I'm Not a Tolerant Person

[epronovost]

God promised- he will bring to ruin those ruining his earth. No the ozone is not fixed. There was a write up today that Exxon has known for years about the global warming.

Th ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming. It had to do with solar radiation, a completely different problem caused by a different kind of atmospheric pollution by a different industry and that problem was solved, just like that of acid rain in the North East of America.

 

[epronovost]

Drag queens, transvestites, homosexuals, transgenders are an abomination to God, and I find them equally offensive.

I reassure you, that was very clear from the get go; it was to point where you didn't made the difference between those groups.

It's a profound shame that many others, like yourself, do not, ...nor understand the Levitical laws and their application.

Actually, I do, far better than you I would presume since I don't believe you know the difference between the perception of sexuality in Antiquity and now. Furthermore, our society long banned, on religious ground, transvestites and crossdressing in general, but there was an exception to that rule: theatre and the arts.

These were the tiny exceptions in Christian societies where crossdressing was accepted because it wasn't a "sincere challenge" or deviation to gender norms, but a pretense, a fiction. Drag queens belong to that category, but you do not tolerate that difference because you are overwhelm by disgust, well above that which is dictated by religious norms, traditions and laws hence my winking at the Haggard Law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just everything i stated fit perfect because its truth.
Dont fool yourselves. this system will not get better, worse things are coming.

Things have mostly have been getting better. I'm more likely to die from a heart attack or cancer than I am from being killed in an act of violence. My ancestors didn't know this. Not even when the church and Jehovah was more firmly in control. I've also never really known what it's like to starve. That's becoming more common for people to not know it. It was still common, here, during my great grandparents time, and even my grandparents knew poverty I can't even comprehend during the Depression.
I'd say overall things really are getting better. A lot of people even get healthcare as a basic human right, and labor laws that make us apex sloths compared to all but our most recent ancestors. We also have a lot of places with safe, clean tap water, far more than we did a century ago.
When you aren't looking and anticipating the end things really don't look that bad in grand scheme of things. We've even had many generations of children now who don't know what polio or small pox are because their childhoods were and are free of it.

 

[DNB]

I find it telling that people these days who like to go on about "Levitical laws" seem to only ever use them as justification for their hatred of others.

Just once I'd love to see a religious group lobbying the government for laws that required Leviticus-style loan forgiveness.

We are defining, first of all, the difference between what is acceptable and what is not. And so, we appeal to areas of the Bible where God expresses His disdain for certain acts. The entire Levitical Law does not have an eternal application, but where prohibitions are based on fundamental and immutable principles, we consider these precepts to be perpetually binding.

No one is condemning sinners, we hope for their conversion. When one walks into God's Church in blatant defiance of one or more of His firmly established doctrines, we strongly protest the act, and rebuke those who endorse it. I'm a sinner, but I do not overtly display my sins in Church, ever.

 

[epronovost]

The entire Levitical Law does not have an eternal application, but where prohibitions are based on fundamental and immutable principles, we consider these precepts to be perpetually binding.

Gender expression, clothing, fashion and arts aren't immutable principles. They vary from epoch and culture. Why do you consider this law fundamental and immutable principles. The fact nobody today considers a woman wearing pants and a plain shirt to be crossdressing is testament to that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Sgt. Pepper

For a discussion on drag, I don't think you can do better than Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da:

"Yeah, happy ever after in the market place
Molly lets the children lend a hand
Desmond stays at home and does his pretty face
And in the evening she's a singer with the band"

Dude Looks Like a Lady.
You're welcome.

 

[DNB]

I reassure you, that was very clear from the get go; it was to point where you didn't made the difference between those groups.



Actually, I do, far better than you I would presume since I don't believe you know the difference between the perception of sexuality in Antiquity and now. Furthermore, our society long banned, on religious ground, transvestites and crossdressing in general, but there was an exception to that rule: theatre and the arts.

These were the tiny exceptions in Christian societies where crossdressing was accepted because it wasn't a "sincere challenge" or deviation to gender norms, but a pretense, a fiction. Drag queens belong to that category, but you do not tolerate that difference because you are overwhelm by disgust, well above that which is dictated by religious norms, traditions and laws hence my winking at the Haggard Law.

