for the provocative
way they curl and dress their hair.... in fact the transformation of
the male nature to the female is practiced by them as an art and
does not raise a blush. Such people merit that one should burn
with zeal to spill their blood in obedience to the Law which
commands that one should kill with impunity the pervert who
falsifies the stamp of nature, not permitting him to live a day
or even an hour, since he is a disgrace to himself, to his family,
to his country, and to the whole human race."

[Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 3:36-38]
end quote.

He also quotes at length, Musonius's disciple, Epictetus (108 AD)
from his DIscourses 3.1.24-36. I should type this out for you for
it really addresses the link. But perhaps it is online somewhere
and you can read it for yourself.

> > If you
> > would spend as much time researching the
> > culture of that day as you do whining here, you
> > might understand what Paul was actually
> > teaching.
>
> I've read and researched the Bible for many years and continue to do
> so.
>
Early Christians clearly perceived the teaching
of the NT on homosexuality. According to the
Apocalypse of Peter, used by many early Christians,
homosexuals are specially identified along with the
other wicked dead (e.g. those doing abortions) as
undergoing the torments of hell (10:7-22). In the
Didache there occur: "You shall not commit sodomy"
(paidophthoreseis) (2.2) ; and "corrupters of God's
creation" (phthoreis plasmatos theou) (5.2, cf. 16.3).
This was written in the first or early second century
and widely read. The exact same terms occur in the
Epistle of Barnabas (10.6; 19.4; 20.2), dated probably
the 2nd C. Finally in the Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians (Polycarp died in AD 155-156), the quotation
of 1 Cor. 6:9-10 occurs, using Paul's terms of "effeminate"
and "sodomites" (malakoi, arsenokoitai) (5:3). Christian
tradition then does not seem to contradict or vary from
the biblical record. It is a united witness.
>
>The more I do I find context and proper translation of prime
> importance.
>
Too bad homosexual advocates like John Boswell,
Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality;
Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western
Christian Tradition; Robin Scroggs, The New
Testament and Homosexuality, revise both definition
and context in support of their advocacy. The
context of arsenokoitai in Rom 1 for instance, is
condemnation of a progressive nature (v. 24, 26, 28)
>
> What may be someone's 'truth' is, more often than not,
> opinion.
>
And the last of these condemnations, punishing sin
with sin, is a darkened mind. Once the mind is
darkened, there is no turning back for if the mind
cannot properly view God's reality, then it cannot
and will not retrace his/her steps. Blind. It is a
judicial act of spiritual blindness brought upon you
through repeated negation of God's clear
revelation of His design and will. The OT paradigm
is often illustrated where spiritual adultery in one
generation leads to physical adultery in the next.

Your _truth_ is mere opinion, It is hardly taking
God at His word or reading the text normally.

The dictionary states:

When you give your opinion on something, you offer a conclusion or a
judgment that, although it may be open to question, seems true or
probable to you at the time.

This is why there is a marked difference between the
consent of the will and the consent of faith.
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
2009-06-30 23:33:40 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 29, 7:39=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

> And weeds grow in my garden and bugs eat my flowers
> and mosquitos bite me. =A0They're all products of the fall.

I love this intelligent discussion. Of course I already knew that
body lice, bedbugs and redbugs were sinners, but do you mean that even
amoeba, bacteria, jelleyfish and Anhinga are are all going to hell?
shegeek72
2009-07-02 00:53:41 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 29, 5:39=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> The argument from silence is the weakest of all arguments.
Exactly my point! And that makes Christian's claim that the Bible
condemns homosexuality weak, as Jesus was recorded as saying nothing
on the subject.

> > You also conveniently avoided the fact that intersexed people prove
> > nature produces more than two sexs/genders
>
> And weeds grow in my garden and bugs eat my flowers
> and mosquitos bite me.
Comparing intersexed people to 'weeds' and 'bugs' is an insult. Not
only do you owe transgender people an apology (from an insult in one
of your previous posts), but you now owe intersexed people one as
well. Intersexed and trans people just show the rainbow of humans
nature produces. Instead of judging and shunning GLBT people,
Christians should be embracing them. Honor diversity.

