ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Brian Stoffregen on February 27, 2021, 12:38:52 PM

Title: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 27, 2021, 12:38:52 PM
The following quote is part of a longer article (linked below) called: "Gender: When the body and brain disagree." It begins with an example about Zoë. In our discussions about sex and gender, we should try to come to a common understanding of what the terms mean. As I've understood it, and as this paragraphs state: sex is about genitalia; gender is about "cultural accepted norms," gender identity takes place in the brain: "our inner sense of who we are."

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/gender-when-body-and-brain-disagree#:~:text=Gender%20is%20based%20on%20culturally,how%20they%20dress%20or%20behave.

Sex. Gender. What's the difference?

Although many people use the terms sex and gender interchangeably, they mean quite different things. Indeed, sex and gender don’t necessarily agree. That’s how it is in Zoë’s case.

Gender is based on culturally accepted norms — attitudes or behaviors that are typical for males or females. Gender identity has to do instead with our inner sense of who we are. People often express their gender identity by how they dress or behave.

Meanwhile, sex is determined at conception by the genes each of us inherits from mom and dad. It may become visible by ultrasound several months into pregnancy.Highly magnified image of X and Y chromosomes — pair # 23 — from a human male. When both chromosomes are X’s, a child will be female. If a child inherits a Y from dad as one of those chromosomes, he will be born a male. But in transgender people, their genetics and brain-based identity will not match. Chromosomes hold genes. They’re the tiny pieces of DNA that tell our cells what to do. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. One pair consists of sex chromosomes . They come in two forms: X’s and Y’s. Women have two X’s. So when they share half of each pair of chromosomes with their offspring, the sex chromosome they offer will always be an X. Men have an X and a Y. So if dad shares an X chromosome with his child, it will make a girl (XX). If he shares a Y chromosome, the child will be male (XY). Or at least, that’s usually the case. When it comes to sex, researchers have learned that biology can be more complicated than just ‘boy’ or ‘girl.’ For instance, some people carry two X chromosomes mixed with a fragment of a Y chromosome. These people develop into what look to be males. That happens even though the presence of two X chromosomes means that they are female, at least biologically.

It gets even more complicated when gender identity enters the picture. For more than 99 percent of the world’s population, gender identity and biological sex will agree. Such a person is called cisgender. (The Latin prefix cis- means “on the same side.”) But a small share of people experiences a mismatch between sex and gender.

Some of these people grow up feeling like they aren’t the gender the rest of the world — including their parents and doctors — sees them as. This experience is called transgender. The term transgender is distinct from one’s sexual orientation, meaning whether a person is attracted to males or females.

Transgender individuals may outwardly appear male or female. But for reasons that are still unclear, they feel like — and, eventually report knowing themselves to be — the opposite gender. Some may even identify a little bit with both genders.

Untangling sex and gender

During pregnancy, genetic factors influence the development of the embryo as it grows into a fetus. An XX person (girl) usually develops ovaries. An XY person (boy) will usually develop testes. In individuals with XY chromosomes, there is a gene on the arm of the Y chromosome, called SRY. This gene signals the development of testes. When an SRY is not present, an ovary will develop. That will then lead to development of the female anatomy. If testes develop, they will go on to produce the male hormone called testosterone. This hormone instructs the body to make male genitals. It also leads to the development of bigger bones, a brain structure unique to males and other male physical characteristics.

Our sense of gender comes from what our brains tell us. But no one knows what part of the brain does this. It also remains unclear why that identity in transgender people does not match their biological sex.

The basic biology behind how chromosomes and genes signal the body to take on a female or male anatomy has been known for a long time. Still, researchers are learning a great deal about how much more complex this sex determination is than they had originally thought. And researchers know far less about what drives gender. “To my knowledge, no studies have conclusively demonstrated where our sense of gender identity comes from,” says Kristina Olson. She works at the University of Washington in Seattle.

As a developmental psychologist, Olson studies how people develop and change as they grow from infancy into adulthood. Some people have speculated that genes, the environment or hormone levels might play a role in influencing gender, Olson says. In fact, she says, “I know of no study showing one, the other or which combination makes gender.”

For thousands of years, careful observers — namely, parents — have noticed that children at an early stage begin to strongly express a preference for certain toys, colors and clothing. Around this same early age, children also begin to express their gender identity.

“What we know from typical gender development is that kids generally know and can say whether they’re a boy or a girl around age 2 or 3,” says Olson.

By that same age, many transgender children also will express their gender identity. But in their case, it will differ from the expected, Olson says. “Most people find it shocking that a transgender kid could ‘know’ that they are or are not a particular gender so early,” she says. However, Olson’s research tells her that it makes complete sense that gender identity can show up at the same age in transgender and cisgender children.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: D. Engebretson on February 27, 2021, 02:20:14 PM
"culturally accepted norms"

Where do we start with this?

First of all, which "culture"?  It appears that we have several now.  And what do we do when we have multiple 'cultures' that are in opposition to each other?

Secondly, we used to have some understanding of normal and balanced, psychologically speaking. What is "ordered" and what is "disordered"? When I went to college I believe that DSM III was in use.  Transgenderism was considered a "gender identity disorder." It was that way in DSM IV as well. Disorder was used up through 2013.  In DSM 5 it is called "gender dysphoria." 

Now I know that it will seem that I am overreacting to some, but now that many behaviors, including pedophilia, is considered normal and acceptable in some areas, why should any identity or any behavior with regard to sex be stigmatized?  And if a person wants to think they are an animal (clinical lycanthropy), why should that be seen as "disordered"?  In fact, they should be accepted in society within the workplace and elsewhere as if normal. 

If the most basic of identities - gender - is now fluid with regard to definition, why should any other identifying description be seen with any more specificity? 

But again, we come back to that word "culture."  Whose culture gets to define these things? 
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Jeremy_Loesch on February 27, 2021, 02:46:25 PM
People have sex.
Words have gender.
Problem solved.
Next!

Jeremy

(Yes, it's more complicated than that, which is why it's called gender dysphoria.)
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Michael_Rothaar on February 27, 2021, 03:06:48 PM
The following quote is part of a longer article (linked below) called: "Gender: When the body and brain disagree."
... As I've understood it, and as this paragraphs state: sex is about genitalia; gender is about "cultural accepted norms," gender identity takes place in the brain: "our inner sense of who we are."

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/gender-when-body-and-brain-disagree#:~:text=Gender%20is%20based%20on%20culturally,how%20they%20dress%20or%20behave.

 For more than 99 percent of the world’s population, gender identity and biological sex will agree. Such a person is called cisgender. (The Latin prefix cis- means “on the same side.”) But a small share of people experiences a mismatch between sex and gender.

Some of these people grow up feeling like they aren’t the gender the rest of the world — including their parents and doctors — sees them as. This experience is called transgender. The term transgender is distinct from one’s sexual orientation, meaning whether a person is attracted to males or females.


In addition to the fair criticism offered by Pastor Engebretson, I'd call attention to the statement in Brian's article that folks with such an affliction are well under 1% of all the folks there are. But from currently popular media treatment, one would be pardoned for believing the number to be much, much higher. Just as surveys of adolescents reveal their belief that the incidence of homosexuality in the general population is a substantial multiple of its actual occurence. This is the result of control of the flow of information.

Most have seen this:

'Ryan Anderson's When Harry Became Sally was removed from Amazon's cyber shelves [February 21], three years after the controversial best-seller was published on February 20, 2018.

"In 2018, the book hit No. 1 on two of Amazon's best-seller list before it was even released, but sparked controversy for arguing that society's growing acceptance of transgender people stems more from ideology than science."

I'm not sure why the gay movement has attached itself to this new ideology with so much angry and fervent determination. Is it as simple as continuing to be political relevant after "gay rights" have beeen achieved, or the need for their organizations to have causes to generate contributions? In any case, it now seems that in practice, "transgender" simply means a person who likes pretending they're the opposite sex, and whose pretense is demanded by advocates to be universally recognized as fact. And, if House Democrats have their way, as law.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: jebutler on February 27, 2021, 04:34:51 PM
The following quote is part of a longer article (linked below) called: "Gender: When the body and brain disagree."
... As I've understood it, and as this paragraphs state: sex is about genitalia; gender is about "cultural accepted norms," gender identity takes place in the brain: "our inner sense of who we are."

