Perhaps the greatest worry is the potential effect on the brain. It is nowState University in East Lansing, for example, has found that male
accepted that adolescence is a dynamic time for brain development and
that puberty hormones have a strong influence on the process. Without
them normal behaviours fail to develop. Cheryl Sisk at Michgan >
hamsters not exposed to sex hormones during puberty are much less likely
as adults to mount females, spread their scen to communicate their
status or indeed to have a dominant staus worth boasting about. And
these behaviours are long-lasting: hormone replacement in adulthood does
not put things right. A handful of studies suggests the same may apply
to humans. ... Men who were not exposed to sex hormones at the normal
age for puberty but were treated afterwards, had worse spatial abilities than other men.
New Scientist 22-07-2006 p. 38
This of course, was long before the current craze for men and women pretending to belong to the opposite sex (or, worse still, being forced
by evil adults into thinking that they are the wrong sex). Sadly, there
are those on this august forum who have swallowed the fashionable lie
and, without knowing anything about the subject, have argued that
children should be fed puberty blockers. It is interesting to read the conclusion of the article when dealing with a genuine medical problem.
==========
Perhaps it is no surprise that researchers are generally wary of
interfering in such an important yet poorly understood process. rCLIrCOm very nervous about a medical approach to puberty,rCY says endocrinologist Peter Gluckman of the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He accepts
that mistimed puberty is a problem that needs to be tackled. rCLBut IrCOm very reluctant to solve it medically. IrCOd rather solve it socially.
Maybe it would be better to help young people face biological maturity.rCY New Scientist 22-07-2006 p. 38
==========
Or these days, if he had not been silenced by the trans bigots, he might have said, "Maybe it would be better to help young people face
biological reality."
Name one person here who has said children should be fed puberty blockers?.....I'll wait.
I would see a psychiatrist if I were you, or better still, have a word
with God, because you claim to be a Christian and follow Jesus but your
over obsessive behaviour towards a minute section of society, who
rightly or wrongly believe they are born in the wrong body, borders on
the insane. You disobey one of the most important things Jesus said.
Love your enemies, love your neighbour as yourself.-a I can only assume
you have a very, very low opinion of yourself.
GB was too kind to you the other day when he said "You are anti-trans
for honestly held religious reasons" I get that a religious person may
have objections to trans matters, and that's absolutely fine.-a You go
way beyond that, bringing it up on a regular basis when it has
absolutely no impact on your walk with God in any way, shape or form.
And you're not just attacking the ideology, you're attacking people as well.-a Please show mw where, in that Holy book of yours, it allows you
to do that?
Does God care if someone chooses to change their gender?-a Personally I
very much doubt it. To over-emphasise a quote from Paul "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, *there is no
male and female*, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28 ESV.
God looks at the heart, not the body. Perhaps you should do the same?Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, if any man destroy the temple
On 29/06/2026 10:43, John wrote:
Name one person here who has said children should be fed puberty
blockers?.....I'll wait.
Oh, I doubt anyone has used those exact words (Gareth's favourite ploy
to evade accountability), but certainly we have been urged to have
sympathy for these poor kids who are in the "wrong body" and criticisms
of Tavistock have been condemned.
I would see a psychiatrist if I were you, or better still, have a word
with God, because you claim to be a Christian and follow Jesus but
your over obsessive behaviour towards a minute section of society, who
rightly or wrongly believe they are born in the wrong body, borders on
the insane. You disobey one of the most important things Jesus said.
Love your enemies, love your neighbour as yourself.-a I can only assume
you have a very, very low opinion of yourself.
So you cannot argue against the science, you merely attack the messenger.
GB was too kind to you the other day when he said "You are anti-trans
for honestly held religious reasons" I get that a religious person may
have objections to trans matters, and that's absolutely fine.-a You go
way beyond that, bringing it up on a regular basis when it has
absolutely no impact on your walk with God in any way, shape or form.
So far as I know, none of the scientists quoted in the New Scientist
article about genetics were religious, let alone Christian.