Your pedantry is beyond indicting, ...I don't expect you to appreciate that though.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Drag queens, transvestites, homosexuals, transgenders are an abomination to God, and I find them equally offensive. It's a profound shame that many others, like yourself, do not, ...nor understand the Levitical laws and their application.

Thank God you're not God, so it doesn't really matter what you think. God doesn't find people to be abominations, as He created all of us and is the Father of all (although many of His children are obviously wayward).So you are insulting God's handiwork. Now, He may not approve of certain behaviors and that's up for discussion, but people themselves are never abominations to the Lord and it's truly offensive and uncharitable to state otherwise.

 

[DNB]

Gender expression, clothing, fashion and arts aren't immutable principles. They vary from epoch and culture. Why do you consider this law fundamental and immutable principles. The fact nobody today considers a woman wearing pants and a plain shirt to be crossdressing is testament to that.

Don't wear a dress epronovost, or put make-up on, or wear a bra. Much of God's Laws still stand today.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Non sequitur

Do you know what a non sequitur is?
According to many Jews, whether or not crossdressing is ok depends on the intention. A drag performance generally doesn't have bad intentions. There's even an Orthodox Jewish drag performer in Jerusalem.
And some Jewish traditions, Joseph son of Jacob was rather flamboyant, even effeminate. His "robe of many colors," כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים, ketonet passim, was a women's garb that kings would dress their virgin daughters in.
Ergo it's not a non sequitur so I really don't think you know what that word means, because it's definitely not a crystal clear, black and white issue that you try to present it as.

 

[DNB]

Thank God you're not God, so it doesn't really matter what you think. God doesn't find people to be abominations, as He created all of us and is the Father of all (although many of His children are obviously wayward).So you are insulting God's handiwork. Now, He may not approve of certain behaviors and that's up for discussion, but people themselves are never abominations to the Lord and it's truly offensive and uncharitable to state otherwise.

The act and the approval of the act are the abominations. People are corrigible and God demands repentance from all of us, and wishes the best for sinner as far as his rehabilitation goes, and so do I. I'm a sinner, but do not promote or advertise my sins as though I considered them not to be offensive. Overtly dressing like a woman, when you're a man is a transgression towards God. And, doing so in the Church, is extremely egregious. But, even more so, as a leader of the Church, it is an abomination. Such defiance leaves very little room for mitigation - but, I hope that there is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don't wear a dress epronovost, or put make-up on, or wear a bra. Much of God's Laws still stand today.

Would you care if he did?

 

[DNB]

Do you know what a non sequitur is?
According to many Jews, whether or not crossdressing is ok depends on the intention. A drag performance generally doesn't have bad intentions. There's even an Orthodox Jewish drag performer in Jerusalem.
And some Jewish traditions, Joseph son of Jacob was rather flamboyant, even effeminate. His "robe of many colors," כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים, ketonet passim, was a women's garb that kings would dress their virgin daughters in.
Ergo it's not a non sequitur so I really don't think you know what that word means, because it's definitely not a crystal clear, black and white issue that you try to present it as.

The non-sequitur was you performing an etymology on the word cloak. No one needs to decipher the word to understand the context. Irrespective of the garment, whatever according to one's culture constitutes a distinctly man's or women's attire, having the opposite gender don such clothing in a non facetious manner, is where the offense lies.

 

[DNB]

Would you care if he did?

Yes, and i would denounce it accordingly.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic historic church advice. Medical practition. Healers. First church no science preaching.

Resonant designed buildings for meditative singing music healing. Oils and incense.

Covering blood healing by oil rubbing of body to be reborn again penetrating healing with aloe. As participants would cleanse heal body in church. Bathe with water oil first then the body oiled for blood cell bone healing.

Wore white robes. Lowest order humans needing healing. Meditate by inhaling frankincense myrrh used against radiation effect. Memory akashic records past human life.

The father of medicine had his medical order by robes. Acted as a holy non sexual father. A father in healing doctorate seeing adult men chose science had irradiated everyone.

As false father. Their statement I represent a spiritual father's role.

