War on Society -- What is a Woman?

[JimmyB]

38 minutes ago, George said:

@JimmyB I didn't read Retrobyter's post.  I know what he thinks!

And I chastise you as a brother ... honestly, the issue is not confusing ... 

IGNORED.

[JimmyB]

26 minutes ago, Alive said:

IMO--the main reason from God's perspective that all of this sort of nonsense along with the homosexuality mess being pushed, is that it is the enemy's attempt to warp and defile the most important 'type' conveyed to us in the scriptural record--and that is the glory of a man and woman being joined together and bearing children after their 'kind'.

This connects directly to Christ and His Church and Bride and God's 'eternal purpose, which is/was to have a family after His kind.

Brings many sons to Glory sharing a divine Nature--which is Christ.

The enemy hates this because he got wind of God's Plan that Man would be greater than the angels.

So the enemy does all that he can to destroy that type--that image.

Its a fearful thing to me; to see folks taking any part in that.

Its most serious, indeed.

 

Eph. 3:9 (NAS20S) and to enlighten all people as to what the plan of the mystery is which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; 10 so that the multifaceted wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Prov. 30:19

¹⁹  The way of an eagle in the air,  The way of a serpent on a rock,  The way of a ship in the midst of the sea,  And the way of a man with a virgin.

The way of a man with a virgin?  LOL!  

"The way of a man with a virgin. The simplest explanation of this expression refers it to the instinct of courtship. Some, however, take a less idyllic view and apply it to the seduction of a virgin." Believer's Bible Commentary

"The fourth is a mystery of iniquity, more unaccountable than any of these; it belongs to the depths of Satan, that deceitfulness and that desperate wickedness of the heart which none can know, Jer. 17:9. It is twofold:—(1.) The cursed arts which a vile adulterer has to debauch a maid, and to persuade her to yield to his wicked and abominable lust." Matthew Henry's Commentary

[George]

Why is there confusion?  Who is the author of confusion?   

1Co 14:33  For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

So if there is confusion on what a woman is?  Is that from God?  If there is confusion of what constitutes a marriage?  Is that from God? 

So if there is any confusion on the matter ... perhaps it's because there are a great number of VOICES speaking, and the question is, "Are they of God?"

Isa 5:20  Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 

Isa 5:21  Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!

Be blessed!

 

[JimmyB]

9 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

a)

Daniel 1:3-7 (KJV)

3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; 4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.

6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

Daniy'Eel, ChananYaah, Miyshaa'Eel, and `AzarYaah were under the master of the eunuchs, and he assigned them new names. They were slave children from Yhudah under the King of Babylon; so, yes. They were eunuchs.

b)

Not really. They had not sinned in becoming eunuchs. They had no choice in the matter.

c)

If "today's Christians" would have rejected anyone because of their gender identity, then they wouldn't be much of a "Christian." On the other hand, sin is sin. And, sin is NOT the basis upon which a "Christian" should reject anyone! Quite the opposite, sin is the NEED for a Christian to WITNESS to that person! We are, after all, ALL sinners and have been so since childhood. HOW a person sins doesn't matter; the fact is that ANY sin, no matter how bad one might perceive the sin to be, is the basis for their judgment by God!

Jesus commanded people (repeating the Old Testament) to "love your neighbor as yourself".  I strongly feel that all Christians (and all people) should do just that.  It is all too easy to judge others, which is a convenient way of exalting one's self.

A person's gender identity is of no importance to me.  I look at the attitude of the heart.  Many "Christians" find it convenient to disregard Jesus' command (and subtly exalt themselves: I am righteous; you are a sinner).

Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged."  Easy to throw away for many "Christians".

[George]

3 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Jesus commanded people (repeating the Old Testament) to "love your neighbor as yourself".

Can you love your neighbor as yourself ... while telling someone they should turn from sin?  Simple question.

[JimmyB]

17 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

a)

Daniel 1:3-7 (KJV)

3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; 4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.

6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

Daniy'Eel, ChananYaah, Miyshaa'Eel, and `AzarYaah were under the master of the eunuchs, and he assigned them new names. They were slave children from Yhudah under the King of Babylon; so, yes. They were eunuchs.

b)

Not really. They had not sinned in becoming eunuchs. They had no choice in the matter.

c)

If "today's Christians" would have rejected anyone because of their gender identity, then they wouldn't be much of a "Christian." On the other hand, sin is sin. And, sin is NOT the basis upon which a "Christian" should reject anyone! Quite the opposite, sin is the NEED for a Christian to WITNESS to that person! We are, after all, ALL sinners and have been so since childhood. HOW a person sins doesn't matter; the fact is that ANY sin, no matter how bad one might perceive the sin to be, is the basis for their judgment by God!