And you're not just attacking the ideology, you're attacking people as
well.-a Please show mw where, in that Holy book of yours, it allows you
to do that?
Posting a scientific warning about the dangers of meddling with the
body's natural process of puberty is "attacking people"? What a topsy-
turvy world you inhabit!
Does God care if someone chooses to change their gender?-a Personally I
very much doubt it. To over-emphasise a quote from Paul "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, *there is no
male and female*, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28
ESV.
I think God does care when people muck about with the finely crafted physical processes He created. Does God care when women feel pressured
into having their breasts surgically removed?
God looks at the heart, not the body. Perhaps you should do the same?
Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, if any man destroy the temple
of God, him will God destroy.
Perhaps you ought to read your Bible occasionally instead of acting as spokesman for the trans lobby.
Having sympathy for children who believe they were born in the wrong
body is not the same as saying they should be fed puberty blockers.
Read what I wrote. You're trying to gaslight me into it being about the study.-a It's about you, Ken Down, who has an obsessive hatred against anything trans. As I said above, if, as a Christian, you are against transgenderism, fine. You can make your feelings known without being offensive to those in the trans community.
I quote, with my emphasis added, "Or these days, if he had not been
silenced by the trans *bigots*, he might have said, "Maybe it would be better to help young people face biological reality."
We've done this before but people are not pressured into undergoing
trans surgery.
There is comprehensive counselling before such a decision is made.
If someone
decides they will have their breasts removed or their male genitalia
removed then I believe God doesn't care.-a If that person becomes a
happier person because of it, what does it matter?-a The human body is a shell we need to function in this world, that's all. It's what's inside
that counts.
As for being a spokesman for the trans lobby.-a I will stick up for marginalised people every single time.-a It's called empathy, somethingHow about displaying a bit of that famous empathy for the women who were outraged at being forced to undress in front of a man?
you sadly don't possess.
On 01/07/2026 14:23, John wrote:
Having sympathy for children who believe they were born in the wrong
body is not the same as saying they should be fed puberty blockers.
So you would join me in urging that they should receive psychiatric treatment for their mistaken and foolish belief?
Read what I wrote. You're trying to gaslight me into it being about
the study.-a It's about you, Ken Down, who has an obsessive hatred
against anything trans. As I said above, if, as a Christian, you are
against transgenderism, fine. You can make your feelings known without
being offensive to those in the trans community.
Reporting on the dangers of medicalising the condition is offensive?
I quote, with my emphasis added, "Or these days, if he had not been
silenced by the trans *bigots*, he might have said, "Maybe it would be
better to help young people face biological reality."
I am not surprised that you have failed to notice that others beside
myself have bewailed the bigotry and intolerance shown by those in the
trans lobby.
We've done this before but people are not pressured into undergoing
trans surgery.
That is not the testimony of people who have actually undergone surgery
and then regretted it.
There is comprehensive counselling before such a decision is made.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in which you might be interested.
Going cheap.
If someone decides they will have their breasts removed or their male
genitalia removed then I believe God doesn't care.-a If that person
becomes a happier person because of it, what does it matter?-a The
human body is a shell we need to function in this world, that's all.
It's what's inside that counts.
That is your opinion. God says, "If any man destroy the temple of God,
him shall God destroy". Sounds to me as if God *does* care what we do
with our bodies.
As for being a spokesman for the trans lobby.-a I will stick up for
marginalised people every single time.-a It's called empathy, something
you sadly don't possess.
How about displaying a bit of that famous empathy for the women who were outraged at being forced to undress in front of a man?
No, because I believe it is a defect in the human body, incurred at
birth (possibly prior)
Which is a minority. A quick google check says the regret is extremely low.-a A review of 27 studies covering just short of 8000 trans people showed a regret rate of between 1% and 2%
I take it God is equally disgusted if a woman has to have her breasts removed for medical reasons, or with the man who recently had 4 inches
of his penis chopped off because of penile cancer.