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/gender-when-body-and-brain-disagree#:~:text=Gender%20is%20based%20on%20culturally,how%20they%20dress%20or%20behave.

 For more than 99 percent of the world’s population, gender identity and biological sex will agree. Such a person is called cisgender. (The Latin prefix cis- means “on the same side.”) But a small share of people experiences a mismatch between sex and gender.

Some of these people grow up feeling like they aren’t the gender the rest of the world — including their parents and doctors — sees them as. This experience is called transgender. The term transgender is distinct from one’s sexual orientation, meaning whether a person is attracted to males or females.


In addition to the fair criticism offered by Pastor Engebretson, I'd call attention to the statement in Brian's article that folks with such an affliction are well under 1% of all the folks there are. But from currently popular media treatment, one would be pardoned for believing the number to be much, much higher. Just as surveys of adolescents reveal their belief that the incidence of homosexuality in the general population is a substantial multiple of its actual occurence. This is the result of control of the flow of information.

Most have seen this:

'Ryan Anderson's When Harry Became Sally was removed from Amazon's cyber shelves [February 21], three years after the controversial best-seller was published on February 20, 2018.

"In 2018, the book hit No. 1 on two of Amazon's best-seller list before it was even released, but sparked controversy for arguing that society's growing acceptance of transgender people stems more from ideology than science."

I'm not sure why the gay movement has attached itself to this new ideology with so much angry and fervent determination. Is it as simple as continuing to be political relevant after "gay rights" have beeen achieved, or the need for their organizations to have causes to generate contributions? In any case, it now seems that in practice, "transgender" simply means a person who likes pretending they're the opposite sex, and whose pretense is demanded by advocates to be universally recognized as fact. And, if House Democrats have their way, as law.

One of the more interesting things is how the number of LGBT people has grown among Generation Z. First, the percent of the population that identifies as LGBT has grown two full percentage points in the last eight years (3.5% to 5.6%). Almost all of that growth is attributable to Gen Z of which an incredible 15.6% identify as LBGT (9% of Millennials also identify as LGBT, as opposed to 3% and less for Gen X and older).

Although only about 0.2% of the Gen Z and older LGBT population identify as trans, 1.2% of Millennial LBGT so identify and 1.8% of Gen Z. So while it's still a small group overall, it is growing. Part of that growth is that they are over-represented in news and popular media. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on February 27, 2021, 07:41:19 PM
One of the more interesting things is how the number of LGBT people has grown among Generation Z. First, the percent of the population that identifies as LGBT has grown two full percentage points in the last eight years (3.5% to 5.6%). Almost all of that growth is attributable to Gen Z of which an incredible 15.6% identify as LBGT (9% of Millennials also identify as LGBT, as opposed to 3% and less for Gen X and older).

The rate of growth is an astonishing SIXTY percent.

5.6 - 3.5 = 2.1

(2.1/3.5) * 100 = 60

At that rate, eight years from now 8.96 % of the population will so identify.

Kyrie eleison.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: David Garner on February 28, 2021, 06:35:42 AM
The following quote is part of a longer article (linked below) called: "Gender: When the body and brain disagree."
... As I've understood it, and as this paragraphs state: sex is about genitalia; gender is about "cultural accepted norms," gender identity takes place in the brain: "our inner sense of who we are."

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/gender-when-body-and-brain-disagree#:~:text=Gender%20is%20based%20on%20culturally,how%20they%20dress%20or%20behave.

 For more than 99 percent of the world’s population, gender identity and biological sex will agree. Such a person is called cisgender. (The Latin prefix cis- means “on the same side.”) But a small share of people experiences a mismatch between sex and gender.

Some of these people grow up feeling like they aren’t the gender the rest of the world — including their parents and doctors — sees them as. This experience is called transgender. The term transgender is distinct from one’s sexual orientation, meaning whether a person is attracted to males or females.


In addition to the fair criticism offered by Pastor Engebretson, I'd call attention to the statement in Brian's article that folks with such an affliction are well under 1% of all the folks there are. But from currently popular media treatment, one would be pardoned for believing the number to be much, much higher. Just as surveys of adolescents reveal their belief that the incidence of homosexuality in the general population is a substantial multiple of its actual occurence. This is the result of control of the flow of information.

Most have seen this:

'Ryan Anderson's When Harry Became Sally was removed from Amazon's cyber shelves [February 21], three years after the controversial best-seller was published on February 20, 2018.

"In 2018, the book hit No. 1 on two of Amazon's best-seller list before it was even released, but sparked controversy for arguing that society's growing acceptance of transgender people stems more from ideology than science."

I'm not sure why the gay movement has attached itself to this new ideology with so much angry and fervent determination. Is it as simple as continuing to be political relevant after "gay rights" have beeen achieved, or the need for their organizations to have causes to generate contributions? In any case, it now seems that in practice, "transgender" simply means a person who likes pretending they're the opposite sex, and whose pretense is demanded by advocates to be universally recognized as fact. And, if House Democrats have their way, as law.

One of the more interesting things is how the number of LGBT people has grown among Generation Z. First, the percent of the population that identifies as LGBT has grown two full percentage points in the last eight years (3.5% to 5.6%). Almost all of that growth is attributable to Gen Z of which an incredible 15.6% identify as LBGT (9% of Millennials also identify as LGBT, as opposed to 3% and less for Gen X and older).

Although only about 0.2% of the Gen Z and older LGBT population identify as trans, 1.2% of Millennial LBGT so identify and 1.8% of Gen Z. So while it's still a small group overall, it is growing. Part of that growth is that they are over-represented in news and popular media. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx

That would not be nearly as alarming if we focused only on what Dave Chapelle calls the "Ls, Bs and Gs."  It is entirely understandable that people who were shunned by society would have their numbers increase by societal acceptance and, let's be honest, celebration.  This could occur simply because so few of them would admit to being gay 30-40 years ago.  But it is the Ts that are utterly terrifying, because just 10 years ago, transgendered people were overwhelmingly biological males who wished to be female, and had exhibited those traits since very early childhood, and were a tiny fraction of the population.  Now, over 50% of transgendered people are teenage and young adult girls who want to be male, and the number is exploding.  Abigail Shrier, rightly I think, identifies this as a "social contagion" like cutting or repressed memories.  More, she makes the case it is an intentionally propagated social contagion, in that online activists and college "friends" target children, try to convince them their parents are toxic in their lives, and therefore cut off the support network that would ordinarily be there to help.  If your kid cuts themselves, you are encouraged to find them help.  If your kid thinks she's a dude, literally anything you say to stop the train from rolling down the tracks is interpreted as you being the problem.

Read this.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-your-daughter-defies-biology-11546804848

"Brie Jontry, a spokeswoman for Fourth Wave Now, an international support network for these families, is one of the two mothers who spoke on the record. She tells me ROGD teens often come from politically progressive families. Many of the mothers I spoke with say they enthusiastically supported same-sex marriage long before it was legal anywhere. Some of them describe welcoming the news when their daughters came out as lesbians. But when their daughters suddenly decided that they were actually men and started clamoring for hormones and surgery, the mothers begged them to reconsider, or at least slow down.

'If your kid went off and joined the Moonies, people would feel sorry for you, and they would understand that this is a bad thing and that your kid shouldn’t be in the Moonies,' one mother, a former leader of the pro-gay organization Pflag, said. 'With this, I can’t even tell anybody. I talk to my husband, that’s it.' The couple have faithfully covered their daughter’s tuition, health-care and cellphone bills—even though she refuses to speak to them.

Under the influence of testosterone and the spell of transgression, ROGD daughters grow churlish and aggressive. Under the banner of civil rights, they assume the moral high ground. Their mothers take cover behind pseudonyms. As ROGD daughters rage against the biology they hope to defy, their mothers bear its burden, evincing its maternal instinct—the stubborn refusal to abandon their young."

