toldailytopic: Should transsexuals be allowed to compete in a women's beauty pageant?

[Sherman]

The answer is of course, no--:vomit: God help us :shocked:--no! Ro 1:28

Perversion, is I have said before is a symptom of the condition of their heart. They have rejected God in their hearts. Sure some may claim to be 'gay' Christians and mimic being a Christian. But I don't believe they have given themselves over to God. Being 'gay' and being Christian, is a lie that is being sold to the church.

I don't believe that a person who has Jesus in their life can embrace homosexuality. It is like mixing oil with water. Never the twain shall meet.

 

[serpentdove]

Perversion, is I have said before is a symptom of the condition of their heart. They have rejected God in their hearts. Sure some may claim to be 'gay' Christians and mimic being a Christian. But I don't believe they have given themselves over to God. Being 'gay' and being Christian, is a lie that is being sold to the church.

I don't believe that a person who has Jesus in their life can embrace homosexuality. It is like mixing oil with water. Never the twain shall meet.

Yep.

"Faith comes out of the heart not the head." ~ Adrian Rogers Heb 3:12

Heb 3:18, 19 — And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

"There is a direct and clear connection between unbelief and disobedience. When we disobey, it is always because we do not believe either God’s promises of blessing or His warnings against rebellion." Stanley, Charles F.: The Charles F. Stanley Life Principles Bible : New King James Version. Nashville, TN : Nelson Bibles, 2005, S. Heb 3:18-19

 

[John Mortimer]

No, there's no such thing as justified murder. Murder is defined by the fact that it is not justified. Would it be easier if I'd said "unjustified killing"?

Certainly, murder can be defined as unjustified killing. That makes even clearer the relative nature of the concept. It is "unjustified". That is, not justified relative to some standard. It is within the realm of the relative, not the absolute.

The fact remains that you confuse reality with perception. How you perceive a thing has no bearing on what it is. It is what it is.

I completely agree with this.

 

[John Mortimer]

Eating live babies is always wrong

Yes, but that doesn't indicate the reality of absolute wrong. The phrase, "absolutely wrong", is a manner of speaking, indicating that the speaker can see nothing right whatsoever about it, whatever it is. It is therefore relative, (to the speaker).

Absolute right is God.

Absolute wrong is a mental construct arising from the duality consciousness, which would seek to make God an object in perception. Now of course God is an object in perception.... but that is not all God is. God does not depend upon a perceiver in any way. Thus God is relative as an object in perception but God is absolute in reality.

 

[John Mortimer]

It seems like there is confusion as to what I mean by "absolute" and "relative". The doctrine of the Trinity provides a great example, which will hopefully clarify what I mean...

The statements:

"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"

are all true in an absolute sense - because the essential nature of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit is indicated, i.e. God. But what about the following statements.....?

"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"

Well, these are all true in a relative sense, (The terms, Father, Son and Holy Spirit indicate God in relation), but not in an absolute sense. For whilst God is the Father, God is also more than the Father and likewise for the Son and Holy Spirit.

Thus we can indicate "absolute right" by God, but what is "absolute wrong"? It would have to be the opposite of God.... but God can have no opposite. If something has an opposite it is relative and not absolute.

 

[bybee]

It seems like there is confusion as to what I mean by "absolute" and "relative". The doctrine of the Trinity provides a great example, which will hopefully clarify what I mean...

The statements:

"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"

are all true in an absolute sense - because the essential nature of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit is indicated, i.e. God. But what about the following statements.....?

"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"

Well, these are all true in a relative sense, (The terms, Father, Son and Holy Spirit indicate God in relation), but not in an absolute sense. For whilst God is the Father, God is also more than the Father and likewise for the Son and Holy Spirit.

Thus we can indicate "absolute right" by God, but what is "absolute wrong"? It would have to be the opposite of God.... but God can have no opposite. If something has an opposite it is relative and not absolute.

I have often thought about this. We tend to put opposites on the same continuum "A------------------Z". I consider this to be erroneous. God is the prime example. God has no opposite.
Truth, mercy, honor, beauty, etc. have no opposite.
Evil is a separate entity and it is not on a continuum. It is what it is. It cannot create. It deceives and destroys.

 

[MaryContrary]

Certainly, murder can be defined as unjustified killing. That makes even clearer the relative nature of the concept. It is "unjustified". That is, not justified relative to some standard. It is within the realm of the relative, not the absolute.

No, perception of the standard is relative. The standard remains. If falls then to each of us individually to show they more accurately perceive the standard. You don't even attempt this, but rather embrace all perceptions as accurate individually. You offer nothing to the question.

I think it's clear you take this route entirely so that you can be lazy and offer as truth whatever strikes your fancy. Hence your original assertion that feminine beauty is not the property of females and that there is no male and female in the first place. :freak:

You embrace all relative perceptions of the standard as true so you can deny the standard. :idunno:

I completely agree with this.

Apparently not.

 

[bybee]

Should women be allowed to compete in a transsexual beauty pageant?

That puts an entirely different light on the subject doesn't it?

 

[MaryContrary]

That puts an entirely different light on the subject doesn't it?

Bump for John Mortimer.

 

[John Mortimer]

I have often thought about this. We tend to put opposites on the same continuum "A------------------Z". I consider this to be erroneous. God is the prime example. God has no opposite.
Truth, mercy, honor, beauty, etc. have no opposite.
Evil is a separate entity and it is not on a continuum. It is what it is. It cannot create. It deceives and destroys.

Absolutely! :thumb:

 

[John Mortimer]

No, perception of the standard is relative. The standard remains.

There are as many standards as there are conscious individuals... even when a group, (such as Christians), speak about what they regard as the same standard, the individual perceptions are never identical.

If falls then to each of us individually to show they more accurately perceive the standard.

And how is that done?

You don't even attempt this, but rather embrace all perceptions as accurate individually.

No I don't. I have never even mentioned accuracy of perception. Perception depends on form - and the absolute is beyond form. The root of all idolatry is the elevation of perception to the level of the absolute.

You offer nothing to the question.

Clearly, nothing that you perceive.

I think it's clear you take this route entirely so that you can be lazy and offer as truth whatever strikes your fancy.

If that's what you choose to believe, go ahead.

You embrace all relative perceptions of the standard as true so you can deny the standard. :idunno:

No, I don't. That is all from your mind, not mine.

 

[John Mortimer]

Should women be allowed to compete in a transsexual beauty pageant?

Yes, of course!