For what it's worth I think the situation could have been handled better
by all involved, but in particular the Health Authority for not coming
up with a solution for all concerned.-a The nurses should have been
listened to certainly, but they could have engaged with Rose and a
mutual understanding could have been reached. However, if they simply adopted your stance, it's a wonder the poor woman wasn't tarred and feathered!
No, because I believe it is a defect in the human body, incurred at
birth (possibly prior)
On 02/07/2026 01:01, John wrote:
No, because I believe it is a defect in the human body, incurred at
birth (possibly prior)
And you have identified this transgender gene? Or is it some sort of
trauma - oxygen starvation, perhaps? - which leads to this putative
defect? Perhaps you can quote some scientific papers to support your contention?
I take it God is equally disgusted if a woman has to have her breasts
removed for medical reasons, or with the man who recently had 4 inches
of his penis chopped off because of penile cancer.
I am sure that God is saddened by such cases, just as He is saddened if someone has to go amputation of a limb due to disease or accident. But
when there is no medical need, it would not surprise me if He was
disgusted by any "body modification".
For what it's worth I think the situation could have been handled
better by all involved, but in particular the Health Authority for not
coming up with a solution for all concerned.-a The nurses should have
been listened to certainly, but they could have engaged with Rose and
a mutual understanding could have been reached. However, if they
simply adopted your stance, it's a wonder the poor woman wasn't tarred
and feathered!
Oh? Who is this "poor woman"? If you mean the man pretending to be a
woman, my impression is that he was deliberately flaunting himself in
the women's facilities to make a point. The only "understanding" he was interested in was forcing people to do what he wanted.
On 02/07/2026 01:01, John wrote:
No, because I believe it is a defect in the human body, incurred at
birth (possibly prior)
Lowbridge wrote that "there has been little research" on lesbians experiencing "pressure" to "accept the idea that a penis can be a female
sex organ". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ %22We%27re_being_pressured_into_sex_by_some_trans_women%22
be a female sex organ"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence
Is Matthew 19:11-12 not in your bible?
You were there were you, you have an insight into Rose Henderson's intentions?
Ultimately, it has been difficult to determine the true scale of the
problem because there has been little research on this topic - only one survey to my knowledge. However, those affected have told me the
pressure comes from a minority of trans women, as well as activists who
are not necessarily trans themselves.
So if your idea was to gaslight me into thinking there it couldn't be a birth defect then you failed - miserably.
Some people are born with learning difficulties, but physically able. My wife has mild learning difficulties, her IQ is 66. Do I tell her she perfectly normal and to stop pretending she's a bit slower than the rest
of us?
Oh absolutely, have you not heard of strap ons or dildo'sThe sort of stupid comment I might have expected.
On 02/07/2026 12:08, John wrote:
Ultimately, it has been difficult to determine the true scale of the
problem because there has been little research on this topic - only
one survey to my knowledge. However, those affected have told me the
pressure comes from a minority of trans women, as well as activists
who are not necessarily trans themselves.
So you accept that pressure is involved?
So if your idea was to gaslight me into thinking there it couldn't be
a birth defect then you failed - miserably.
Why would I deny that there could be a birth defect? But equally, why
are you trying to push me into accepting a birth defect as "normal"?
Some people are born with learning difficulties, but physically able.
My wife has mild learning difficulties, her IQ is 66. Do I tell her
she perfectly normal and to stop pretending she's a bit slower than
the rest of us?
That is the whole point. Your wife is *not* normal and it would be
cruelty to insist that she "stop pretending" or that everyone around her should "stop pretending" and demand that she act and think like normal people. (I'm using the words you have used and do not intend in any way
to dennigrate your wife.)
But that is what you are demanding for these other unfortunates who are
not normal. Your demand that women who encounter an abnormal man should treat his as a woman is the equivalent of people who encounter your wife insisting that she make change at the till just like everyone else. (Or whatever it is that your wife struggles with.)
On 02/07/2026 11:16, John wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence
Thank you. An interesting article. I note that "no convincing candidate genes are known" as well as the following section on "Prenatal hormonal environment".
Is Matthew 19:11-12 not in your bible?