And then if you are so inclined, purchase the book.  It is absolutely horrifying.  I am thankful to be ahead of the curve on it, since my girls are a little younger than the age where this would be an issue, so I am able to speak to them about it and the dangers of online "mentors" whose aim is to drive a wedge between them and their parents who love them.  I personally know people who were not aware, not warned, and therefore had no way to stop the madness when it finally became obvious it had visited them.

This is why I do not take what Pastor Stoffregen posted to start this thread seriously.  The changing of "norms" is not only intentional, it is malignant.  It is designed to destroy the old norms.  It is not simply the natural arising of new understandings.  It is evil.  It is harmful.  And as the father of 3 girls, I will fight it to my last breath.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 28, 2021, 12:42:19 PM
"culturally accepted norms"

Where do we start with this?

First of all, which "culture"?  It appears that we have several now.  And what do we do when we have multiple 'cultures' that are in opposition to each other?

Secondly, we used to have some understanding of normal and balanced, psychologically speaking. What is "ordered" and what is "disordered"? When I went to college I believe that DSM III was in use.  Transgenderism was considered a "gender identity disorder." It was that way in DSM IV as well. Disorder was used up through 2013.  In DSM 5 it is called "gender dysphoria." 

Now I know that it will seem that I am overreacting to some, but now that many behaviors, including pedophilia, is considered normal and acceptable in some areas, why should any identity or any behavior with regard to sex be stigmatized?  And if a person wants to think they are an animal (clinical lycanthropy), why should that be seen as "disordered"?  In fact, they should be accepted in society within the workplace and elsewhere as if normal. 

If the most basic of identities - gender - is now fluid with regard to definition, why should any other identifying description be seen with any more specificity? 

But again, we come back to that word "culture."  Whose culture gets to define these things?


I think that we grew up in a culture where gender expectations were clearer. We had beliefs that big boys don't cry. There were few proper careers for women: teachers, nurses, secretaries, and most importantly, wife and mother. Parents didn't give dolls to sons (even while we expected them to grow up to be fathers,) but it was expected their daughters would play with dolls. When we talked about "who wears the pants in the family," we knew that it was the father because women always wore dresses. (I remember an elderly lady confessing to me one winter Sunday morning that that was the first time in her life that she had worn pants to church. It was just too cold to wear a dress.)


There was the expectation that the man would be the major wage-earner, so women were (and continue to be) paid less. The man's business would offer benefits, so, if the wife worked, she didn't need those benefits. A few cases where the wives had better paying jobs so the husband stayed home to take care of children and household chores was almost scandalous.


There was a time when it was thought the women couldn't play basketball like the men, so there were special rules for women's basketball: six on a team. Three stayed on half the court to play defense and three were on the other half and played offense.


Going back to even earlier generations, women were not allowed to vote. The general expectations (even back in biblical times) is that men were the public face of the family. Women might have some authority inside the house, but not in public. Even now, the percentage of females in the House (27% the highest in history) and Senate (24%) is far less than their percentage in the population (51%).
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 28, 2021, 01:14:34 PM

This is why I do not take what Pastor Stoffregen posted to start this thread seriously.  The changing of "norms" is not only intentional, it is malignant.  It is designed to destroy the old norms.  It is not simply the natural arising of new understandings.  It is evil.  It is harmful.  And as the father of 3 girls, I will fight it to my last breath.


One of the new "norms" is recognizing that gender identity is more than just xx or xy chromosomes. There are genetic/hormonal issues that can be the source of why the gender in the brain is different than in the bodies. We know that issues with conception and in the womb can cause people to be born differently than normal. (A list of common birth defects is here (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/types.html).) Another one an acquaintance was born with is sacral agenesis. His legs were amputated when he was five because they were unusable. He's now a motivational speaker.


We recognize that there are circumstances that create abnormalities in the womb; why not also for sexual orientation and gender identification? Just because we haven't pinpointed the cause(s) doesn't mean they don't exist.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2021, 01:58:09 PM
We should be able to acknowledge and accept that since the fall, many things have become more complicated and do not work out the way they theoretically should. Sexuality and gender does not always line up as a simple ready of chromosomes might suggest. And at times some more extreme measures, such as hormonal treatments or sex reassignment therapy or surgery might be indicated. But even so, do we really need to buy into the whole program the encourages and recruits young people to convince them that this is what they need, locking them into sex reassignment before puberty (even using medications to delay puberty to assist in the process) interrupting what may well be a hiccough in the maturation process into a commitment to sex change? Must we also make provisions in the law that specifically disallows religious freedom. What about female athletes having to compete against biological males who are still biologically male but "identify" as female?
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: David Garner on February 28, 2021, 02:56:10 PM

This is why I do not take what Pastor Stoffregen posted to start this thread seriously.  The changing of "norms" is not only intentional, it is malignant.  It is designed to destroy the old norms.  It is not simply the natural arising of new understandings.  It is evil.  It is harmful.  And as the father of 3 girls, I will fight it to my last breath.


One of the new "norms" is recognizing that gender identity is more than just xx or xy chromosomes. There are genetic/hormonal issues that can be the source of why the gender in the brain is different than in the bodies. We know that issues with conception and in the womb can cause people to be born differently than normal. (A list of common birth defects is here (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/types.html).) Another one an acquaintance was born with is sacral agenesis. His legs were amputated when he was five because they were unusable. He's now a motivational speaker.


We recognize that there are circumstances that create abnormalities in the womb; why not also for sexual orientation and gender identification? Just because we haven't pinpointed the cause(s) doesn't mean they don't exist.

"We." 

For what it's worth, I can accept exceptions, and I do.  We should be kind and compassionate to them.  But trying to make the exception the rule, and trying to say people with genetic defects exist, ergo, anyone who says they are the opposite of their biological sex is not only not deluded, but in fact it is cruel and mean to suggest otherwise, is insanity.  You know this.  I think you know it instinctively.  Most people do. 

So let's drop the pretense please and discuss the real issue -- there is a social contagion among teenage girls where they are encouraged actively by trans activists on the internet to "transition."  Just as we don't let teenagers drink alcohol recreationally or in most states have sex consensually, we should protect them from mutilation of their bodies whether they think it is necessary or not.

Adults can do as they wish, and they have always been able to.  I might think an adult is deluded too, but it is not up to me to manage their delusion.  You aren't discovering new scientific truths here.  You are simply jumping onto a cultural bandwagon without bothering to ask where it is headed.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: David Garner on February 28, 2021, 02:57:44 PM
What about female athletes having to compete against biological males who are still biologically male but "identify" as female?

This is the most misogynistic aspect of our society.  And the tolerant champions of women (self-styled) are 100% on board with it.  It is abusive and evil and it demeans and erases women.

But to hell with them.  They are in the way of "progress."
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on February 28, 2021, 05:33:01 PM
My niece (now early 20's) told me that there was a fad of lesbianism in her high school.  Girls were going out of their way to put this into peoples faces.  Most of that died away like many teen fads do  Now we're being inundated with pro-LGBT, etc. propaganda and it's not too surprising that we're seeing things like this.  My concern is the young people who do something stupid like having surgery or extensive hormone "therapy" whose end results we don't really understand.  I'm pretty sure that the percentage of people identifying as the alphabet folks will drop back to the less than 5% number that seems "normal".
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 28, 2021, 05:55:19 PM
My niece (now early 20's) told me that there was a fad of lesbianism in her high school.  Girls were going out of their way to put this into peoples faces.  Most of that died away like many teen fads do  Now we're being inundated with pro-LGBT, etc. propaganda and it's not too surprising that we're seeing things like this.  My concern is the young people who do something stupid like having surgery or extensive hormone "therapy" whose end results we don't really understand.  I'm pretty sure that the percentage of people identifying as the alphabet folks will drop back to the less than 5% number that seems "normal".


Aetna has a list of requirements before one is qualified for "Gender Affirming Surgery." Generally, one must be at least 18 years of age. (There are exceptions.)
http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0615.html
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: D. Engebretson on February 28, 2021, 06:26:36 PM
Now we're being inundated with pro-LGBT, etc. propaganda...

The hardest part is watching the vocabulary of a culture change, and a minority of that culture serving as a kind of "thought police" to enforce the adoption of this new 'norm.'  We are surrendering a culture, it sometimes feels, without much of a struggle, accepting the changes and alterations as normal because the are packaged in a way as to make it all sound noble and right and proper, and as common as things were before the insisted change.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on February 28, 2021, 08:08:01 PM
Now we're being inundated with pro-LGBT, etc. propaganda...

The hardest part is watching the vocabulary of a culture change, and a minority of that culture serving as a kind of "thought police" to enforce the adoption of this new 'norm.'  We are surrendering a culture, it sometimes feels, without much of a struggle, accepting the changes and alterations as normal because the are packaged in a way as to make it all sound noble and right and proper, and as common as things were before the insisted change.

We are, as Carl Trueman has recently written, at the end of 2 centuries of slow but certain erosion of Western Christian culture.  It has collapsed so rapidly because the foundation has been eaten away by intellectual termites who hate love freedom but hate liberty and who want salvation without a real God.  If there is no such thing as Truth that is objective and applicable to all people, there is no way any cultural could possibly survive.  My true prayer is that we are finally in the last days and this will all soon be over. Maranatha. 
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: D. Engebretson on February 28, 2021, 08:18:59 PM
Now we're being inundated with pro-LGBT, etc. propaganda...

The hardest part is watching the vocabulary of a culture change, and a minority of that culture serving as a kind of "thought police" to enforce the adoption of this new 'norm.'  We are surrendering a culture, it sometimes feels, without much of a struggle, accepting the changes and alterations as normal because the are packaged in a way as to make it all sound noble and right and proper, and as common as things were before the insisted change.

We are, as Carl Trueman has recently written, at the end of 2 centuries of slow but certain erosion of Western Christian culture.  It has collapsed so rapidly because the foundation has been eaten away by intellectual termites who hate love freedom but hate liberty and who want salvation without a real God.  If there is no such thing as Truth that is objective and applicable to all people, there is no way any cultural could possibly survive.  My true prayer is that we are finally in the last days and this will all soon be over. Maranatha.

Truth, in our era, is relative and malleable.  Yet, at the same time, truth can take on an absolute sense when it is identified with the individual.  If it is true for me, then it must be true for you.  Or if you do not like my idea of true, you must at least respect my commitment to it and accommodate that commitment in how you act and how you speak.  But truth thus defined is always a 'moving target.'  Like the Party workers in 1984 we are constantly rewriting history and definitions to fit the new ideas of true.  Christians get pulled into this when they begin to lose a sense of the absoluteness of truth in their scriptures (which we have debated here before).  When that happens we change the truth of the scriptures to fit the prevailing truth of the culture.  And in the process we become disoriented and lost.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Michael Slusser on March 01, 2021, 10:44:59 AM
The next generations that follow us are in for more and more of this, and not only for culture-war reasons. The chemistry is leading toward more confusion, as our bodies assimilate more and more "endocrine disruptors."
Quote
Reproduction

Some classes of EDCs (DDT, BPA, phthalates, PCBs, others) can affect reproductive health by mimicking or blocking the effects of male and female sex hormones

Growth and development

High exposures to EDCs during gestation can lead to low-birth weight
Altered development
Disrupted sexual development
Weakened immune system
https://www.hormone.org/your-health-and-hormones/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-edcs (https://www.hormone.org/your-health-and-hormones/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-edcs)

Children growing up now are dealing with more troubling issues experiencing their bodies than old guys like me. Compassion and withholding of judgment are becoming more and more necessary.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Michael_Rothaar on March 01, 2021, 04:41:11 PM
One of the more interesting things is how the number of LGBT people has grown among Generation Z. First, the percent of the population that identifies as LGBT has grown two full percentage points in the last eight years (3.5% to 5.6%). Almost all of that growth is attributable to Gen Z of which an incredible 15.6% identify as LBGT (9% of Millennials also identify as LGBT, as opposed to 3% and less for Gen X and older).

The rate of growth is an astonishing SIXTY percent.

5.6 - 3.5 = 2.1

(2.1/3.5) * 100 = 60

At that rate, eight years from now 8.96 % of the population will so identify.

Kyrie eleison.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/01/the-explosion-in-queer-sexuality-among-kids-is-not-a-natural-trend/

Worth noting as commentary on the recent Gallup report cited by JEButler. Let's hope for a "regression to the mean" when these kids get a bit older. There's sure no hope for the church to have much influence on them!
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Charles Austin on March 01, 2021, 05:21:55 PM
Pastor Rothaar writes:
There's sure no hope for the church to have much influence on them!
I ask:
Really? Why?
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Charles Austin on March 02, 2021, 05:02:25 AM
Evangelical agency to provide adoption for gay parents:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/us/bethany-adoption-agency-lgbtq.html
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Michael_Rothaar on March 02, 2021, 04:10:22 PM
Pastor Rothaar writes:
There's sure no hope for the church to have much influence on them!
I ask:
Really? Why?



Top of my head:

Shorter answer: no hope for the church to have influence on opinions about human sexuality because nobody's asking.
And to anticipate: OK, maybe not "nobody."
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Charles Austin on March 02, 2021, 06:41:30 PM
The church has had, and continues to have quite a lot to say and, I dare say, a good bit of influence on matters of sexuality in the United States today. It’s just that some people don’t care for the direction of that influence.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: RDPreus on March 02, 2021, 07:03:36 PM
“We will now offer services with the love and compassion of Jesus to the many types of families who exist in our world today,” Mr. Palusky wrote.  He speaks for Bethany Christian Services.  What a treacherous act by people claiming to be evangelical Christians!  They lie about Jesus when they say this his love and compassion would place a helpless child under the parental authority of homosexuals who publicly defy God’s law concerning marriage.  They don’t want to be shut down by the civil authorities.  It has nothing to do with the love and compassion of Jesus and they know it. 
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Charles Austin on March 02, 2021, 08:52:00 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: RDPreus on March 03, 2021, 11:52:23 AM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Charles Austin on March 03, 2021, 12:59:23 PM
But you, Pastor Preus, and a few others here seem to relish the chance to issue - in full cry - in your own voice this "wrath of God." It is an arrogant dodge for you to say "I'm just saying what God says he will do." God will do what God will do and - surprise to you, perhaps - God is more inclined to be merciful than judgmental. Your words dismiss and condemn the faith, prayers, study and spirit of millions of your fellow Christians. Oops, sorry, I almost forgot that for you those who would place an adopted child in the home of a same-gender couple are - along with those two people - not Christians, or are semi-Christians who will, again in your declaration, be punished by God. What do you think that punishment will be? Death? Hell? Boils? Cancer? I suppose it doesn't matter, so long as it is punishment.
But I have let myself take the turn in this exchange despite the sign that says "Dead End."
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 03, 2021, 01:51:38 PM
But you, Pastor Preus, and a few others here seem to relish the chance to issue - in full cry - in your own voice this "wrath of God." It is an arrogant dodge for you to say "I'm just saying what God says he will do." God will do what God will do and - surprise to you, perhaps - God is more inclined to be merciful than judgmental. Your words dismiss and condemn the faith, prayers, study and spirit of millions of your fellow Christians. Oops, sorry, I almost forgot that for you those who would place an adopted child in the home of a same-gender couple are - along with those two people - not Christians, or are semi-Christians who will, again in your declaration, be punished by God. What do you think that punishment will be? Death? Hell? Boils? Cancer? I suppose it doesn't matter, so long as it is punishment.
But I have let myself take the turn in this exchange despite the sign that says "Dead End."
If you would quit reading into various posts what people "seem to relish" you might interact better. You have condemned Pr. Preus for being arrogant and judgmental. He has condemned Christian groups that do gay adoptions. At least Pr. Preus is not condemning anyone for anything he merely inferred about them.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: RDPreus on March 03, 2021, 01:58:03 PM
"Your words dismiss and condemn the faith, prayers, study and spirit of millions of your fellow Christians."

On the one side is "the faith, prayers, study and spirit of millions of your fellow Christians."  On the other side is God's Word.  The God who punishes is also the God who forgives.  Where sin abounds grace abounds much more.  I believe in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ who is gracious to sinners for Christ's sake.  That his wrath is being revealed from heaven against homosexuals (Romans 1:18-27) and all others who suppress the truth in unrighteousness does not mean that he is not gracious for Christ's sake.  He is gracious to all sinners: baby-killers, adulterers, greedy idolaters, homosexuals, rapists, thieves, and liars.  Apart from Christ his wrath abides.  In Christ he is gracious.  When men of the cloth teach homosexuals that they need not repent of their homosexuality but may marry members of the same sex and adopt children (as if their perversion is not a sin) these men consign those unrepentant homosexuals to hell.  Now you can accuse me of relishing the wrath of God, but it is you, not I, who would leave homosexuals under the wrath of God.  I would call them to repent of their sin of homosexuality and trust in the blood and righteousness of Jesus and be saved.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: jebutler on March 03, 2021, 02:35:49 PM
But you, Pastor Preus, and a few others here seem to relish the chance to issue - in full cry - in your own voice this "wrath of God." It is an arrogant dodge for you to say "I'm just saying what God says he will do." God will do what God will do and - surprise to you, perhaps - God is more inclined to be merciful than judgmental. Your words dismiss and condemn the faith, prayers, study and spirit of millions of your fellow Christians. Oops, sorry, I almost forgot that for you those who would place an adopted child in the home of a same-gender couple are - along with those two people - not Christians, or are semi-Christians who will, again in your declaration, be punished by God. What do you think that punishment will be? Death? Hell? Boils? Cancer? I suppose it doesn't matter, so long as it is punishment.
But I have let myself take the turn in this exchange despite the sign that says "Dead End."

I find it interesting that Rolf twice points to Scripture...and you don't. The phrase "wrath of God" which you claim is Rolf's voice (even underlining for emphasis) is exactly what Paul says in Romans, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth" (1:18 nrsv). If you are going to argue his point--and accuse him of "relishing" in condemnation--then you could at least try arguing Scripture. But you seem to go out of your way to avoid it and simply give "God loves everyone" generalities.

As to this particular case, Bethany Christian Services says that it will now, "offer services with the love and compassion of Jesus to the many types of families who exist in our world today." First, I have to ask how they are offering these services "with the love and compassion of Jesus." They are offering adoptions; I doubt there is anything different in their approach than in any other. Other than the fact that Lutheran Social Services of New England had "Lutheran" in their name,* there wasn't anything particularly Lutheran--or even vaguely Christian--about my adoption experience. I could have gone to the local Dept. of Children and Families office and would have received the exact same services.

Second, will they *really* "now offer services...to the many types of families who exist in our world today"? I just read an article in the New York Post about a gay throuple California. They have two children via a surrogate and all three men have their name listed as fathers. Would BCS be willing offer services to them? What about a polygamous Mormon? What about a four person group marriage? The problem is that once you open the door to "the many types of families" which ones do you exclude?

*I use the word "had" quite intentionally. They no longer refer to themselves as Lutheran in any sense. Now it is "Ascentria" whatever that means.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Charles Austin on March 03, 2021, 02:53:40 PM
Some words and sentences have clear meanings, Peter, and "inferring," that is interpreting the sentences in context, considering source, topic, previous writings, etc. etc., is standard literary criticism.
But my apologies again for intentionally turning down the street where the sign clearly read "Dead End."
Carry on. What Pastor Preus or I think of adoption by gay couples is irrelevant here.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 03, 2021, 04:23:25 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: RDPreus on March 03, 2021, 05:03:50 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 03, 2021, 07:31:53 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: RDPreus on March 03, 2021, 10:49:46 PM
"I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others."

Does this mean that a preacher may not preach on this text?  Or if he does, must his sermon be a mea culpa? 
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 03, 2021, 11:38:16 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments! 
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 04, 2021, 11:14:57 AM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.


Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.



Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: RDPreus on March 04, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.


Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.





If you as a repentant sinner are free to point out the particular sins of others why can't other repentant sinners point out the particular sin of homosexual desires and activities as Paul does in Romans 1? 
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 04, 2021, 12:28:33 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.


Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.





Brian, just because Paul does not use the specific word μετανοέω does NOT mean that in Romans he does not call sinners to agree with God that their sin is evil and deserves condemnation. 

In 1st Corinthians Paul has no problem "judging" the sin of the incestuous man not to mention "judging" various other sins in Corinth - and Paul does NOT consider himself to be sinning in doing so.  In fact, Paul teaches that the Corinthian congregation IS sinning via their pride in the incestuous man's sin rather than engaging in church discipline for the sake of this man's salvation.

The type of "judging" that Jesus and the apostles condemn is a self-righteous judging that fails to see one's own sin and fails to point others to Christ as the only Savior from sin.  But in NO place in the NT does Jesus or the apostles teach that we should NOT rebuke particular sins in other people.  In fact, both Jesus and the apostles stress that we SHOULD rebuke sin in other people so that they might repent and receive forgiveness in Christ. (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3 & 24:47; Acts 3:26; Acts 8:22-23; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5 [where Paul rebukes the UNrepentant for their self-righteous judging]; Romans 6:12-13; Romans 13:12-13; Romans 16:17-18; 1st Corinthians 5:1-13; 1st Corinthians 6:9-10; 1st Corinthians 10:1-14; 1st Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 5:3-17; Colossians 3:5-10; 1st Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1st Timothy 1:3; 1st Timothy 1:19-20; 2nd Timothy 2:25-26; 2nd Timothy 3:1-17; 2nd Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:10-16; Titus 3:10-11; James 5:19-20; 1st Peter 4:1-6; 2nd Peter 2:1-22; 1st John 2:3-29; 1st John 4:1-6; 2nd John 8-11; 3rd John 9-10; Jude 3-4)  I could list MANY MORE!

Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 04, 2021, 12:36:38 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.


Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.





If you as a repentant sinner are free to point out the particular sins of others why can't other repentant sinners point out the particular sin of homosexual desires and activities as Paul does in Romans 1?

Brian, you say that we sin if we "judge others," that is, point out particular sins in their life and their need to repent of them, and yet you write the following: "As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus." That's exactly what Rolf and I have been saying!  Jesus and the apostles clearly teach that repentant believers CAN and MUST rebuke sins in others so that they might repent and receive salvation in Christ.  So, your point about Paul in Romans 1 & 2 saying that repentant sinners shouldn't "judge others" is refuted by your own words!
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Charles Austin on March 04, 2021, 12:43:51 PM
There is a difference, I think, between calling out the sins of others and "judging" others in terms of their faith and relationship with God and the Christian community.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 04, 2021, 12:49:50 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.


Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.





If you as a repentant sinner are free to point out the particular sins of others why can't other repentant sinners point out the particular sin of homosexual desires and activities as Paul does in Romans 1?


Just as long as you also point out the particular sin of heterosexual desires and activities as Jesus' does in Matthew 5. Oh, and you should also point out all the other particular sins Paul talks about in Romans 1. Most of them are more likely to be found among members of our congregations.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 04, 2021, 12:51:35 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.


Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.





If you as a repentant sinner are free to point out the particular sins of others why can't other repentant sinners point out the particular sin of homosexual desires and activities as Paul does in Romans 1?

Brian, as Rolf noted, you are confused!  You say that we sin if we "judge others," that is, point out particular sins in their life and their need to repent of them, and yet you write the following: "As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus." That's exactly what Rolf and I have been saying!  Jesus and the apostles clearly teach that repentant believers CAN and MUST rebuke sins in others so that they might repent and receive salvation in Christ.  So, your nonsense about Paul in Romans 1 & 2 saying that repentant sinners shouldn't "judge others" is refuted by your own words!


Yup, cause RD said I could. (He would probably go further and say that we should judge the particular sins of others.)
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 04, 2021, 12:59:26 PM
So what do you finally accuse them of, Pastor Preus? Hypocrisy? Heresy? Immorality?
Give us a scale.
You say they cannot possibly be showing the love of Jesus. So on which charge - as judge and jury- do you convict them?

God's Word teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination that falls under the wrath of God.  Read Romans 1:18-27.  For a nominally "Christian" organization to entrust to homosexual couples the care of little children is an offense against God and the children.  I do not convict them of anything.  God's Word condemns them.  God will punish them because He loves the little children.


Romans 1 makes the point that all of us are under the same wrath of God. None of us are righteous.

That's right.  None of us is righteous.  We all need to repent and believe the gospel that gives us the righteousness of Christ.