It's in style now, but all sin is sin.  So why not go after adulterers, those who cheat others, liars, etc?  Why go after just LGBTQs? 

Here is Paul's list of sinners...

Romans 1:28-32, And since they [idolaters] did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."

[JimmyB]

2 minutes ago, George said:

Can you love your neighbor as yourself ... while telling someone they should turn from sin?  Simple question.

IGNORED.

[George]

4 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

And since they [idolaters] did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."

Why not quote the passage correctly?

Rom 1:21  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 

Rom 1:22  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 

Rom 1:23  and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 

Rom 1:24  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 

Rom 1:25  because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 

Rom 1:26  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 

Rom 1:27  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 

Rom 1:28  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 

Rom 1:29  They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 

Rom 1:30  slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 

Rom 1:31  foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 

Rom 1:32  Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. 

[George]

5 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

IGNORED.

So are you suggesting that you cannot have an honest dialogue between brothers?   If you can't talk about it rationally, patiently, and allow each other to sharpen each other ... then why be on the forums at all?   

[Retrobyter]

3 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

It's sad that your conception of "gender" is so limited.  So, according to you, NFL linemen are real men and models who show cleavage are real women.

Well, if those linemen have XY chromosomes, then yes, they are real men. If those female models have XX chromosomes, then yes, they are real women. I was a good little nerd in grade school. I was probably as close to a Steve Urkel as one could get without being ridiculous, but I was also 100% male. I have XY chromosomes in my DNA. That's it. That's all it has to be. 

It doesn't matter if one is a HULK or a Spiderman, if one has XY chromosomes, then he is a male, whether he is called "man" or "boy." It doesn't matter if one is a Wonderwoman or a Hildegard Hamhocker, if one has XX chromosomes, then she is a female, whether she is called "woman" or "girl."

(The "showing cleavage" is not wise, though. God's Word says that the women should wear modest apparel.)

3 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

What did Jesus say about people's gender identity?  NOTHING.  In fact, Jesus said that his disciples should let little children come to Him, a "non-masculine" thing to do correct?

Nope. "Children" is "gender neutral"; it is a word that refers to BOTH genders. 

3 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

Gender determination is a lot more than biology or the outward display of "masculine" or "feminine" characteristics.

No. Gender determination is STRICTLY biological. How one dresses or applies make-up or acts does NOTHING to how one should be classified.

When I was growing up, we had the "prissy" types of girls and the "tomboy" types of girls. Both were just fine. Each group had its own positives and negatives.

The same was true for the guys. We had some "linebacker" types and some "golfers and archers," but both again had their own strengths and weaknesses.

However, the boys were still male, and the girls were still female.

That should NOT be the determining factor about how they should be able to fare in life! One of my best friends was a little mentally slow, but he had a heart of gold, and he was a BRUISER! Another of my friends was a real charmer and went into politics. Another one was gifted in mathematics and went on to be a successful accountant.

My female friends were similar: One became a missionary in India and Pakistan. Another started out as a restaurant manager and went into banking and eventually became a mail carrier for the USPS. Another was gifted in mathematics and science, particularly chemistry, and went into research and development for a large company.

God gives strengths and weaknesses to BOTH genders, and if one is willing to let God lead, He will direct him or her into the area in which he or she will thrive!

Some of both genders are gifted as school teachers! I've had all sorts of school teachers in my past. Gender was NOT the determining factor as to how good a teacher one was! One of my favorite math teachers was a mousy little guy who always drew cartoon examples on the chalkboard.

I had a tall, thin, female teacher for English composition and when I was trying to choose becoming a computer scientist or a Christian school teacher, she asked one simple question: "Why can't you do both?" I hadn't considered that possibility, yet! And, I found it interesting that she didn't say I could BE both, but rather DO both! One should NOT be defined by one's occupation!

3 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

And most importantly, Jesus said to "love your neighbor as yourself" and illustrated the principle by citing the behavior of a despised Samaritan.  You should give it a try!

No argument here; I agree.