:iagree:I'll throw a little Jude 4 and 10. Some James 5:19-20, 2Peter 3:15-17, and finally 2John 1 and 2 :p :hurray: :iagree:Colossians 2:8, Jude... :lol: All of it, but 10's a good spot. :grouphug: Sexual immorality is covered over and over and over again in the NT. The Mosaic laws were a matter of purity and cleansing for the flesh - we're not of the flesh, but of Spirit, the concern now isn't what goes into your mouth, but what comes out of it - , the commandments are still in play. While Christ has fulfilled the Law, it's not nullified. It's there to show us what sin is and we are to uphold it. There are warnings again and again that there would be false teachings, Christ would be used as a license for immorality, teachers would come saying Christ was not God or that he didn't come in the flesh. Teachers would come and claim that he had already come back and was hidden somewhere. Teachers would come that would lead their flocks to follow the world, or their instincts, leading them away from following Christ. People would come that would twist Paul's letters in order to suit their own purposes. :shrug: It's not an issue with Christ. It's an issue with someone or something that claims to be Christian, but isn't. The mystery of lawlessness had started then. It's no big surprise that it's prevalent now. However, Christians do have a duty to steer their brothers and sisters onto the right path. With so many false teachings out there, it's no surprise that so many have gone astray.

Late to the party, extreme weather ;) I can't save anyone from sin. I am not Christ ;) If they are not saved, then the first concern would be just that. After all, you can't expect an unsaved person to live as a saved one. If they are saved, then I do think that love would dictate showing them their stumbling block. I love my children, that doesn't mean I happily assist them in every endeavor or gleefully agree that 2+2=3. I love them, so I tell them when they're in error and try to show them how to find the truth. I expect, hope, and for the most part am satisfied that my brothers and sisters in Christ do the same for me. The closer I get to Christ the more excited I am to find I was wrong, it means that soon I will be right :D Correction is a blessing, if it wasn't there I would feel as though no one loved me enough to take the time. I don't have the exact verses at my fingertips I'm afraid, but you'll find in Isaiah and Proverbs (probably in most every book, but I KNOW it's in those two) that a lack of judgement, refusing to render judgement or to call things right or wrong and steer people in the right direction to be a reason for lamentations. It's probably in that book too. When we stop correcting each other and allow instead for our brothers and sisters to be led by their animal instincts then we've stopped loving each other (Jude). When we leave them in the care of false teachers that teach sensuality, we aren't showing love, we're showing we don't care (love) enough. So, homosexual sex is wrong, I know people argue that the Bible doesn't mean consensual homosexual sex and I disagree. Christ didn't come so that we could twist his words into a license for immorality (also Jude). We are not granted forgiveness to go out and sin some more (Romans). We should not just strive to keep ourselves from sin, but to strengthen our siblings as well.

If I can't prepare I refuse. If forced, it's three or four mumbled words :lol: Co-op would not bother me. I have no problem speaking to/with children. It's crowds of adults... or even a small group where everyone is suddenly looking at me that makes me uncomfortable. Children I can deal with... adults make me :blush:

:lol: Dh pontificates and has no problem interrupting to do so. I agree with the pp, if the person is left with their mouth hanging open and their sentence dead halfway through, it's interrupting. If that person would go on for hours, then slipping in between sentences is acceptable :lol:

Okay, for the those confused about "claims to be gay." Here is another example of someone saying someone else is gay, who apparently does not claim to be gay. In the original "claims to be gay" post the lady was using it to point out that it is not HER opinion, but rather had been declared by the person she was discussing, versus the post above where it has not been claimed those involved, but rather an opinion of them by other people. In this case, I suppose the boys claim to be straight. :iagree: This was not a Christian pov that I pointed and it's not a schtick. It's a quote from a very not Christian psychologist. ;) It's from a different train of thought, yes, but it's pertinent to the present conversation in that it states that both gender and sexuality are fluid, rather than fixed. I've known people who were convinced by their abusers that they were, indeed, gay. It took years of therapy to work through and, ironically, their therapist thought they should remain gay even though they had their own doubts. Saying that sexuality is fixed and then pigeonholing someone is just as destructive and dangerous as abusing them. See the aformentioned posts wherein someone who claims to be straight is being called gay. If being gay is so horrible, then why would someone try to force another person who "claims to be straight" to be gay? That makes sense... not. As for genetics... well, they confirm anatomical gender for most people (not including those with XYX, XXY), but that doesn't mean that we force people to accept the gender their genetically inclined to be, right? So, if there is some gay gene, then I guess it has as much ability to force a person to do/be something as the genes that make up the chromosomes that define their gender. Genes can be expressed or not. Wouldn't it be something if someone was informed of all their genetic issues, only to never have those genes expressed after all? Who made Fish Out of Water? I'm always curious to know who's supposed to school me on my own beliefs :D

