Catholic school defends cross-dressing kids

I am sorry to be such a bearer of bad news, but I just do not know what our papal friends are doing...

Can someone enlighten me what is going on across the Tiber? It seems like a night mare, especially for young people

We need to build strong Anglican institutions of our own


"Catholic school defends cross-dressing kids"
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catholic-school-defends-book-on-cross-dressing

 

The buck stops with the top guy. https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/06/27/james-martin-lgbt-ministry-pope-francis-240938
"Pope Francis has again encouraged the ministry of James Martin, S.J., to L.G.B.T. persons, and with words that could also encourage others in this work. He did so on the eve of the Outreach 2021 L.G.B.T. Catholic ministry conference that took place by webinar this Saturday, June 26, of which the Jesuit priest was the main organizer..."

 

Oh no

 

Francis and much of the RC hierarchy have fallen into the trap that the Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon lays out toward the end of this video. That trap is: they have replaced the Gospel of salvation & transformation with a false gospel of inclusion & affirmation. The example Harmon gives is the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. In the false gospel of inclusion & affirmation, that story would end with Jesus telling the woman, "Neither do I condemn you; I love you, I affirm you, I include you." But in the true Gospel, Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; Go, and sin no more." The modern, false gospel of inclusion leaves out the part about submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to the will of God.

Now, let me add the caveat that hardly anyone, perhaps no one, does a perfect job of submitting to Christ's Lordship when coming to faith in Christ; submission is a lifelong process to which the believer is called. Submission and obedience are part and parcel with the true Gospel in the same sense that James said, show me your faith by your works. The sinner is called to "sin no more" and to actively resist temptations. He is called to respond with obedience to the Holy Spirit's leading to live a reformed life in which his own will must often be denied so that God's will may be done. But when a church teaches that the sinner is welcome to openly continue engaging in his sin, that church is preaching a false gospel.

And some churches even teach that the things the Bible calls 'sin' are no longer considered sinful! That is even worse. For instance, cross dressing has been seen throughout the history of the true church as a sin, because the Bible says so. And homosexual activity (whether the partners are "lovingly committed" to one another or not) has always been seen as a sin, because the Bible says so.

 

I don't really want to comment on this issue as such but certain people might not realise that the book writer David Walliams is in fact David Williams OBE. He is very famous in the UK (and The Isle of Man , Channel Islands and the Duchy of Cornwall ) as; an actor, comedian, childrens' book writer, panalist and Britain's got talent judge.

 

One of the top reasons why homosexual relationships are wrong happens to be the same reason why cross-dressing (for children or adults) is wrong. It is because, just as Jesus Christ portrays Himself as the bridegroom and the Church as His bride, the most-intimate relationships between humans (marriages) are supposed to mirror that relationship between Christ and the Church. This is a part of the Gospel; we are now, and we will be, joined to our Lord in spiritual intimacy and in an agape love relationship, in fulfillment of Christ's promise of "life, and that more abundantly" to those who believe in Him. Training boys to be masculine and girls to be feminine is done, not simply because of our 'preference' or 'habit' or 'tradition,' but because it's important to do so; boys need to grow up to be husbands (or potential husbands) so they can portray the love Christ has for the church, and girls need to grow up to be wives (or potential wives) so they can portray the bride of Christ.

And why are wives supposed to be subject to their husbands? Because they are mirroring the relationship of obedience and love the church has to Christ. Likewise, husbands are to be the heads of their households because they are portraying Christ's care, provision, nurturing, and leadership of and for the church.

And why are women not supposed to be priests or bishops? Because, again, women are to mirror that relationship between Christ and the church. He will not call a woman to a place of authority over His bride because it misrepresents the proper order of portrayal; as the man Christ Jesus is over the entire church, so a man must be over a flock of the church.

All of the above is intertwined. And all of it reflects God's will for mankind. It isn't because we're being sexist. It's because we honor the will of God and the sufficiency of scripture (Art. 6), without reinterpreting God's will and scripture on the basis of changing social norms.

 

We should be careful what we say about 'cross dressing' in the Anglican church. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Have you see the stylish get outs that clergy get dressed up in on a Sunday. Jesus didn't wear Wranglers or Levis and there was very little actual difference between make and female outer clothing from Apostolic times going back to the Bronze Age.

This is truth.

This is not.

We are ALL, both male and female 'the bride of Christ'. Male and female are equally the Church and it is the entire Church which is figuratively and metaphorically, the bride of Christ. The notion, that nuns become 'brides' of Christ, is nothing but a rather distasteful, piously religious infatuation.

Obviously just a way of getting out of the kitchen, where they were supposed to serve the men in their family.
.

 

I see no problem with this. Children dress up; they always have and always will.

There is no sin in children playing.

 

Nope and nope. Relationships are fine. Dressing up is fine. Nothing to see here; move on.

Gluttony, murder, adultery, theft, lying, child abuse, domestic violence, war, famine, plague; these are the things to get worked up about, imo.

A boy wearing a dress when our clergy wear cassocks, sometimes with lace on top? Nope.

 

You should try reading the Bible sometime. Read it from cover to cover. But only read it if you're willing to believe what is written.

 

Hilarious!

I can tell you already it has nothing to say against children playing.

What do you mean by 'believe' irt Scripture, exactly? And then, more importantly, show me the verses that say I have to 'believe' in the way you mean.

 

I am quite sure that Legion has read the Bible.
So have I.
But I cannot remember any lines against children dressing up.
Could you quote some?

 

Are they?
Are they really?
Which century do you live in?

Or rather: Where do you live?
In Saudi Arabia or in Afghanistan?

 

Here are some verses from Holy Scripture on this matter:
Deuteronomy 22:5
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The Bible is clear when one doesn't bring unbiblical presuppositions to the text. I am fully aware that quoting scripture to someone won't change their mind when they have stronger beliefs/presuppositions that are far more important to them than biblical truth (Christian Orthodoxy).

My Favorite response is when they say, "well the Apostoles didn't wear pants, so were they trans?" Then, you have to explain to them that specific types of clothing are associated with different genders culturally. The Bible speaks against those who would attempt to reject their natural gender and assume a fake, sinful identity.

 

You quote the OT.
Where does it say so in the NT?

 

I am not a Marcionite. The NT in no way replaces the moral law of the OT. The OT is God's standard of perfection, hence the reason Christ was the only one who was able to fulfill the law. Having read Pual's epistles, I see nothing in his writings that would conflict with God's moral law.

 

Two of my postings in this thread have been reported as off topic.
Can somebody tell me what was off topic?
I do not know.

 

Is this reporting as "off topic" now an easy way to kill off a good argument?

 

Yes, wives are supposed to subject themselves to their husbands.

Eph 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

The word of God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Do you believe God, or do you doubt His word? Are you living in a condition of doubt and unbelief?

The difference between Christians and Muslims (such as the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan) is that Muslim men use force to make their women comply, but decent Christian women submit voluntarily to their husbands out of obedience to God and decent Christian men do not abuse their role of leadership. Of course, men and women who have weak or no faith, or those who have not been properly taught God's word and will on the subject, tend to embrace "women's liberation" in which the women do not obediently submit themselves and the men encourage them in their sin.

 

It generally concerns me (not in your case I hasten to add) that when people quote part of Ephesians they miss the reciprocal point of the passage. The passage is not about unequivocal submission, but rather a far more emancipated view of the relationship between men and women in marriage. The need for women's liberation arose from a continual misrepresentation of the proper order of things envisaged in this passage. There is a very clear strand of mutuality in this passage.