Of course it is, but I tend to think logically, a process I would
recommend to you. Three examples are given: 1. eunuchs born that way; 2. eunuchs made that way by others; 3. eunuchs who voluntarily become so
for the kingdom of heaven's sake. 1 & 2 are clearly not approved of by
God, why would 3 be approved?
The only known example of 3 is the church father Origen, who I believe admitted in later life that he had made a mistake.
You were there were you, you have an insight into Rose Henderson's
intentions?
No, but we have the record of his behaviour.
You accept that in my wife's case, why can't you accept the same could
apply to trans sexuals (and by extension, homosexuals)-a It's not
"normal" but for them it's something they can't help.
There's nothing in that narrative which says Jesus (your God)
disapproves of eunichs. In fact it seems rather positive.-a Obviously
you're not one of those able to receive it.
There must have been others before Origen, even before Christianity.
Indeed, she had been using the changing room for 4 years without
incident until some rabid anti-trans nurse (I assume she was a Christian seeing as she went crying to Christian Concern) decided she would make a
big issue out of it, along with the other nurses involved.
Tt ruled to dismiss the claims made against Henderson. AccusationsWhich is not really the point, even if true. It was the fact that a man
included RH leering at them. The ruling explicitly states that she rCLdid not behave improperly whilst using the changing room.rCY
So if a man forces himself on a woman, does that mean all men are rapists?
It's exactly what you are denying.-a I'm not saying it's 100% a birth defect, but that's the conclusion I've reached when reading about trans peoples experiences. The majority don't suddenly decide at the age of
30, oh I want to be a woman (or vice versa).-a it's their from early
teens (sometimes earlier).
You accept that in my wife's case, why can't you accept the same could
apply to trans sexuals (and by extension, homosexuals)-a It's not
"normal" but for them it's something they can't help.
But if God made them that way (and you can't deny it's a possibilityI didn't know you believed in creation? I thought you were an
even if you don't treat agree they are) I'm just asking that you let
them live their lives. They are not a danger to anyone else yet you are behaving as if they are satan itself.
I need to clarify this. I mean just in the same way a left handed person can't help being left handed. It would be alien to expect them to1. Even so we provide help to live a normal life. There are such things
conform to what we would consider normal.
On 03/07/2026 13:57, John wrote:
So if a man forces himself on a woman, does that mean all men are
rapists?
No, but it shows that rape does happen and is an indication that it
should be guarded against.
It's exactly what you are denying.-a I'm not saying it's 100% a birth
defect, but that's the conclusion I've reached when reading about
trans peoples experiences. The majority don't suddenly decide at the
age of 30, oh I want to be a woman (or vice versa).-a it's their from
early teens (sometimes earlier).
"their" what?
And I strongly suspect there is a deal of reading back involved. As with chaps who tell you that they have always felt they were homosexual.
You accept that in my wife's case, why can't you accept the same could
apply to trans sexuals (and by extension, homosexuals)-a It's not
"normal" but for them it's something they can't help.
I don't deny that for *some* of them, that may be the case.
But if God made them that way (and you can't deny it's a possibility
even if you don't treat agree they are) I'm just asking that you let
them live their lives. They are not a danger to anyone else yet you
are behaving as if they are satan itself.
I didn't know you believed in creation? I thought you were an
evolutionist? So how come all of a sudden "God made them that way"?
I am a creationist, but I recognise that we live in a world marred by
sin and things happen which God never intended to happen in the world as
He created it. Some people are born with spina bifida, some with one
leg, some with homosexual leanings and some with trans leanings.
We operate on those with spina bifida, were provide prosthetics for
those with one leg, but those unfortunates with homosexual or trans
leanings we say, "Oh, you mustn't help them. You've go to leave them as
they are!"
Don't you think that is rather cruel of you? Are you going to start campaigning against prosthetic legs?
On 03/07/2026 17:20, John wrote:
I need to clarify this. I mean just in the same way a left handed
person can't help being left handed. It would be alien to expect them
to conform to what we would consider normal.
1. Even so we provide help to live a normal life. There are such things
as left-handed scissors, for example.