I think that it's a misuse of Romans 1 when it is used to point out the unrighteousness of others. It was written to convict each of us of our own unrighteousness; and our need for Jesus.


In fact, Paul begins Romans 2: "So every single one of you who judge others is without any excuse. you condemn yourself when you judge another person because the one who is judging is doing the same things." (CEB)

Brian, in Romans chapters 1 & 2 Paul is NOT arguing: "We can't call others to repentance because we're all sinners who deserve God's wrath." Instead, Paul is pointing out that we can't call others to repentance as though they are sinners and we are NOT!  The notion that repentant Christians can't call the unrepentant to repentance and point out their particular sins that God condemns goes against the teaching of Jesus and the entire Old and New Testaments!  But, of course, you already know this.


Considering that Paul, in Romans, never uses μετανοέω; in fact, that word only occurs once in all of the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 12:21); and ματάνοια only occurs in Romans 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9, 10; it's difficult to push that Paul's call for repentance is a major theme in his letters; or in Romans in particular.


Given your logic, I would like to point out to you that judging others brings condemnation on yourself (Romans 2:1-3; see also chapter 14; Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37). Recognizing this sin; then what? Does repentance include an attempt to stop this sin? Does it mean you will refrain from judging others? Or, (as I suspect,) do you find reasons why your sin of judging others is justified and you continue doing it?


I recognize that I am judging you; but you gave me justification for doing so in your response above. As a repentant sinner, I'm free to point out the particular sins that God condemn and goes against the teachings of Jesus.





If you as a repentant sinner are free to point out the particular sins of others why can't other repentant sinners point out the particular sin of homosexual desires and activities as Paul does in Romans 1?


Just as long as you also point out the particular sin of heterosexual desires and activities as Jesus' does in Matthew 5. Oh, and you should also point out all the other particular sins Paul talks about in Romans 1. Most of them are more likely to be found among members of our congregations.

Brian, of course we should also condemn all heterosexual behavior outside of one man/one woman marriage as well as all the other sins Paul condemns in Romans chapter 1.  But that's NOT what you said earlier.  You said Paul was condemning judging as being a sin (even though Paul was "judging" in sayin so!) and you failed to make the distinction between "self-righteous judging" (failing to see one's own sin and failing to point sinners to Christ) versus the kind of godly judging for the sake of saving others which Jesus actually COMMANDS that we repentant sinners do!  But it now appears that you agree with Rolf and me that godly judging is NOT sinful and that God actually expects us to do it.  Glad you agree with us!
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 04, 2021, 01:17:33 PM
Brian, just because Paul does not use the specific word μετανοέω does NOT mean that in Romans he does not call sinners to agree with God that their sin is evil and deserves condemnation.  In fact, you know Paul does this!  So stop playing games.


Paul also sees himself constantly under God's judgment (as well his his own) in Romans 7. He cannot stop sinning.

Quote
In 1st Corinthians Paul has no problem "judging" the sin of the incestuous man not to mention "judging" various other sins in Corinth - and Paul does NOT consider himself to be sinning in doing so.  In fact, Paul teaches that the Corinthian congregation IS sinning via their pride in the incestuous man's sin rather than engaging in church discipline for the sake of this man's salvation.


The judgment there, as well as in Matthew 18, is about sins against other people within the church. "If a brother sins against you."


Quote
The type of "judging" that Jesus and the apostles condemn is a self-righteous judging that fails to see one's own sin and fails to point others to Christ as the only Savior from sin.  But in NO place in the NT does Jesus or the apostles teach that we should NOT rebuke particular sins in other people.  In fact, both Jesus and the apostles stress that we SHOULD rebuke sin in other people so that they might repent and receive forgiveness in Christ. (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3 & 24:47; Acts 3:26; Acts 8:22-23; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5 [where Paul rebukes the UNrepentant for their self-righteous judging]; Romans 6:12-13; Romans 13:12-13; Romans 16:17-18; 1st Corinthians 5:1-13; 1st Corinthians 6:9-10; 1st Corinthians 10:1-14; 1st Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 5:3-17; Colossians 3:5-10; 1st Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1st Timothy 1:3; 1st Timothy 1:19-20; 2nd Timothy 2:25-26; 2nd Timothy 3:1-17; 2nd Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:10-16; Titus 3:10-11; James 5:19-20; 1st Peter 4:1-6; 2nd Peter 2:1-22; 1st John 2:3-29; 1st John 4:1-6; 2nd John 8-11; 3rd John 9-10; Jude 3-4)  I could list MANY MORE!

But again, you already know this.


Yup, I knew that you would find a way to justify judging other people. (I don't see Paul stating in Romans 2 that repentant sinners are free the the judgment he makes against judging.) I see it more as saying that we do not have the ability to judge as God judges. And as sinful people, we are just as likely to be wrong about our rebukes (see Matthew 16:22; 19:13; 20:31 when the disciples' rebukes were misguided). I'm also quite aware of the parable of the weeds and wheat - that the servants judgment against the weeds; as correct as it might have been, would have done more damage than if they had left them alone and left the judgment up to God at the last days.


Most often, e.g., Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians, we must judge and seek to remove behaviors that are detrimental to the Christian community. "If a brother sins against you" (Matthew 18:15). The issues there about church discipline are the sins we commit against each other.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 04, 2021, 01:30:46 PM
Brian, of course we should also condemn all heterosexual behavior outside of one man/one woman marriage as well as all the other sins Paul condemns in Romans chapter 1.  But that's NOT what you said earlier.  You said Paul was condemning judging as being a sin (even though Paul was "judging" in sayin so!) and you failed to make the distinction between "self-righteous judging" (failing to see one's own sin and failing to point sinners to Christ) versus the kind of godly judging for the sake of saving others which Jesus actually COMMANDS that we repentant sinners do!  But it now appears that you agree with Rolf and me that godly judging is NOT sinful and that God actually expects us to do it.  Glad you agree with us!


A big difference is that self-righteous judging centers on the sins of those other people: "You have sinned by …."; thus indicating, "I don't have that sin." Repentant judging puts one's self under the same judgment: "We have sinned by …."


Another issue I brought up that hasn't been dealt with: what does repentance look like? Paul seemed clear in Romans 7 that no amount of repentance would keep him from sinning. If one finds himself meting out self-righteous judgment and repents of that, does that then mean he should stop judging people? When alcoholics recognize their sin of alcoholism; part of the cure is to stop drinking.



Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: RDPreus on March 04, 2021, 02:25:45 PM
Brian, please excuse me for quoting myself, but your arguments reminded me of a sermon I preached a couple of weeks ago at our midweek Lenten Vespers.  It was on Psalm 6.  Here is the introduction:

“Sure, I’m a sinner.  So is everyone else.  We’re all sinners.  I’m not perfect!  Neither are you.  So leave me alone.  Quit your judging.  You’re just as much a sinner as I am.”  Well, that might work.  Attack the messenger.  It might shut him up.  “Judge not!”  Said with sufficient indignation it may parry whatever correction comes your way.  Since everyone is a sinner, anyone who tries to correct you is a sinner and being a sinner disqualifies one from pointing out anyone else’s sin.  This is how sin becomes an abstract construct with no reality.  The only thing that is a sin these days is to say that something is sinful and someone did it.  Welcome to the 21st century!
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: aletheist on March 04, 2021, 03:58:26 PM
The only thing that is a sin these days is to say that something is sinful and someone did it.
Indeed, and the one thing that our society will not tolerate is (perceived) intolerance.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 04, 2021, 05:28:39 PM
Brian, just because Paul does not use the specific word μετανοέω does NOT mean that in Romans he does not call sinners to agree with God that their sin is evil and deserves condemnation.  In fact, you know Paul does this!  So stop playing games.


Paul also sees himself constantly under God's judgment (as well his his own) in Romans 7. He cannot stop sinning.

Quote
In 1st Corinthians Paul has no problem "judging" the sin of the incestuous man not to mention "judging" various other sins in Corinth - and Paul does NOT consider himself to be sinning in doing so.  In fact, Paul teaches that the Corinthian congregation IS sinning via their pride in the incestuous man's sin rather than engaging in church discipline for the sake of this man's salvation.