You're not talking about transgender though, you're talking about morphodites or hermaphradites (sorry for butchering the spelling there). There is a BIG difference. When I said "assigned at birth" what was meant (and this is how it was meant in the article) was that if you were born with a v* then they assigned you the gender of "girl" and if you were born with a p* they assigned you the gender of "boy." The article's point is that gender is something completely separate from anatomy/chromosomes/&tc and that any permanence we attach to it is based upon social conditioning. You say that feminity and masculinity are fluid, that is the gender of which they speak. If you are feminine, but deny yourself that femininity because you're carrying around a p* then you're allowing society to assign you a gender. Their point is that gender should be according to how the person feels that day. Perhaps tomorrow I will be a man, because I feel pms coming on and that makes me feel like being a man. Look at that! I'm a man. The choice is made day by day, moment by moment. Gender is not fixed, it is fluid. If gender is not fixed then sexuality cannot be fixed either. If I am a man tomorrow and I decide to have relations with my husband, I will be a gay man having homosexual sex with my husband. Contrary wise, if he decides to be a woman tomorrow, I suppose it will still be heterosexual sex. By respecting the gender someone self-identifies with (or claims), we must then respect their sexual choices may change or not and so their sexuality would change. A gay man who decides tomorrow he wants to be a woman for the day, will then be a heterosexual woman. He is no longer simply gay, he is now whatever he wishes to be moment by moment. Perhaps she will choose to be bisexual :shrug: it's up to her.

:lol: I know they were throwing 'troll' around, but hey... her point was proven for her, wasn't it? :lol:

Except that this is not a religious stand point. It's a secular stand point. Either we get to choose or we don't :shrug: Either gender is just a socially made construct, or it's not. If gender does not depend upon chromosomes or anatomy, then it depends upon the feelings of the individual, then it's fluid and based upon choice. From a Christian stand point, gender is not an option. It's whatever you're given by God. Homosexual sex is immoral. There is no real fluidity, but there is choice. You can choose your behavior. That's what I find so ironic about this is that as a Christian I sort of agree with what they're saying. Not so much the idea that gender has no definites, but that people have a choice. Now, if gender is fluid, then I guess there isn't really any homosexual sex, because everyone could just be said to be experiencing the other gender that day or during that encounter. Transgender would just be forcing a person to pick a different gender, rather than allowing them to choose whatever feels right to them at the time. Homosexuality would be hindering a person's choice to do whatever feels good at the time. IOW, homosexuals that believe they have no choice would be the fundies of tomorrow. They would be denying what psychology is saying which is, you have a choice, if you don't see that choice then you are allowing society to force you into a box that you don't have to sit in. Like the quote said, "I could be homosexual yesterday, straight today, and bisexual tomorrow." IOW, I could be a boy today, a girl yesterday, and neutral tomorrow.

:iagree: That and... well of course I'll care. I'm their mother, I guess I should care :huh:

Yet, there are now schools that refuse to identify gender and families that refuse to identify gender, because they do not want the socially constructed idea of gender as being attached to phsyical anatomy to dictate what gender their child identifies with. There are educated people arguing that gender is fluid and that any fixed gender ideals are percieved or forced upon a person by social constructs. IOW, we're all transgender, we just don't realize it. Look, I only agree with this stuff in a funny sideways sort of way. I believe that it's a matter of choice. I don't think that we should change our gender or psychosexuality day by day, but I do agree that it's possible to do. A bit back I posted the link for the article I found. There's more out there. This isn't one wackado croaking out from the boonies. These are "scholars."

I was quoting an article. Post modern thought on psychosexuality and gender. The idea is that gender is not connected with physical attributes, but rather something that is fluid and can be changed at will. Thus, we're all capable of being transgender if we choose to be so, eschewing the idea of gender being the result of what is assigned and accepted by society due to our physical form. I think we're all made in God's image ;) I just found the article very interesting for what is the newer approach to viewing gender and sexuality as something that the individual can change as the individual sees fit. "I might have been straight yesterday, but I can be homosexual today, and maybe bisexual tomorrow. One's psychosexual identity is said to be in constant flux." That is the result of gender also being in flux. Why would we not teach our children that they are boys or girls/males or females, unless it's because we do nto believe that the social construct of gender is wrong and gender can be chosen by the individual? Perhaps some do choose to identify with the gender they are born with, but (according to the post-modern thought) they should not be bound to do so. So, if naming your child a gender specific name is going to screw them up for life by forcing them to accept a gender that was assigned to them by their physical anatomy, then their gender is up in the air until they pick what they want to be and if they decide differently later they should be able to do so.

Dd is encountering sex everywhere, it seems like. She's almost 15, but she too has found that she can just skip over the parts that make her uncomfortable (or read them when no one is looking). I was 14 when I found a copy of the The Happy Hooker. Granted, this is the first time I've shared that bit of personal history, I did find it... shocking, but except for some self-examination, I managed to keep from turning into a raving lunatic. IOW, I think 14 is the age when curiousity starts to get aroused (har-dee-har-har) and I'm actually (crazy for a Christian, I know) alright with dd learning bits and pieces here and there. Thank God, there's no copy of the Happy Hooker (or the Sleeping Beauty books) in my home, but I'm sure she's getting some self-ed from the history books, science books, and art books laying all over the house.

