Will California Ban the Bible?

USincognito said:

Does you sinful world have a First Amendment to the Constitution? Because we have one here in the U.S.

Click to expand...

You got me there anyway whatever happens I’m so glad God is in control and is the final Authority on all things

ewq1938 said:

Paul wrote something bout how they should have their hair...basically long not short like men had their hair...and to cover their hair which men didn't do. I think that's the only ones about appearance and not to look or try to dress like a man.

Click to expand...

OK, from what you've said, there is no injunction against women wearing men's clothing just something about hair.

To quote from your Post #77
Why would it be different in reverse?
Why is there no rule against women wearing men's clothing?
OB

Paidiske said:

Your optimism is cute.



You're a nice guy, OB.

Click to expand...

I'll cop to 'nice' but 'cute' is a bit patronising (or should that be matrimonial? - this gender stuff is hard to get your head around).
OB

Shiloh Raven said in post #20:

. . . it's almost as if some Christians want to feel persecuted for their faith.

Click to expand...

It's not that they want it, but they know that it is coming.

For example, read Mark 13:9-13 as possibly applicable to you if you are a Biblical Christian. For in our future, "political correctness" could make even Biblical Christianity "hate speech", because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and that Christianity is the only way to be saved from hell (John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12), and that all other religions are cursed, doubly cursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

Be prepared to be arrested and tried before courts of law for the violation of "hate speech" laws which could be instituted in our future (for example, by the Supreme Court in the U.S., without any approval from the People in Congress). If you are brought to trial, remember Mark 13:9-13, and testify as God's Holy Spirit gives you at that time. But do not expect to be set free after your testimony. You (just as I) must be willing to face imprisonment and even execution for the truths of Jesus Christ and His Word the Holy Bible (Matthew 24:9-13, Mark 8:34-38, John 8:31b).

Occams Barber said in post #23:

Between the persecution and the constant sinning it must be a hard life being a Christian.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Christians worry more about what will happen to them after they die. For:

Luke 12:4 ... I [Jesus] say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

*******

Occams Barber said in post #45:

. . . a world without sin wouldn't need the Bible.

Click to expand...

Amen (cf. Luke 5:32).

But note that when the world reaches a certain level of sin in our future, it could declare the Bible to be intolerable (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2-4).

*******

Occams Barber said in post #73:

When it comes to Christianity I don't understand why you believe what you believe.

Click to expand...

The reason is that God gives us the ability to.

That is, the ability to believe in Jesus Christ and His Gospel comes only to elect individuals (Acts 13:48b) wholly by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2) as the elect read (or hear) God's Word the Holy Bible (Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, Acts 26:22-23), just as the ability to repent comes only as a miraculous gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18). Satan blinds the minds of non-Christians, so that on their own they cannot repent and acknowledge the truth of God's Word (2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25-26).

Monk Brendan said in post #28:

. . . homosexuality and transgenderism/transsexuality are two entirely different and unrelated issues.

Click to expand...

Note that they aren't. For transgenderism is simply a neurotic fantasy, just as it would be a neurotic fantasy for a white man to say that he is a black man. It is absurd on its face. And transgenderism is a type of homosexuality: wanting to have sex with the same gender that you are, but pretending that you are of the opposite gender. Because homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), transgenderism is a sin.

Also, it is curious that homosexuals sometimes claim that what they do sexually is okay because it is genetic, while transgender people (who are also homosexual) claim that genetics is completely irrelevant, and even totally-counter, to their real identity.

So which is it?

Also, it is curious that "political correctness" loves to shame people for "cultural appropriation", such as for simply wearing a sombrero at a Halloween party, while "political correctness" allows complete "gender appropriation". That is, someone who is not a genetic Mexican cannot wear a sombrero even one time, but someone who is not a genetic woman can wear dresses every day for the rest of his life.

Why this contradiction?

Monk Brendan said in post #28:

Whether certain verses (affectionately called the "clobber passages") refer to what we call homosexualiity today can be argued.

Click to expand...

Romans 1:26 is referring to lesbians, who have unnatural, sexual affections for each other:

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature . . .

And Romans 1:27 is referring to male homosexuals, "gays", who have unnatural, sexual lust for each other:

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Here the "recompence of their error" at the time that Romans 1:27 was written in the first century AD could have been hepatitis-type infections, but it would also include, in principle, the horrible AIDS plague in our own time.

-

Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) in the sense of how God created nature to work:

Matthew 19:4 And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.

Desk trauma said in post #41:

[Re: The Bible and a inappropriate content mag]

Without a radical overhaul of constitutional rights California law cannot ban either.

Click to expand...

Note that a future Supreme Court packed with anti-Christian justices by a future, Democratic President and Senate could eventually outlaw even speaking against homosexuality, or against abortion for that matter, calling it "hate speech", thereby negating the First Amendment. The way that this could be done would be by employing the principle of the past Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which even Scalia mistakenly supported, which says that a law can in effect forbid a specific religious activity so long as the law does not specifically target religion, but is a neutral law of general applicability. That is, a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court ruling could claim that it is not targeting Biblical Christianity per se, but is generally forbidding "hate speech" by anyone, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.