> They're all products of the fall. Adam & Eve.
In your interpretation. From my study, the fall of Adam & Eve was the
fall from being in perpetual God-consciousness, but served the
significant purpose of the knowledge of bad and evil. For how can one
understand that one is living in God's perpetual Love when they have
no concept of good and evil?

> Didache there occur: "You shall not commit sodomy"
> (paidophthoreseis) (2.2)
The sin of Sodom was extreme inhospitality, not homosexuality.

> Your _truth_ is mere opinion
I never said my writings on the Bible were truth. Indeed, it is
fundamentalist Christians who misguidedly interpret the Bible
literally and claim they have the 'truth.'

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net
G***@aol.com
2009-06-09 03:14:16 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 4, 8:03=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 7:42=3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:> On Jun 2, 10:11=3D3DA=
0pm, Jani <***@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Transgender is not an 'ism' or an 'inclination'. I assume from your
> > > posts that you're male - how would you react if your physical body
> > > was female, and you were expected to behave, in all respects, as
> > > female? Would you 'suck it up' and spend your life as a woman? Or
> > > would you expect people to treat you as what you *are*, rather
> > > than what they see? How would you go about getting them to do
> > > that?
>
> > I would do as I now do....
>
> You do not know this. Remember the saying, "Until you walk in
> someone's shoes..."
>
> Until you know what it's like to be born transgender you won't know
> how you will react. In the 40-plus years that the medical/
> psychological community has dealt with the TG/TS population no one has
> been 'cured,' except through cross-gender living, hormone therapy and
> sex reassignment surgery. No amount of religion, counseling,
> exorcisms, aversion therapy, etc has successfully 'cured' one of being
> TG/TS.
>
> We need to understand that God created more than one gender. Just
> because Adam and Eve are the characters depicted in the simplistic
> folk story doesn't necessarily mean there only exists two sexes or
> genders (inter-sexed people blow the two-sexes only view out of the
> water). Indeed, some non-Christian religions include transgender
> people, such as American Indian (winkte or two-spirit) and Eastern
> Indian =A0(bardache). It is Christianity that doggedly sticks to the two-
> gender only dichotomy.
>
> > However, from the two transgenders
> > that I have daily contact with, they both run in homosexual circles.
> > Normal? I don't know. But from what I have read being advocated by
> > transgenders in these various news groups, if they are an adequate
> > representation of the whole, they and their ideals do not follow
> > conservative biblical principles.
>
> And why should they? Conservative Christianity is just one branch of
> Christianity and the various denominations certainly don't always
> agree on what the Bible says; even people in the same denomination
> don't agree. The more I attend church and various church functions the
> more I realize there are differing interpretations of Bible passages.
> No one holds lock, stock and barrel on what the Bible really means.
>
> Tara's Transgender Resourceshttp://tarasresources.net

I think a lot of the problem is that many think that all humans with a
y chromosome will look like a male rather than a female. And they
think all males think like males and all females think like females as
they have never heard that sex hormones affect the development of the
brain during fetal development. There are a large number of things
that effect the sex of a person. Also many cannot look upon these
differences as normal and natural. Ignorance can cause problems,
especially when those who lack knowledge do not realize it and see all
as either male or female.
Jani
2009-06-11 02:33:24 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LwGVl.561$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Jun 2, 10:11=A0pm, Jani <***@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Transgender is not an 'ism' or an 'inclination'. I assume from your
>> posts that you're male - how would you react if your physical body
>> was female, = and you were expected to behave, in all respects, as
>> female? Would you 'suck = it up' and spend your life as a woman? Or
>> would you expect people to treat y= ou as what you *are*, rather
>> than what they see? How would you go about gett= ing them to do
>> that?
>
> I would do as I now do.... I play the cards that I've been dealt. We
> all suffer the effects of the fall.

But if you, as a man, had been born with female sexual organs, wouldn't you
welcome medical and surgical technology which removed those unnecessary and
unwanted appurtenances?