Time can make a difference, but of course... you only find that out when you wait and it makes a difference. My mom has btdt. I've heard the same thing about needle biopsies, but my thought is if it's cancer, they're going to remove the area around it anyway (regardless of what the needle did) and if it's not, then there's nothing to spread. :grouphug: If it were me, I'd want to get another opinion before the biop and then a second opinion on the results of the biop. Then, I wouldn't want to wait for surgery at all, like fit me in tomorrow. :grouphug:

And there it is. We know he's gay, he just won't admit it. At least, he claims not to be.

This essentialist view of gender was challenged in 1990, when feminist philosopher Judith Butler published her groundbreaking book Gender Trouble. She argued that gender is a learned social behavior that we each perform. Swarthmore students today cite Butler regularly when they talk about gender as “a fluid state of identity.†It seems almost obvious to this generation that femininity and masculinity are nothing more than social constructs that we act out—and that there are many more than two gender choices. Follow the link ;)

I guess it depends on what gender the transgender person finds attractive in comparison to the gender that they identify with...

Taking shots at people's pets is wrong and deserves, imo, more of a punishment. Even if the pets are desparately annoying, you do not shoot at someone's pet (unless it is actually threatening your life). Does he take down birds and squirrels too? I ask because I found out that my son and his friends had decided that it was kinder to shoot the toes off birds than to kill the birds. I get their logic, hey the birds get to live. However, offering to chop off just a little piece of one of their toes got them to understand that shooting the toes off anything is unkind. If dh were handling this, he'd have the boy out back taking a couple of bbs so he can understand how it feels. Seriously. Love my husband, but sometimes... Really though, irritating or not, someone's pet does not deserve to be shot at. If it were my dog, I'd be thinking you'd told your son to shoot at it. Not that I think you did, but your follow up... well... :grouphug:

The idea is that gender (any gender, regardless of chromosomes and body parts) is assigned arbitrarily, period. I know plenty of people that would. I see what she is saying. The question is not, does his mother believe him to be gay, or does he claim he is gay. By claiming it, he is declaring himself to be gay which holds more water than any other person's opinion of what he is.

Now, the quote that I found (the above is new to me, and I only skimmed it) is to follow. I saved the quote and can't find the magazine. I know only that I tagged it: Bret Johnson/phychotherapist - Laura Markowitz (which is what led me to the article linked above). Quoting as I have it written... so short handish: :lol: This is written in my journal, a quote with a quote in it. Sorry it's hard to follow. Anyway, I thought it was quite interesting that there was a movement towards the idea that sexuality was, indeed, a choice. It's kind of funny that science is deciding that we are what we choose to be.

I love that book, but dh got very ... rebellious (?) halfway through. The idea of three choice (Lord, lunatic, or liar) ended the book for him. I'm not sure why and the best he could come up with is, there are more reasons than that! without actually stating any. It's strange how that lovely little book can rub some people really wrong.

It seems like there is a movement away from the idea of all of this being set in stone at all (gender/sexuality). I read an article (and will try to find it so I can post a link) that referenced some California law allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponde with their chosen gender at the time. From what I've read, these things are in a state of flux and right means right now. Ugh, I'll try to find (at least) the man that was quoted. I think he was a psychologist, but I can't remember. It was interesting. The idea that the gender "assigned" at birth meant nothing, that sexuality and gender was an ongoing choice. If that is the case, then perhaps the birth order connections are more a result of the more maleable attitudes of younger children. That, imo, comes about because parents tend to relax as they have more children. Isn't the joke that the first baby is kept pristine, the second one gets a bib, and the third one is lucky for a dirty sock?

More than a Carpenter got me, but it was very short. IOW, it doesn't really flesh out the ideas as well as The Case for Christ. As a bonus, if you have netflix, you can watch The Case for Christ (I think they might still be streaming it, if not then The Case for Faith). Ime, it only takes the realization that there IS evidence. From there, the hunger strikes and the search is on. Prayer is your most important resource here, and I'll be sure to pray for your husband. Ask for God to give you wisdom, words, discernment and ask that the scales be lifted from your dh's eyes and his heart to be opened. :grouphug: Love you lady :D ETA, does your dh have a name? :lol:

Showering the baby, not the mother, if that was what was intended. However, words like "shower" get thrown around quite a bit with the person speaking having no idea what is implied. I recently attended two bridal showers, thrown by the brides, and when asked where they were registered they answered the county where they were to be wed :p They didn't know. They just knew that all the parties for brides are called "showers."

The op never mentioned gifts. She said she recieved an invitation to a baby shower. Now, if the invitation came saying something like, "Don't forget to stop by Target and buy a few things from my registry!" then I would agree it was tacky. I don't even think the diaper party was tacky. I see the humor in that invitation and, imo, it almost seems like the lady was saying, "Don't bother buying all the expensive odds and ends, we're set for everything but diapers." But then, I think jokes like that are funny :shrug: