Michie said:

What Charlie is failing to mention is the culture and the witness it gives. In Germany, etc. Not a big deal. Other places, yes. Kilts or whatever the usual uniform is does not deny one’s gender. Those forms of dressing can be a manly form of dress depending on culture. Movie stars or fashion shots do not do that and it is not in the setting in the Church where appearance could cause scandal. Something completely different than what the op discusses. Again Charlie, thanks for the derail.

Click to expand...

Chrystal-J said:

I agree. It's the intent behind the dressing that is important. If someone is trying to fool people that they are the opposite sex, then it's a grave sin.

Click to expand...

I’m offended.

Genuinely, offended.

This isn’t X.

Or Facebook

Or Truth Social
Where algorithms and AI keep you intellectually and morally anesthetized in a feedback loop of like mindedness and bot created gimcrackery.

This, in case you’ve forgotten, is Christianforums. A bulletin board system of the type used on the Internet from a more enlighten incarnation.

Here, we exchange ideas and change minds. We challenge each other to think better and maybe make ourselves better people.

“Derail”? Hardly.

I’m just trying, in my own light hearted and distracting manner, to get people (not necessarily you, Mich, as I’ve always said I write for the lurkers, of which there are many more than actual content creators) to maybe think about their automatic assumptions. Maybe people who are different from you or who vote different from you or who dress different from you aren’t evil, or deceitful, or scum or whatever other uncharitable thing you can come up with.

They’re just different. And God made us all different. And He never made a mistake.

Tell me, chapter and verse, where in the Bible Christ ever said dressing unlike what is considered gender appropriate was sinful.

Cite, specific paragraph, where the CCC says a person has to be removed from a Mass due to clothing choice.

You and I both know there are none.

Why do you even care? Because you might have to explain to a child that people are different? Because it somehow offends you that these people exist? Because your Christianity doesn’t allow for people you deem off-putting ?

I choose not to buy into your “Oh this is so sexually fetish that they might as well be wearing nothing but leather chaps and a muscle shirt” sense of indignation. And I will not be part of a closed feedback loop, that allows you to just keep thinking that way unchallenged.

That’s not derailing. It’s correcting. (You should know MIch, you've corrected me often enough)

Christ gave us our marching orders on the Sermon on the Mount. Feed the hungry, Slack the Thirsty, Welcome the Stranger, Visit the Imprisoned.

He never mentioned sexuality or gender.

You have an issue with that, find a different Savior.

Hit me with your best shot, there’s people lurking.



And Crystal

No one is trying to deceive you. Trust me, no one dressed for you on Sunday.

They just wore what felt comfortable for them.

If you don’t like it, don’t look.

Just tell the truth. You don't have to give all the details right away, but be authentic, genuine. Anyone worth being with will be understanding and won't see it as a reason to judge you.

ThatRobGuy said:

Military is traditionally a right-leaning institution. So I wouldn't expect conservative critiques of Floyd-worship to draw the same ire in that realm as with the Kirk-worship situation.

Click to expand...

I suspect a lot of that was CYA by local officials. Too many stupid young people even in the military don't know how to keep their opinions to themselves.

Hans Blaster said:

Right. I got the wrong dinglberry. They are both performative reactionaries, pale imitations of the type-specimen of their class, JP. Neither of them are credible political commentators.

Click to expand...

What are your qualifications for commenting on Christian Forums? I demand a complete and extensive CV.

Douggg said:

Hi Marilyn,

When Jesus returns to earth to stand on the Mt. of Olives, He will sit on King David's throne in Jerusalem for next thousand years.

Of course, that does not restrict Jesus to earth during that time. So, imo, Jesus will be going back and forth between Jerusalem here on earth and His Throne in the third heaven.

At the end of the thousand years, when Satan is loosed to deceive the nations again, it likely that Jesus will be in the third heaven at that time. Since while on earth, Jesus will rule the nations with a rod of iron to prevent any such rebellion.

Click to expand...

Hi Douggg,

Well we nearly agree. Now had you remembered that Jesus will make a man called David as king over Israel in the millennium. (Ez. 37: 24 Jer. 30: 9)

Clare73 said:

Cain's fallen nature causes him to sin, which fallen nature is the result of Adam's sin.

Click to expand...

Ok, I think this is where we may come to some agreement, or "agreeance", as some celebrities apparently put it. That fallen nature is unrighteous, not just a declaration of unrighteousness, and that "falleness", that unrighteousness, is the cause of the sin we observe every day and may participate in to one degree or another.

Oompa Loompa said:

Ever think that perhaps you may have a plank in your eye?

Click to expand...

I'm always amenable to have anyone point out that what I might believe has been told to me as a lie. But hey, we both know that no-one was 'saving water' during the L.A. fires. That was one of Trump's many lies.

Jeff Saunders said:

First of all, I told you I do not buy into the Calvinist redefining all,

Click to expand...

That's not a Calvinist definition, that is a linguistic use of "all."

In relation to sin, all are born sinners.
In relation to salvation, all are saved in Christ.
Put together, "all are born sinners and all are saved in Christ," must be understood in the light of all the NT.

It has nothing to do with "Calvin redefining all". . .and everything to do with the linguistic use of "all" in the light of all the NT.

Pommer said:

How does one characterize “leaning” without spelling out what views are under discussion?

Click to expand...

Go back and read the thread. You are missing something.,

BPPLEE said:

They have been ordered not to assist ICE, CBP and other federal authorities

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/chicago-mayor-says-police-will-not-aid-federal-troops-or-agents-2025-08-30/

Chicago mayor says police will not aid federal troops or agents​

Click to expand...

Right! I heard about that! Just insane!

Delvianna said:

I'm really glad there's an investigation into the Chicago PD. Corruption needs to be kicked out no matter where it is. This is just sad...

Click to expand...

They have been ordered not to assist NG and federal authorities

Chicago mayor says police will not aid federal troops or agents​

Oompa Loompa said:

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Aaron112 said:

What then is your motive for posting messages so strangely , so oddly ? Not clear at all.

Click to expand...

And funny. that you say that and I am always thinking the same things and when. I post , most. of the time I do post the word and the Greek. word and say what the tense , case is and all can at lest see that. I. am not ADDING. or TAKING. out words from the text !!
And there are some OP that are so LONG I lose track of and at least with me anyone can. see that I at LIST the number. and can ask. what IT MEANS , and it just means I lost another reader , SORRY !!

dan p

I'm really glad there's an investigation into the Chicago PD. Corruption needs to be kicked out no matter where it is. This is just sad...

Bradskii said:

You really must make an effort to stop believing all the lies that you are told.

Click to expand...

Ever think that perhaps you may have a plank in your eye?

Bradskii said:

What do you think the term means?

Click to expand...

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.


Now. Please continue.

zippy2006 said:

Right, and so we could rename the thread, "Morality without the divine," which is perhaps a more fitting title. That is, what you've done here is argued against the necessity of divine law for "legislative" purposes. That's an intelligible argument. I follow the general contours of the reasoning. There are no words like "absolute" which are ever-ambiguous.

Click to expand...

Remember discussions about "objective" morality? Oy vey!

iluvatar5150 said:

When will this leftist violence end?

Click to expand...

Ever notice that American cars have all the control mechanisms on the left!?

fhansen said:

And you're still not answering the question about Eze 18:20. You apparently agree that Adam's offspring were held accountable/guilty for a sin they didn't commit:

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

I'm asking how Cain became a sinner by Adam's sin.

Click to expand...

Cain's fallen nature causes him to sin, which fallen nature is the result of Adam's sin.
Cain (and all mankind) is also guilty of Adam's sin; i.e., a sinner, by Adam's sin being imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

There is incurrence, inheritance, and imputation.

Man did not incur Adam's sin/guilt, and man does not inherit Adam's sin/guilt, for sin/guilt is not inherited (Eze 18:20).
Adam's sin/guilt is imputed (accounted, charged) to man by God (Ro 5:17, 18-19).

Hentenza said:

What views? No views were discussed here only the leaning.

Click to expand...

How does one characterize “leaning” without spelling out what views are under discussion?

Clare73 said:

Are we talking about Cain's imputed guilt of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19) which condemns him to death, or about Cain's sinful action (due to his fallen nature) which also condemns him to death (Ro 6:23)?

Click to expand...

I'm asking how Cain became a sinner by Adam's sin.

Congrats on losing so much weight. You've already done excellent!

It is a shame that the English and Roman churches decided to reject the Books of Enoch / Book of the Giants, considering them none Canon. Then it was the choice of men to decide what to keep and what to put aside.
When both books were a part of the Hebrew Scrolls, written 2 to 4 hundred years before the birth of Christ, some has analyzed.

Books many churches term as mythology today and it was the church who decided what was mythological.

One cannot say as an absolute that the Angels did not manipulate human DNA with animal DNA creating monstrosities as written by the writer of the books of Enoch and such things were destroyed in the flood. The flood was to destroy all that was not of God. And all the scrolls had been rewritten possibly three times before the Roman occupation and destruction of Jerusalem.

Wasn't until the present decade that many of the churches began to accept angels took wives of women has written in Genesis chapter 6. And mixing their DNA with humans, as written in Daniel iron and Clay don't mix.

And there are a few things that the Bible speaks of that the church has deemed mythology, the Satyrs, the unicorn, dragons, Giants.

Looking at the descriptions of some of the heavenly beings, they too are part human looking and part animal. And they want you to believe that but disbelieve what is written in Enoch.

fhansen said:

So are you saying that there was no personal unrighteousness in Cain that caused him to slay Abel?

Click to expand...

Are we talking about Cain's imputed guilt of Adam (Ro 5:17, 18-19) which condemns him to death, or about Cain's sinful action (due to his fallen nature) which also condemns him to death (Ro 6:23)?