The ceremony. Oil herbal medical advisors. Those who used incense walked about. Once you took a prayer mat to kneel or lay on. Why shawls were part of church service.

They also used the shawls as tents where the incense was held to inhale around your head. Determined by the practitioner father who observed medically who needed extra incense.

The mother's baked the bread food supplied by rich men church supported and took wines..herbal infused to the poor or very sick who could not attend.

They attended as nurses.

Back in those times resonant healing did not allow human criminals or murderers or adulterers as named sexual predators in their building.

Homosexual behaviour was thought to transmit by body inheritance and not assist body healing. In the status the reason church.

So they would do the same practices chant meditate incense and bathe at home. Holy water was taken to their homes to sprinkle about to cleanse the haunted humans.

A medical belief of their times.

No human went without service actually some were just asked to remain at home.

Preaching was a scientists position re introduced. As the recognition was stated the book shut. Law was stated on the shut holy bible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The non-sequitur was you performing an etymology on the word cloak. No one needs to decipher the word to understand the context. Irrespective of the garment, whatever according to one's culture constitutes a distinctly man's or women's attire, having the opposite gender don such clothing in a non facetious manner, is where the offense lies.

You don't know what it means. It's simply an illogical conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises.
And that cloak, the original word is important because the original word doesn't refer to what that culture regarded as a unisex cloak.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, and i would denounce it accordingly.

Why? It's none of your business and he's certainly not causing harm to you.

 

[epronovost]

whatever according to one's culture constitutes a distinctly man's or women's attire, having the opposite gender don such clothing in a non facetious manner, is where the offense lies.

Except drag queens do wear those "female coded" clothing in a facetious manner. Why are you opposed to them; where is the fault, if It's in a facetious manner?

 

[Windwalker]

Transvestites, drag queens, homosexuals and trans-genders are an abomination to God, and I feel the same way. Just as I do towards robbers, killers, liars and perverts.

Goodness. So much hatred towards others. Do you only love those whom you see as worthy, like yourself?

What do you need to hear further? I'm not talking about not being merciful towards sinners, I am talking about not endorsing sinners in their act of sinning. Get them to change, them embrace them.

Force them to change through fear of violence? So you will only embrace with love and compassion, those who earn it and deserve it in your eyes? What is it that Jesus taught us about loving our enemies? Does that pertain at all here?

Which part do you not understand?

The anger, hatred, and loathing, judging and condemning, versus seeing others through the eyes of love. I don't understand that. How do you see yourself? As loathsome and awful, deserving of the hatred of others, unless you can prove your worth and value as a good person? Do you love yourself? Or do you hold yourself in contempt, the way you hold others in contempt?

Recall what I said about how judging others has the effect of judging ourselves with that same judgement, except sevenfold over? I do believe this is something Jesus warned us about for that very reason.

I'm a sinner also, but I don't parade my sins or talk about them when I'm at Church, or Bible study, or in Christian contexts, unless I'm talking about how to desist my sins. I don't expect to be accepted as a practicing sinner, but as one who's making a concerted effort to renounce my former ways. i.e. I don't walk into Church with a t-shirt that has a pot leaf on it.

So yes then, you only deserve love when you conform to the rules that others expect of you. Is that correct?

 

[SomeRandom]

Small correction; those men wore men's clothing. Women did not wear such clothing. You are using a rather anachronical sense of fashion. Ancient Hebrew men wore robes and skirts, what would today be considered women's clothes. Ancient Hebrews didn't have a tradition of theatre, at least not in the Greek, Roman or modern sense of the term so we can't say how they would react to it. Laws in western Europe long made the fact that a man wearing women's clothing was guilty of a crime of indecency, but it's true that there were exception for theatre and later movies. It's the same thing for adultery laws. A man passionately kissing a woman he is not married to as part of a play or a movie was not considered to cheating on his spouse for the purpose of divorce for example. Thus, a drag queen in a performance isn't indecent by the standards of a Christian society.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. Pointing out that by today’s fashion standards the clothing worn at the time would be considered “feminine.”
So to me, this whole “cross dressing” thing is rather useless and dependant on the time and culture more than anything. It’s all arbitrary