However, from the two transgenders
> that I have daily contact with, they both run in homosexual circles.
> Normal? I don't know.

Homosexuality is sexual desire for the same gender as oneself, yes? So, if
you, as a heterosexual man, are in a female body - what would 'homosexual'
mean to you? Are you being 'homosexual' when you follow what your male brain
says, or when you do what others expect you to do, based on your female
physical body? And which would feel 'right' to you?

Do you see the difference? and how gender and orientation are not the same?


But from what I have read being advocated by
> transgenders in these various news groups, if they are an adequate
> representation of the whole, they and their ideals do not follow
> conservative biblical principles.

That may well be true. But how would a man, who wanted to follow
conservative biblical principles, do so properly *as a man* if his physical
body was female? (I'm not trying to trick you, here, by the way. As Tara
says, there are some social cultures where transgender is accepted, but
yours is not one of them - so I'd like to understand how you would deal with
it, if you were in that situation.)

Jani
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-26 00:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On May 20, 9:06=C2=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>
> To attempt to 'change' or 'cure' someone whose GLBT would be like
> trying to cure left-handedness.
>
here's something my son posted on FaceBook:

nything that I bring of my own fleshly will is nothing-

Isa 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all
our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither
like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Rom 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for
it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able
{to do so,}
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But that which is done by the power of the Holy Spirit, is God working
in me.

Phl 2:13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to
work for {His} good pleasure.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are
sons of God.

We who have the Spirit are the sons of God; We who are the sons are
being led.

1Jo 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His
commandments.

have come to know - =E1=BC=90=CE=B3=CE=BD=CF=8E=CE=BA=CE=B1=CE=BC=CE=B5=CE=
=BD (perfect indicative)

The fact that =CE=B3=CE=B9=CE=BD=CF=8E=CF=83=CE=BA=CF=89 here is in the per=
fect tense means that it is a
completed action, once and for all. We might relate Jesus' saying
=CF=84=CE=B5=CF=84=CE=AD=CE=BB=CE=B5=CF=83=CF=84=CE=B1=CE=B9 (it is finishe=
d, John 19:30). While the word itself (=CF=84=CE=B5=CE=BB=CE=AD=CF=89)
means to bring to a close, it is in the perfect tense, meaning it was
completed once and for all and does not need to be completed again,
similar to our coming to know Him.

Therefore, if our coming to know Jesus has already happened and is a
once-and-for-all completed act, then it is finished - we do not leave
Him and come back, leave Him and come back; we now have relations with
Him and will never be separated from Him. This is why John points this
out - those who are false teachers who have crept in unnoticed (Jude
4) will not display a relationship with Christ - they will not abide
in Him, unlike those who are His (1 John 2:5-6) . Christ does not have
relations with these people ("And then I will declare to them, 'I
never knew you...", =CE=B3=CE=B9=CE=BD=CF=8E=CF=83=CE=BA=CF=89 Matt 7:23), =
and thus, they are not kept
from stumbling (Jude 24).

Now, it quite logically follows - if the mark of a Christian is that
he keeps Christ's commandments (John 2:3), then how is it possible for
a Christian to quit keeping Christ's commandments? It's not, because
Christians keep Christ's commandments!!! Of course, I am not teaching
that once one comes to know Christ, that he/she will become sinless.
What I am teaching is simply that a true Christian will abide in
Christ.

=CE=BC=CE=AD=CE=BD=CF=89

1) to remain, abide
a) in reference to place
1) to sojourn, tarry
2) not to depart
a) to continue to be present
b) to be held, kept, continually
b) in reference to time
1) to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure
a) of persons, to survive, live
c) in reference to state or condition
1) to remain as one, not to become another or different
2) to wait for, await one

Jud 1:24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to
make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy,
Jud 1:25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord,
{be} glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now
and forever. Amen.

who is able - =CE=B4=CF=8D=CE=BD=CE=B1=CE=BC=CE=B1=CE=B9 (Present Participl=
e)

