The NEA is pushing far left teaching upon children
- By rjs330
- American Politics
- 622 Replies
I've already explained that. I dont need to do it again.So how is fashion connected to genitalia or chromosomes or gamete size?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I've already explained that. I dont need to do it again.So how is fashion connected to genitalia or chromosomes or gamete size?
This post is about the saving effects of the death of Christ.The logical problem with Jesus only dying for the elect is you need to know you are of the elect before you can trust in Christ. IOW if you don't know Jesus died for you, how can you then trust in him? But Calvinism solves this illogically, saying if you do trust in Christ, he died for you, but that is no solution to the problem. It all seems theologically upside down.
Society determines what clothing is tied to what sex. What does that have to do with your argument that sex and gender are different?No, but you seem to argue that sex determines clothing?
But what clothing is related to which sex is a social convention. Not a biological one. I never claimed otherwise.But what clothing is related to which gender is a social convention, not a biological one.
You dont need a distinction. Ira tge same thing.This is an example of when it is useful to have the sex-gender distinction.
And quickly determine what sex they are.Their society. Then you can see them interact with each other you can, talk to them yourself. Start building a mental model of their society.
Which is the same thing as sex. There isnt any difference. And you haven't been able to show a difference. Anytime you use the word gender the word sex can be used instead.Gender.
Then it cannot be the cause of transgenderism.Only a few,
I imagine the chains are lies that cause sin. Ignorance is therefore the void where people have the capacity to be deceived.@com7fy8 I was thinking of an illustration to demonstrate why free will is not hampered by anything, whether it be holy spirit, the spirit of the world or the spirit of Satan.
Imagine that the chains represent any one of these.
![]()
What is it that moves one to do rhis?
The Spirit of Truth exposes the lies that enslave people to sin, just like Jesus said.![]()
In the case of holy spirit, is anyone mighty enough to break that chain, or would God need to release that one, and let them go?
Because Jesus loves others as he would want to be loved.What would be the reason for releasing that person?
A rebellion against sin? Of course, any sound mind would not want to be held captive by lies.Would it not be due to their will not to have these chains on them? A rebellion?
Not sure what you mean by free will here. When a person learns the Truth that sets them free, it's not because they exercised their ability to volunteer.![]()
Unless humans have the ability to exercise free will, none of the above are possible.
Joshua’s command to ‘incline your hearts to the LORD’ shows the people had been deceived. Scripture repeatedly affirms there are no other gods (Deut 4:35; Isa 45:5). The ‘strange gods’ were idols -> non‑entities. So, Israel was misled into deception through idolatry. Joshua saw their need to hear correction, not their autonomous free will. Their disposition was one of susceptibility to deception, requiring exhortation to turn back to the only true God.One cannot even do what God's word requires. Such as...
Joshua 24:23 . . .incline your heart unto the LORD . . .
Isaiah 55:3 . . .Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live. . .
Ignorance is the darkness where people are vulnerable to deception, which is not indicative of a will that is free. Scripture shows that idolaters ‘know not, neither do they understand’ (Isaiah 44:18), and that God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). Jeremiah 7:24 says they did not obey or incline their ear but followed the dictates of their evil hearts. That is ignorance leading to trusting in idols, not evidence of autonomous free will.God could not even say this about anyone.
Jeremiah 7:24 ...they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.
However, because we all have that freedom to act according to our own will, willingly, and freely, without being forced... voluntarily - of our own free will, all the above are possible.
Biut the Greek for WATER. // HYDOR is not in. the Greek TEXT 11g908
βάπτισμα βάπτισμα baptisma
The text then says "NOT the washing away of dirt from the flesh" (the waters of baptism) but rather the appeal to God for a clean conscience )such as is the case with a believing adult.
The fact that it is contrasting the washing with water and the appeal to God, shows the image being used is literal baptism
No, because the pronoun police demand that certain pronouns be used by others. No one here has made that demand. Are you?And you point it out, isn't that being the pronoun police?
He did no such thing.How can you blow that up of proportion while excusing a tax deadbeat who billed NY taxpayers, including me for several years, of half a billion$?
Thats because you seem to be having a hard time with it.Gender genitalia? Sex genitalia? What are sex genitalia, in contrast to non-sex genitalia? I understand genitalia as the sex organs.
Now, you're just repeating the assertion.
I don't think anyone said names where tied to sex. They could be, thats why I said "if." Such as the name Tom or Amber. Yes it is a social convention that is tied to males or females. If clothing is tied to males or females it is tied to their sex because male and female is sex.So how it is connected to sex then? Did the sex change?
Factors of what?That includes social and cultural factors.
Ah... a man or woman. Which is a reference to sex.Names, for example. In Russia Sasha is a man's name in Sweden it's a woman's.
Are you making a claim that transgender people have Swyer Syndrom? If not why bring it up? Whats your point?XY I would call male. But most XY SRY- have been called female, up until the discover of sex chromosomes and the SRY-gene, and probably even today as most places don't do karyotyping as a standard procedure on newborns.
Any interpretation regarding the meaning of a word in the NT should come from linguistic analysis/understanding (including word usage) - I am curious as to why you think masturbation by definition should be included as neither the TNK/OT or NT mention that AFAIK. No judgement, just curious .. (and I'm not talking about anything related to addiction/porn/immoral fantasies etc.) I'm aware early interpreters frequently refer to the history of Onan from Genesis 38 but that's an entirely different issue.
Smart comments are not necessary. Especially considering it does not even apply.