Also, the future forbidding of Biblical Christians from making any speech against homosexuality or abortion could be perpetrated by a future Supreme Court by claiming that any such speech presents a "clear and present danger" (Schenck v. U.S.) to homosexuals and abortion clinics, as such speech could lead to violent attacks against them, such as the mass shooting at the Pulse gay-nightclub in Orlando, or when a man not long ago attacked an abortion clinic in Colorado claiming to be "a warrior for the babies". Of course, from a pacifist's point of view, nothing about Romans 1:26-27, for example, contradicts Matthew 5:39. So simply saying that homosexuality is a sin in no way supports violence. But the connection could still be made by a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court as a means to squelch Biblical Christians' Constitutional rights to free speech and religion (thereby contradicting the Supreme Court's own "content" precedent in, for example, Reed v. Town of Gilbert).

Occams Barber said:

I'll cop to 'nice' but 'cute' is a bit patronising (or should that be matrimonial? - this gender stuff is hard to get your head around).
OB

Click to expand...

Not intending to be patronising (matronising?). I was commenting sarcastically on the utter lack of any such thoughtful process or the like.

ewq1938 said:

That was what I recall from the NT but the OT is clear on this:

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Cross dressing is not allowed by God.

Click to expand...

Thank you. You have done well.

One final (hopefully) question.

I am constantly informed by CF posters that there is an Old Covenant set of rules and a New Covenant set of rules. The ban on woman and men crossdressing is, according to you, listed in Deuteronomy (the OT) - the Old Covenant.

Women crossdressing is not mentioned in the NT (the New Covenant) but men cross dressing is mentioned (again from your posts).

I'm confused - which rules apply (Old/New) and how do you decide?
OB

ewq1938 said:

Is it wrong to sin for a man but not for a woman? Obviously if it's wrong for a man to crossdress, it's wrong for a woman.

Click to expand...

Respectfully ewq I don't see it as 'obvious' since the OT and NT rules you've quoted are quite clear about what's prohibited.

The OT says M/F crossdressing and F/M crossdressing is wrong. The NT only says that M/F crossdressing is wrong.

Given the difference between OT and NT rules how do you (or Christians generally) decide?

As a heads up, I will also be interested in exploring 'pertaineth' in your OT quote:
As far as I know there is no OT or NT dress code which Christians apply in the 21st Century. In a society with 21st century dress rules who decides what 'pertaineth'?

OB

Paidiske said:

Not intending to be patronising (matronising?). I was commenting sarcastically on the utter lack of any such thoughtful process or the like.

Click to expand...

I knew that. I was just stirring. And you're forgiven
OB

Al Masihi said:

They haven’t even banned inappropriate content magazines so I’m sure they won’t be banning the Bible anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Well at least we have the first amendment to fall back on, that's encouraging. We are just not allowed to say that perversion is wrong based on the Bible, apparently some consider that fraudulent. I think the church has faced worse things, California Christians will ride this out and I doubt religious and moral objections will go away even if this ban gets through.

ewq1938 said:

There is no NT change in what God said before so no reason God magically changed his mind on what he does not care for.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that OT rules apply unless they are specifically countermanded in the NT? I don't know much about the OT but before answering think about whether things like slavery, genocide, dietary rules etc. etc. should be applied today.

ewq1938 said:

We live in a perverted and ungodly society so it is now normal for ppl to sin as God spoke of in the past.

Click to expand...

I'm really interested in what determines that today's society is 'perverted and ungodly' when compared to other or earlier societies. Which sins are more prevalent? Are you familiar with history?
OB

mark kennedy said:

Well at least we have the first amendment to fall back on, that's encouraging. We are just not allowed to say that perversion is wrong based on the Bible, apparently some consider that fraudulent.

Click to expand...

If I understand the US Bill of Rights correctly you are quite free to say that perversion is wrong based on the Bible. You will not however be entitled to make fraudulent claims about bogus treatment if this law goes through.

mark kennedy said:

I think the church has faced worse things, California Christians will ride this out and I doubt religious and moral objections will go away even if this ban gets through.

Click to expand...

I agree. It will however represent one less brick in the wall.
OB

rockytopva said:

Will California Ban the Bible? Christians Say 'Not Without a Fight'

Click to expand...

So the bill becomes law.

Will it make any visible difference to how you live and witness?

Will it make any visible difference to how your church operates?

ewq1938 said:

I'm pretty sure I was saying that nothing in the NT means that God changed his mind about crossdressing and how he is against it.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that if God determines what is correct behaviour under the Old Covenant it still applies under the New Covenant unless God specifically countermands it?

ewq1938 said:

I love how dietary rules are put together with slavery and genocide.

Click to expand...

It appears to be trivialising the issue but I'm trying to demonstrate the potential breadth of Old/New Covenant rule confusion

ewq1938 said:

Pretty much the same.

Click to expand...

You said earlier that "now it is normal for ppl to sin as God spoke of in the past." You've also said that today's society is 'perverted and ungodly'. Today's and Now both refer to the present.

How did you determine that today's society is more sinful/perverted/ungodly than past societies?

ewq1938 said:

You suggested that "homosexuality and transgenderism/transsexuality are two entirely different and unrelated issues The Bible says NOTHING about the second one." and you are wrong. It does address it. Changing the subject won't help you.

Click to expand...

On the homosexual vs transgenderism issue I think you are confusing me with Monk Brendan in Post#28.

My "are you familiar with history" comment was a reference to your assertion that today's society is 'perverted and ungodly' compared to earlier societies. I covered this earlier in this post. The implied questions are:
"How do you know this?"
and
"Are you familiar with the level of ungodliness and perversion in earlier societies?"
OB