1) to be able, have power whether by virtue of one's own ability and
resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances,
or by permission of law or custom
2) to be able to do something
3) to be capable, strong and powerful

God is omnipotent; He has the power to do what He promises us He will
do. This is spoken of in the present tense - He is currently possesses
the power and always will - His power in innate. Therefore we can
trust in Him and believe in Him, that He is capable of doing the
things He has told us He will do.

to keep - =CF=86=CF=85=CE=BB=CE=AC=CF=83=CF=83=CF=89 (Aorist Infinitive)

1) to guard
a) to watch, keep watch
b) to guard or watch, have an eye upon: lest he escape
c) to guard a person (or thing) that he may remain safe
1) lest he suffer violence, be despoiled, etc. to protect
2) to protect one from a person or thing
3) to keep from being snatched away, preserve safe and unimpaired
4) to guard from being lost or perishing
5) to guard one's self from a thing
d) to guard i.e. care for, take care not to violate
1) to observe
2) to observe for one's self something to escape
a) to avoid, shun flee from
b) to guard for one's self (i.e. for one's safety's sake) so as not to
violate, i.e. to keep, observe (the precepts of the Mosaic law)

He guards, protects, watches over, and keeps us. This is in the Aorist
infinitive, rendering it to keep, to protect, to watch.

from falling - =E1=BC=84=CF=80=CF=84=CE=B1=CE=B9=CF=83=CF=84=CE=BF=CF=82

1) not stumbling, standing firm, exempt from falling

So quite literally-

Now to Him who has the power and ability to watch over and to keep us
standing firm

So some questions I would like to ask are: Who has the power? Who
keeps us? Who is able?

Is it ourselves? Can we keep ourselves from stumbling? Can we keep
ourselves standing firm?

No, we cannot. The Lord is the one who keeps us strong, who keeps us
under His wing. It is by His "grace we are saved" (Ephesians 2:8),
that unmerited favor in which He poured out on those who were/are to
be made alive (2:5). Now that we are Christ's, prepared by the Father,
we cannot be lost-

Jhn 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one
who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
Jhn 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will,
but the will of Him who sent Me.
Jhn 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He
has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
Jhn 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who
beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I
Myself will raise him up on the last day."

We believe Jesus is able to keep us, and able to do the will of the
Father. If He were to lose some that were given to Him, then would He
not have failed to do His Father's will? Yet we know He is able to
fully complete His Father's will-

Luk 22:42 saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from
Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."

Because of His obedience, we can now proclaim with boldness the
greatest news given to us in the entirety of Scripture-

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus.
sillyputty
2009-05-13 02:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Okay, let=92s trust the poster and say that the GLBT community is the
greatest threat we as a society face. Why are they? It=92s because we
allow them to be. We deny them basic privileges that straight folk
enjoy and expect them to not say anything and then get afraid when
they want the same things with their loved ones that straights have?
If they had the same rights they wouldn=92t be a threat.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net
news
2009-05-14 02:25:09 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 May 2009, sillyputty wrote:

> Okay, let=92s trust the poster and say that the GLBT community is the
> greatest threat we as a society face. Why are they? It=92s because we
> allow them to be. We deny them basic privileges that straight folk
> enjoy and expect them to not say anything and then get afraid when
> they want the same things with their loved ones that straights have?
> If they had the same rights they wouldn=92t be a threat.
>
> Tara's Transgender Resources
> http://tarasresources.net

B - I believe that people who are against gay people are being led by ego
and fear which is symbolically "satan". They don't see the lessons in
toleration that differences and variety ask of us.
They will eventually learn I feel...but it may take some time.