1 Peter is not Acts 13:34. Two different topics. I hope you don't need that explained to you. Neither of which have anything to do with what was posted to you Here at this link
Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
And need you if you can explain ACTS 15:1 ??The Law, as revealed by God and fulfilled in Christ, serves as a moral compass and pedagogical guide for the Christian faithful. It includes the Mosaic Law, especially the Decalogue, and finds its perfection in the New Law of the Gospel. “The Law has become our tutor unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24), and its enduring moral precepts are reaffirmed by the Church as binding. The Catechism teaches that “the Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel” and “remains necessary for man” as it “denounces and discloses sin” (CCC §1963–1964).
The Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 20:1–17), are “fundamentally immutable” and “engraved by God in the human heart” (CCC §2072). They express the natural law and are reaffirmed by Christ, who deepens their meaning in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5–7). The Commandments are not abolished but fulfilled in charity: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). They are the foundation of Christian moral life, guiding the faithful in their duties toward God and neighbour.
For the Christian in this world, the Law and Commandments are not burdens but paths to freedom and holiness. Grace enables their fulfilment, and the Spirit writes them anew on the heart (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; CCC §1965–1966). The faithful are called to interiorise the Law, living it not merely by external observance but through love: “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Thus, the Commandments remain essential, not as relics of legalism, but as living expressions of divine wisdom and the way of life in Christ.
The Hague is for people who lose wars and get gethroned. People who commit war crimes and stay in power will never be persecuted.Hegseth declines to comment on report that boat survivors were killed as a result of his orders to military
According to The Washington Post, the Sept. 2 boat strike initially left two survivors clinging to the boat. The Post says Adm. Mitch Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, then ordered a second strike in order to comply with Hegseth's orders and to ensure the survivors couldn't call on other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.
If true, it is unclear why Bradley wouldn't have ordered troops to collect the survivors and their cargo from the water, as the military did in a subsequent strike when two survivors were taken aboard a Navy ship via helicopter.
"The Department has no response to this article and declines to comment further," a Pentagon spokesperson said Friday.
--
Some experts say the alleged “double-tap” strike may violate the law of armed conflict, which forbids targeting an enemy combatant who’s out of the fight due to injury or surrender.
“They’re breaking the law either way,” Sarah Harrison, a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank who served as associate general counsel at the Pentagon, told CNN. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”
Hegseth's got a date in the Hague.
Any interpretation regarding the meaning of a word in the NT should come from linguistic analysis/understanding (including word usage) - I am curious as to why you think masturbation by definition should be included as neither the TNK/OT or NT mention that AFAIK. No judgement, just curious .. (and I'm not talking about anything related to addiction/porn/immoral fantasies etc.) I'm aware early interpreters frequently refer to the history of Onan from Genesis 38 but that's an entirely different issue.I'm in agreement with @Michie on this. Porneia is any kind of sexual immorality. That could be porn, or masturbation, or lust, or homosexuality, or adultery, or fornication. Anything that is not sex in the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime.
I don’t care if others do. I just go with biology. That’s all.And you point it out, isn't that being the pronoun police?
More than one or just one?There are tons of evidence out there....
Just watch the links i posted...i believe they exist...
Gender and sex are the same thing from those who don’t accept transgender ideology.Gender genitalia? Sex genitalia? What are sex genitalia, in contrast to non-sex genitalia? I understand genitalia as the sex organs.
Now, you're just repeating the assertion.
I know he’s a male though. That’s the difference.Do you also think she doesn't "pass" then? Otherwise your statements seem to conflict with each other.
I would ask if one can seriously un-pardon people, but Trump can do anything and nobody will stop him.The post also references "anything else signed by autopen." I'm pretty sure this is going after the pardons.
He since he’s a biological male.Which pronouns did you use for Jazz Jennings?
Thank you for expressing your private opinion of all the above, but may I remind you that "opinions are like noses". Everybody has their own, so your private opinion is absolutely worthless to me and it represents only 1 of 8 billion opinions.That’s “moot” you’re looking for. Just beginning the hilarity in this post
Not in any rational way, anyhow.
Because you have to read it through the impenetrable fog of your hand wrought doctrine.
Because you a, shall we say “unique” understanding of what you believe the Bible “really means”, which often has little or nothing to do with what it actually says.
I don’t think anyone will have any luck finding that one.
That’s generally referred to as “death” by native English speakers.
I’m not sure we’ve seen enough evidence to convict you of that charge.
Given that nobody talks that way that isn’t really a surprise, is it?
Is that a class on various heterodox/heretical pseudo Christian sects?
"of" is still a preposition, so "will" is still a noun.If "on" is not correct, then "of" is what I meant, in line with the information I used.
No. Your synonym list only muddies the waters. You’re collapsing distinct categories --> voluntariness, autonomy, and intent into one synonym set. <--That’s equivocation.Synonyms for "of his own free will" include voluntarily, freely, willingly, of his own accord, by choice, at his own discretion, at his own pleasure, at his own accord, without constraint, and unforced, and self-initiated. Other relevant terms are self-initiated, self-motivated, and self-determined, which convey the idea of acting without external influence. Adverbial synonyms include at will, as one pleases, at one's discretion, and without prompting; it emphasizes an action taken without coercion or external influence. A single-word synonym is "voluntary". The phrase can also be expressed using words like spontaneously, deliberately, intentionally, or purposively. In a broader sense, the concept is related to autonomy, independent decision-making, and uncoerced choice.
Does that make a difference with you?
I didn't say free will is a noun, I said "will" is a noun in this sentence -> Thus Adam acted on his own free will.Besides that, you keep changing your argument, because one time you are focused on the word will, when I am referring to the phrase free will. Another time, you are saying the phrase "free will" is a noun... the noun free will, when that is not the case in the OP.
As I remember, it is that while a trans person isn't doing you any harm, using preferred pronouns for a transwoman, say, would be a positive assertion that she is a biological female.
I remember reading something somewhere about, "Here. I fixed it for you." But I cannot remember where.I'll give you 100 dollar's to quit the grammar patrol.