Distractions: Alcohol, Guns, Pornography, Video Games, Gambling...

[Redeemed]

1 Corinthians
13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Reading through this thread has left me very sad and disappointed. To read that someone, and I assume his wife as well, has been treated so poorly by the Christian communities he's come in contact with is disheartening to say the least.

Our relationships with others is only secondary to our relationship with God. So, where's the love?

Randy, in no way shape or form do I condone or excuse willful sin, however, scriptures in context are far more important and effective than opinions and pseudo judgments.
 
Love includes empathy and at least an attempt to understand.

[Fenris]

And the idea that I'm not conservative enough for the taste of some is rather humorous.  "And I, only I, am left among the faithful prophets of Israel."

This is pure gold.

For expressing that Elijah felt like he was the last monotheist, God removed him from his mission. Perhaps he could no longer preach to the Jews after slandering them?

As an aside, as Elijah the prophet ascended to heaven while still alive, he is said to come back to earth at time for some reason or another. Two of those things are Jewish circumcisions and the Passover Seder. As if to let him know that he isn't the last believer, here are Jews following the covenant of Abraham and remembering the Exodus when they became a nation.

[Fenris]

Love includes empathy and at least an attempt to understand.

Amen. Preach!

[Fenris]

Yes, "cross dressing"  is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.

Where?

[Fenris]

We learn about what is deliberate sin and what is, in effect, a fractured natural system, subject to weakness.

In the bible there are three different words for "sin", and this matters.

The highest level of sin is called "Pesha" פשע . This is an intentional, rebellious sin against God.

The next level of sin is called "Avon" עָוֺן . This is a lower level sin that happens when a person is weak and succumbs to their desires.

The lowest level of sin is called "Chait" חַטָּא . This is when one sins accidentally.

They are not the same thing and do not have the same punishments, whether by an earthly court or by a heavenly one.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited.

Thank you for explaining Jewish law to me. 

I would distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and the Scriptures themselves. Bible Commentary is not always accurate, and includes a lot of opinions based on certain preconceptions, such as, Jesus is *not* the Messiah.

It wasn't homosexuality that concerned the rabbis, but heterosexuality outside of wedlock. A man would not dress like a woman to have sex with a man. A man would dress like a woman so that he could infiltrate a woman's group (as it were) and have sex with the women there.

There may be more than one intent in cross-dressing. My concern is the Scriptures' explicit prohibition against cross-dressing in the mode of gender confusion.

So disagreement is now "ridicule"? One can only imagine what it would be like to live under a theocracy where "ridiculing" "Christian beliefs" would be punishable by law.

I rest my case.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, "cross dressing"  is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.

Where?

It is said in the prohibition itself, forbidding cross-dressing as a homosexual act. Gender confusion, in other words, is a homosexual act by biblical definition.

[RandyPNW]

And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.

Then contend with the psychological reality, but don't ignore the biblical order. The psychological reality is that Christ rules over our will, and denial of that simply means we are retaining control over our lives, instead of yielding them up to the Spirit.

I'm not going to say I have a compulsion to murder, and simply must point a gun and shoot to get over the confusion of whether I'm a murderer or not. Getting rid of compulsions towards violence, theft, or addictions of many kinds is no different than dealing with "gender dysphoria," as I see it. And yes, I don't walk in your shoes.

I'm not judging you--you have to let the Bible judge you based on your own understanding of it. I'm just giving you my understanding.

[RabbiKnife]

Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited.

Thank you for explaining Jewish law to me. 

It wasn't homosexuality that concerned the rabbis, but heterosexuality outside of wedlock. A man would not dress like a woman to have sex with a man. A man would dress like a woman so that he could infiltrate a woman's group (as it were) and have sex with the women there.

 

Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother!

Yes. If only we had the Christian Theocracy that you so long for. Then you could criminally prosecute people for engaging in behavior that you, personally, find un-biblical.

Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have. Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.

I thought salvation was via faith, yet you appear to be a Judaizer.

Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.

So disagreement is now "ridicule"? One can only imagine what it would be like to live under a theocracy where "ridiculing" "Christian beliefs" would be punishable by law.

Brilliant.

[RabbiKnife]

Yes, "cross dressing"  is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.

Where?

It is said in the prohibition itself, forbidding cross-dressing as a homosexual act. Gender confusion, in other words, is a homosexual act by biblical definition.

You have heterosexual tendencies.  That is, you like the idea and are attracted to the thought have having sex with women.  Are your heterosexual tendencies and proclivittes to have sex with women outside of marriage sinful a priori or are they merely temptations until you act on them?

[RandyPNW]

Yes, "cross dressing"  is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.

Where?

It is said in the prohibition itself, forbidding cross-dressing as a homosexual act. Gender confusion, in other words, is a homosexual act by biblical definition.

You have heterosexual tendencies.  That is, you like the idea and are attracted to the thought have having sex with women.  Are your heterosexual tendencies and proclivittes to have sex with women outside of marriage sinful a priori or are they merely temptations until you act on them?