Blessings
Bren
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-14 02:25:11 UTC
Permalink
On May 12, 9:31=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
> Okay, let=3D92s trust the poster and say that the GLBT community is the
> greatest threat we as a society face. Why are they? It=3D92s because we
> allow them to be. We deny them basic privileges that straight folk
> enjoy and expect them to not say anything and then get afraid when
> they want the same things with their loved ones that straights have?
> If they had the same rights they wouldn=3D92t be a threat.
>
Were does it end? Already there are petitions for legalizing
polygamy, piggy backing the homosexual agenda. "If you have
no absolute by which to judge society, then society is absolute."
(Francis Schaeffer) Is this not true? But it is short sighted
because it opens the proverbial Pandora's Box. It's the old
freedom/form dynamic. When freedoms start to run unruly,
the counter will always be more stringent form. This is simple
history, folks.

Gibbon's conclusionary assessment at the end of his "Rise
and Decline of the Roman Empire" is mind boggling when
compared to the US today.

Something I have posted over the years....

Classic Signs of an Empire in Decline

1. Increase in violence
2. Individual gratification of the senses
a. Mounting display of affluency
b. Obsession with sex
c. Ethics become situational
3. Officially sponsored art becoming decadent
4. Music increasingly bombastic
5. Increasing Economic Breakdown
a. Centered in aggravated inflation
b. Loss of those other than the wealthy to display
affluency
c. Shortage of food and natural resources
6. Widening financial gap between rich and poor
a. Individual
b. State controlled providences
c. Dependent countries
7. Government increasingly costly
a. Increased desire to live off the state
b. Monies increasingly deterred to govt debt
1) Higher taxes
2) Loss of available revenues for individual
8. Authoritarianism increases to counter apathy
a. Loss of individual freedoms
b. Increase in legislation
1) Law becomes utilitarian
c. Burdened courts
1) Law becomes relative
9. Wars and the threat of wars
sillyputty
2009-05-18 04:30:50 UTC
Permalink
On May 13, 7:25=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> Were does it end? =A0Already there are petitions for legalizing
> polygamy, piggy backing the homosexual agenda.
Two myths:

1) Homosexual agenda. What's really going on is a hetero agenda
against LGBT folks, who only desire the same rights as everyone else.
Gays pose no threat to straights, so some Christians must trump up
false 'facts' about gays and lesbians, such as pedophilia (most
pedophiles are heterosexual men) and recruitment - another myth.

2) That there are those campaigning for legalizing polygamy 'piggy-
backing' on gay rights. First of all, I haven't heard any reports of
such and even if there were they have no relation to GLBT rights. If
one looks at the most common form of male/female 'pairing' in the
Bible it was polygamy.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

--0FE44341405.1242617526/Main.local--
l***@hotmail.com
2009-05-26 00:43:28 UTC
Permalink
On May 17, 11:30=A0pm, sillyputty <***@2die4.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 7:25=3DA0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:> Were does it end? =
=3DA0Already there are petitions for legalizing
> > polygamy, piggy backing the homosexual agenda.
>
> Two myths:
>
> 1) Homosexual agenda. What's really going on is a hetero agenda
> against LGBT folks, who only desire the same rights as everyone else.
> Gays pose no threat to straights, so some Christians must trump up
> false 'facts' about gays and lesbians, such as pedophilia (most
> pedophiles are heterosexual men) and recruitment - another myth.
>
There is no hetero agenda, just people standing up in defense
for what they know intuitively to be right. Look at the poles besides
the biblical argument. It is a homosexual campaign that cries
foul when the silent majority says, No. You're wrong.
>
> 2) That there are those campaigning for legalizing polygamy 'piggy-
> backing' on gay rights. First of all, I haven't heard any reports
>
Is that congruent to the argument? Why not do a little research
before firing back off the cuff and uninformed to the truth. I
don't know where you've been but it''s be a topic of discussion
on more than just the FOX stations.
>
>of
> such and even if there were they have no relation to GLBT rights. If
> one looks at the most common form of male/female 'pairing' in the
> Bible it was polygamy.
>
"Most common?" I think not. It was very limited especially after
the giving of the Law and especially in common masses. Rulers
had many wives for two reasons, one they could afford them and
two, political ties.

But that is a side issue. The point was that when homosexual/
sodomite marriages are legalized, it legally opens pandora's box.
If you don't see this, then God help you in keeping you check
book balanced.
Loading...