The judgment there, as well as in Matthew 18, is about sins against other people within the church. "If a brother sins against you."


Quote
The type of "judging" that Jesus and the apostles condemn is a self-righteous judging that fails to see one's own sin and fails to point others to Christ as the only Savior from sin.  But in NO place in the NT does Jesus or the apostles teach that we should NOT rebuke particular sins in other people.  In fact, both Jesus and the apostles stress that we SHOULD rebuke sin in other people so that they might repent and receive forgiveness in Christ. (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3 & 24:47; Acts 3:26; Acts 8:22-23; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5 [where Paul rebukes the UNrepentant for their self-righteous judging]; Romans 6:12-13; Romans 13:12-13; Romans 16:17-18; 1st Corinthians 5:1-13; 1st Corinthians 6:9-10; 1st Corinthians 10:1-14; 1st Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 5:3-17; Colossians 3:5-10; 1st Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1st Timothy 1:3; 1st Timothy 1:19-20; 2nd Timothy 2:25-26; 2nd Timothy 3:1-17; 2nd Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:10-16; Titus 3:10-11; James 5:19-20; 1st Peter 4:1-6; 2nd Peter 2:1-22; 1st John 2:3-29; 1st John 4:1-6; 2nd John 8-11; 3rd John 9-10; Jude 3-4)  I could list MANY MORE!

But again, you already know this.


Yup, I knew that you would find a way to justify judging other people. (I don't see Paul stating in Romans 2 that repentant sinners are free the the judgment he makes against judging.) I see it more as saying that we do not have the ability to judge as God judges. And as sinful people, we are just as likely to be wrong about our rebukes (see Matthew 16:22; 19:13; 20:31 when the disciples' rebukes were misguided). I'm also quite aware of the parable of the weeds and wheat - that the servants judgment against the weeds; as correct as it might have been, would have done more damage than if they had left them alone and left the judgment up to God at the last days.


Most often, e.g., Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians, we must judge and seek to remove behaviors that are detrimental to the Christian community. "If a brother sins against you" (Matthew 18:15). The issues there about church discipline are the sins we commit against each other.

Brian, Scripture clearly teaches that repentant sinners are to engage in "godly judging" by calling others to repentance for particular sins so that they might confess those sins (1st John 1:8-10) and receive forgiveness through faith in Christ.  You know full well that it is wrong to say that the only time we can call others to repent is if they sin against US.  When Paul rebuked the incestuous man in Corinth, this man had not sinned against Paul.  This man sinned against GOD and OTHERS (which is the case for any sin!), and Paul rebukes him and commands the Corinthian congregation to engage in church discipline with this man so that he might be saved.  All the sins Paul rebukes in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 are NOT sins against Paul himself but sins people have committed against God and others - and Paul still rebukes them and makes it clear that if they refuse to repent they will NOT enter God's Kingdom.

Also, to repent does not mean that one now must live a sinless life.  We all know what Paul says in Romans 7:14ff and that we will continue to struggle with the desires of our sinful nature until the day we die.  Nevertheless, Paul still calls us to live in daily repentance!  This means, at the very least, that we agree with God when He condemns various evil desires, thoughts, words and deeds in our lives, we trust in Christ for forgiveness and we strive to turn from those sins and do better.  However, if one affirms sin that God condemns, sees no need to be forgiven for that sin, and fully intends to continue in that sin without remorse, then such a person is in danger of hell unless he/she is brought to repentance and faith in Christ.  That's Paul's point in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10.  He's not saying that such sins can't be forgiven nor is he saying that repentant believers will never struggle with such sins.  What Paul IS saying in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 is that those who affirm such sins and see no need to repent of them will NOT be in God's Kingdom.  That's the same point Paul makes in Romans 1:32.

Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 04, 2021, 05:38:48 PM
Brian, of course we should also condemn all heterosexual behavior outside of one man/one woman marriage as well as all the other sins Paul condemns in Romans chapter 1.  But that's NOT what you said earlier.  You said Paul was condemning judging as being a sin (even though Paul was "judging" in sayin so!) and you failed to make the distinction between "self-righteous judging" (failing to see one's own sin and failing to point sinners to Christ) versus the kind of godly judging for the sake of saving others which Jesus actually COMMANDS that we repentant sinners do!  But it now appears that you agree with Rolf and me that godly judging is NOT sinful and that God actually expects us to do it.  Glad you agree with us!


A big difference is that self-righteous judging centers on the sins of those other people: "You have sinned by …."; thus indicating, "I don't have that sin." Repentant judging puts one's self under the same judgment: "We have sinned by …."


Another issue I brought up that hasn't been dealt with: what does repentance look like? Paul seemed clear in Romans 7 that no amount of repentance would keep him from sinning. If one finds himself meting out self-righteous judgment and repents of that, does that then mean he should stop judging people? When alcoholics recognize their sin of alcoholism; part of the cure is to stop drinking.

Brian, neither I nor Rolf ever said that rebuking others for a sin in their life means that we deny our own sin.  Where did you get that idea?  Paul calls himself the "worst of sinners" and yet he rebuked others for their sin all the time.  The kind of "judging" Jesus condemns is "judging" that fails to see one's own sin and fails to point others to Christ.  At the same time, Jesus COMMANDS that repentant believers engage in GODLY judging, that is, calling sin what it is, lovingly telling others who engage in such sin that they must agree with God that their sin is evil and deserves God's wrath that they must trust in Jesus for forgiveness and for the strength to live according to God's loving will for our lives (see Romans 12:1-2 and Titus 2:11-15).

As for repentance, this not only includes agreeing with God when He condemns particular sins in our lives but also striving to turn from that sin and live according to God's will.  Can we do this perfectly this side of heaven?  Of course not!  Thus the need for daily repentance until the day we die.  However, if we celebrate the sin God condemns and throw a parade for it (Romans 1:32), then we reject God's Word (1st John 1:10) and push away the forgiveness God would give us.



Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 04, 2021, 05:45:26 PM
Brian, just because Paul does not use the specific word μετανοέω does NOT mean that in Romans he does not call sinners to agree with God that their sin is evil and deserves condemnation.  In fact, you know Paul does this!  So stop playing games.


Paul also sees himself constantly under God's judgment (as well his his own) in Romans 7. He cannot stop sinning.

Quote
In 1st Corinthians Paul has no problem "judging" the sin of the incestuous man not to mention "judging" various other sins in Corinth - and Paul does NOT consider himself to be sinning in doing so.  In fact, Paul teaches that the Corinthian congregation IS sinning via their pride in the incestuous man's sin rather than engaging in church discipline for the sake of this man's salvation.


The judgment there, as well as in Matthew 18, is about sins against other people within the church. "If a brother sins against you."


Quote
The type of "judging" that Jesus and the apostles condemn is a self-righteous judging that fails to see one's own sin and fails to point others to Christ as the only Savior from sin.  But in NO place in the NT does Jesus or the apostles teach that we should NOT rebuke particular sins in other people.  In fact, both Jesus and the apostles stress that we SHOULD rebuke sin in other people so that they might repent and receive forgiveness in Christ. (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3 & 24:47; Acts 3:26; Acts 8:22-23; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5 [where Paul rebukes the UNrepentant for their self-righteous judging]; Romans 6:12-13; Romans 13:12-13; Romans 16:17-18; 1st Corinthians 5:1-13; 1st Corinthians 6:9-10; 1st Corinthians 10:1-14; 1st Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 5:3-17; Colossians 3:5-10; 1st Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1st Timothy 1:3; 1st Timothy 1:19-20; 2nd Timothy 2:25-26; 2nd Timothy 3:1-17; 2nd Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:10-16; Titus 3:10-11; James 5:19-20; 1st Peter 4:1-6; 2nd Peter 2:1-22; 1st John 2:3-29; 1st John 4:1-6; 2nd John 8-11; 3rd John 9-10; Jude 3-4)  I could list MANY MORE!

But again, you already know this.