Good question! I think the operation of God's grace in our lives is a testament to God's willingness to work with those afflicted with sinful tendencies who choose rather to follow their good inclinations. Those sinful tendencies are sinful and unclean. But they become problematic only when we act on them, because otherwise, God's grace enables us to dispose of them.

Our created nature, from the beginning, was a moral heterosexual nature. That is, being made in the image of God, we did not want something outside of the boundaries God set for us. We did not wish to impose on someone else. We did not covet. We did not lust.

However, we had heterosexual tendencies meant to be fulfilled in proper relationships. We only know what happened since the Fall, and our heterosexual tendencies were corrupted by self-desire, separated from God's revelation.

We took it upon ourselves to create law for ourselves, to live by our own appetite and desire, rather than walk in fellowship with God, pursuing the right mind in everything. And so, we began to have sexual desires outside of the bounds of divine guidance, wanting our own way against the wishes of others.

We wanted sex without commitment, adulterous sex, homosexual sex, bestiality, and a host of corruptions, depending on where we've been. Having heterosexual desire was pure at the beginning, but being separated from fellowship with God, and no longer living by the counsel of God's word, our normal human desires became corrupted by a false spirituality, by selfishness.

We can now return to God's word, and be forgiven for our previous lapses. But we are still beset by a Sin Nature, as I understand it and as I experience it. I'm still tempted, constantly, to go my own way, to get what I want ahead of the wishes of others.

This temptation is indeed a form of sin. But God's grace allows me to successfully deal with it, and dispose of it, if only until the next temptation.

[RabbiKnife]

Tendencies are not sinful and unclean. 

Unless Paul was lying in Romans 7.

I could easily be a glutton.  Is my desire for over indulgence sinful in itself, or is it a fleshly desire that I must deal with by crucifying my flesh daily.

One person's natural heterosexual tendency is absolutely no different from another person's homosexual tendency, no how much one may sexually excite you or how much the other may sexually disgust you.

I know many Christians who to this day would describe themselves as having a natural desire toward homosexual behavior, and in fact, have in their pre-Christian lives been active, practicing homosexuals.  Since being redeemed, however, they abstain from all homosexual activity.  They are celibate.  They do not engage in heterosexual activity either, and tell me that the thought of having sex with a woman is absolutely disgusting to them.

Tendencies, proclivities, dispositions toward, desires for... etc. anything, whether sexual or not, is not sinful. 

It is what we do with those desires that determines sinfulness.

[Athanasius]

Yes, some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female. Intercourse is the obvious example.

The obvious example of what, exactly? Intercourse is an activity that both of the sexes engage in (with each other, at that!), but beyond anatomical differences what part of it is inherently male, and what part is inherently female? (Oh, you're not going to appeal to submission/dominance are you?) But more the point, why has this discussion taken on a sexual angle at all?

Somehow we've gone from my struggle with dysphoria to talk about those nasty homosexuals, and why?

[Athanasius]

Then contend with the psychological reality, but don't ignore the biblical order.

Bravo :slow-clap: you've killed me.

(I am contending with the psychological reality, and I'm not ignoring the biblical order. At least, not when properly understood. All of this is quite clear, but it doesn't seem you've read what I've written -- or have failed to grasp it.)

The psychological reality is that Christ rules over our will, and denial of that simply means we are retaining control over our lives, instead of yielding them up to the Spirit.

No one is denying any such thing, and to suggest as much is to fail to appreciate what's at hand.

I'm not going to say I have a compulsion to murder, and simply must point a gun and shoot to get over the confusion of whether I'm a murderer or not. Getting rid of compulsions towards violence, theft, or addictions of many kinds is no different than dealing with "gender dysphoria," as I see it. And yes, I don't walk in your shoes.

Which raises the question: why offer an opinion on something you clearly don't understand or have an interest in understanding?

"I have no stable sense of identity as a consequence of significant and persistent epistemic uncertainty"
lololol u no how like u dont steal? Ya like u shuld jus do that lololol It ez

I'm not judging you--you have to let the Bible judge you based on your own understanding of it. I'm just giving you my understanding.

That's to make a judgment, Winston.

But is that it, then? I'm not acting in an ungodly way necessarily, just in what you understand to be an ungodly way? Well, you've failed to convince.

[Athanasius]

But they become problematic only when we act on them, because otherwise, God's grace enables us to dispose of them.

Then either you have never dealt with anything serious, or have forgotten what it's like because no, God's through His grace doesn't always take away or allow for some struggle to be disposed of. Sometimes the struggle has to be lived with, and perhaps there's a purpose in that. But to suggest that the struggle persists because of ungodliness, or not believing hard enough or in the right way, etc., is to make the same error that Job's friends made.

It is to say to me, "I don't believe you, even though I have no inkling of an idea what you're going with. In fact, I'm going to tell you what I think is actually going on." To hold that attitude with someone who can tell you what it's like is, I think, to prefer the shadows on the wall of the cave.