Yup, I knew that you would find a way to justify judging other people. (I don't see Paul stating in Romans 2 that repentant sinners are free the the judgment he makes against judging.) I see it more as saying that we do not have the ability to judge as God judges. And as sinful people, we are just as likely to be wrong about our rebukes (see Matthew 16:22; 19:13; 20:31 when the disciples' rebukes were misguided). I'm also quite aware of the parable of the weeds and wheat - that the servants judgment against the weeds; as correct as it might have been, would have done more damage than if they had left them alone and left the judgment up to God at the last days.


Most often, e.g., Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians, we must judge and seek to remove behaviors that are detrimental to the Christian community. "If a brother sins against you" (Matthew 18:15). The issues there about church discipline are the sins we commit against each other.

Also, according to your erroneous view of Scripture, the only time we can rebuke someone is if they sin against us personally.  Not only does Scripture NOT teach this, but the OT prophets and NT apostles rebuked others for sins in their lives all the time even though those people had not sinned against the prophets or apostles personally.  In fact, if your view of judging is true, then the only time a pastor can speak of sin from the pulpit is if it's a sin someone has committed against him.  That's ridiculous, of course.  As pastors, we are called to rebuke the sins in the lives of others whether they have sinned against us personally or not - with the full understanding that we ourselves as pastors are also guilty of many sins and need forgiveness from Jesus as much as anyone else.  The simple fact is that one of the duties of a pastor is to show love for a member who is caught up in unrepentant sin by exposing that sin in his/her life, calling them to repentance and faith in Jesus - and if they refuse to repent, to exercise church discipline.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 04, 2021, 06:15:50 PM
Brian, just because Paul does not use the specific word μετανοέω does NOT mean that in Romans he does not call sinners to agree with God that their sin is evil and deserves condemnation.  In fact, you know Paul does this!  So stop playing games.


Paul also sees himself constantly under God's judgment (as well his his own) in Romans 7. He cannot stop sinning.

Quote
In 1st Corinthians Paul has no problem "judging" the sin of the incestuous man not to mention "judging" various other sins in Corinth - and Paul does NOT consider himself to be sinning in doing so.  In fact, Paul teaches that the Corinthian congregation IS sinning via their pride in the incestuous man's sin rather than engaging in church discipline for the sake of this man's salvation.


The judgment there, as well as in Matthew 18, is about sins against other people within the church. "If a brother sins against you."


Quote
The type of "judging" that Jesus and the apostles condemn is a self-righteous judging that fails to see one's own sin and fails to point others to Christ as the only Savior from sin.  But in NO place in the NT does Jesus or the apostles teach that we should NOT rebuke particular sins in other people.  In fact, both Jesus and the apostles stress that we SHOULD rebuke sin in other people so that they might repent and receive forgiveness in Christ. (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3 & 24:47; Acts 3:26; Acts 8:22-23; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5 [where Paul rebukes the UNrepentant for their self-righteous judging]; Romans 6:12-13; Romans 13:12-13; Romans 16:17-18; 1st Corinthians 5:1-13; 1st Corinthians 6:9-10; 1st Corinthians 10:1-14; 1st Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 5:3-17; Colossians 3:5-10; 1st Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1st Timothy 1:3; 1st Timothy 1:19-20; 2nd Timothy 2:25-26; 2nd Timothy 3:1-17; 2nd Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:10-16; Titus 3:10-11; James 5:19-20; 1st Peter 4:1-6; 2nd Peter 2:1-22; 1st John 2:3-29; 1st John 4:1-6; 2nd John 8-11; 3rd John 9-10; Jude 3-4)  I could list MANY MORE!

But again, you already know this.


Yup, I knew that you would find a way to justify judging other people. (I don't see Paul stating in Romans 2 that repentant sinners are free the the judgment he makes against judging.) I see it more as saying that we do not have the ability to judge as God judges. And as sinful people, we are just as likely to be wrong about our rebukes (see Matthew 16:22; 19:13; 20:31 when the disciples' rebukes were misguided). I'm also quite aware of the parable of the weeds and wheat - that the servants judgment against the weeds; as correct as it might have been, would have done more damage than if they had left them alone and left the judgment up to God at the last days.


Most often, e.g., Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians, we must judge and seek to remove behaviors that are detrimental to the Christian community. "If a brother sins against you" (Matthew 18:15). The issues there about church discipline are the sins we commit against each other.

Brian, here's just one of numerous examples of repentant believers rebuking others and calling others to repentance for the sake of their salvation:  When the prophet Nathan rebukes David for his adultery and murder.  David had not sinned against Nathan, but Nathan rebukes David nevertheless so that David might repent and be saved.
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: David Garner on March 04, 2021, 06:40:54 PM
Brian, just because Paul does not use the specific word μετανοέω does NOT mean that in Romans he does not call sinners to agree with God that their sin is evil and deserves condemnation.  In fact, you know Paul does this!  So stop playing games.


Paul also sees himself constantly under God's judgment (as well his his own) in Romans 7. He cannot stop sinning.

Quote
In 1st Corinthians Paul has no problem "judging" the sin of the incestuous man not to mention "judging" various other sins in Corinth - and Paul does NOT consider himself to be sinning in doing so.  In fact, Paul teaches that the Corinthian congregation IS sinning via their pride in the incestuous man's sin rather than engaging in church discipline for the sake of this man's salvation.


The judgment there, as well as in Matthew 18, is about sins against other people within the church. "If a brother sins against you."


Quote
The type of "judging" that Jesus and the apostles condemn is a self-righteous judging that fails to see one's own sin and fails to point others to Christ as the only Savior from sin.  But in NO place in the NT does Jesus or the apostles teach that we should NOT rebuke particular sins in other people.  In fact, both Jesus and the apostles stress that we SHOULD rebuke sin in other people so that they might repent and receive forgiveness in Christ. (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3 & 24:47; Acts 3:26; Acts 8:22-23; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5 [where Paul rebukes the UNrepentant for their self-righteous judging]; Romans 6:12-13; Romans 13:12-13; Romans 16:17-18; 1st Corinthians 5:1-13; 1st Corinthians 6:9-10; 1st Corinthians 10:1-14; 1st Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 5:3-17; Colossians 3:5-10; 1st Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1st Timothy 1:3; 1st Timothy 1:19-20; 2nd Timothy 2:25-26; 2nd Timothy 3:1-17; 2nd Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:10-16; Titus 3:10-11; James 5:19-20; 1st Peter 4:1-6; 2nd Peter 2:1-22; 1st John 2:3-29; 1st John 4:1-6; 2nd John 8-11; 3rd John 9-10; Jude 3-4)  I could list MANY MORE!

But again, you already know this.


Yup, I knew that you would find a way to justify judging other people. (I don't see Paul stating in Romans 2 that repentant sinners are free the the judgment he makes against judging.) I see it more as saying that we do not have the ability to judge as God judges. And as sinful people, we are just as likely to be wrong about our rebukes (see Matthew 16:22; 19:13; 20:31 when the disciples' rebukes were misguided). I'm also quite aware of the parable of the weeds and wheat - that the servants judgment against the weeds; as correct as it might have been, would have done more damage than if they had left them alone and left the judgment up to God at the last days.


Most often, e.g., Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians, we must judge and seek to remove behaviors that are detrimental to the Christian community. "If a brother sins against you" (Matthew 18:15). The issues there about church discipline are the sins we commit against each other.

Brian, here's just one of numerous examples of repentant believers rebuking others and calling others to repentance for the sake of their salvation:  When the prophet Nathan rebukes David for his adultery and murder.  David had not sinned against Nathan, but Nathan rebukes David nevertheless so that David might repent and be saved.

That's the example given in our rite of absolution.

"God it was who forgave David through Nathan the Prophet, when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial, and the sinful woman in tears at his feet, and the Publican, and the Prodigal Son: May that same God forgive thee all things, through me a sinner, both in this present world, and in that which is to come, and set thee uncondemned before His dread Judgment Seat."
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Richard Johnson on March 04, 2021, 10:58:35 PM
I don't really think it helps dialogue when we say things like "don't be intentionally obtuse" or "but you know that."
Title: Re: Sex. Gender. What's the Difference?
Post by: Tom Eckstein on March 05, 2021, 05:41:30 PM
I don't really think it helps dialogue when we say things like "don't be intentionally obtuse" or "but you know that."

Richard, I agree.  I will strive to do better.  I will edit my previous posts.