2. But in any case, being left-handed is variation, not disability. Homosexuality, for example, means that you cannot reproduce - and you,
as a good evolutionist, will realise that makes you less fit,
disastrously less fit.
2. But in any case, being left-handed is variation, not disability.
Homosexuality, for example, means that you cannot reproduce - and you,
as a good evolutionist, will realise that makes you less fit,
disastrously less fit.
Absolute rubbbish, homosexuals are no different than the rest of us. My mate's stepson is superfit. He's at the gym several times a week and
keeps his body in shape.
Some heterosexuals can't reproduce either, it doesn't make them any less worthy.I said nothing about worthiness. Again, that is your abysmal ignorance
You do love moving the goalposts don't you.-a You were trying to suggest that because a small minority of lesbians felt pressured by transexuals
then by extension that pressure aplied to all transexuals.
I spotted that after I posted. Obviously I meant there.
I'm not aware I have ever indicated I'm an evolutionist. I'm probably
not a creationist either in the truest sense, as I don't believe God deliberately causes birth defects, which I would suggest are genetic.
For instance I was born with congenital cataracts.-a Did God decree that
I should have that?-a I don't believe so.
Well that's quite a shock for you to say that.-a You were saying they
were mentally ill and/or pretending just recently.
You're the ones saying leave transexuals as they are.-a I'm all for
helping them by allowing them to cghange their gender.
Homosexuality is a different kettle of fish, as there isn't anything
needed for them to live a normal life.
Not at all, we give them prosphetic genitals instead.-a There you go, problem sorted.
On 04/07/2026 01:28, John wrote:
2. But in any case, being left-handed is variation, not disability.
Homosexuality, for example, means that you cannot reproduce - and
you, as a good evolutionist, will realise that makes you less fit,
disastrously less fit.
Absolute rubbbish, homosexuals are no different than the rest of us.
My mate's stepson is superfit. He's at the gym several times a week
and keeps his body in shape.
An evolutionist who doesn't understand evolution! Being "fit" in evolutionary terms has nothing to do with gym time and everything to do
with reproductive ability.
Look, if you're doing to espouse a nonsense theory such as evolution, at least get to know it!
Some heterosexuals can't reproduce either, it doesn't make them anyI said nothing about worthiness. Again, that is your abysmal ignorance
less worthy.
which is linking evolutionary fitness with moral worthiness.+
On 04/07/2026 01:20, John wrote:
Well that's quite a shock for you to say that.-a You were saying they
were mentally ill and/or pretending just recently.
If I go around telling people that I am Napoleon Bonaparte, everyone
knows that I am mentally ill. If I go around telling people that I am a woman ...?
You're the ones saying leave transexuals as they are.-a I'm all for
helping them by allowing them to cghange their gender.
So your definition of "as they are" is actually "change them". Humpty Dumpty.
Homosexuality is a different kettle of fish, as there isn't anything
needed for them to live a normal life.
Apart from the readiness to marry heterosexually.
Not at all, we give them prosphetic genitals instead.-a There you go,
problem sorted.
We give prostheses to the disabled. I'm glad you agree that trans people
are disabled. But your "solution" is to cut off a man's perfectly normal
and functional leg, give him a wooden one and then preen yourself for
having left him as he is.
Clear and logical thinking is obviously not your forte!
Where did I say leave transexuals as they are? Bearing false witness is
a sin, you know that don't you?
I've never said I'm an evolutionist, but well done you for labelling me
as such.
On 04/07/2026 12:30, John wrote:
I've never said I'm an evolutionist, but well done you for labelling
me as such.
I apologise if really you are a crypto-creationist. Would you care to clarify the matter by stating what you actually believe?
On 04/07/2026 12:52, John wrote:
Where did I say leave transexuals as they are? Bearing false witness
is a sin, you know that don't you?
Sorry. You were the one to use the words "leave them as they are" but on re-reading I see that that was a view you were attributing to your opponents.
Traditionally I'm a crationist, primarily based on my previous Christian background, back to being a kid.
Now, I'm unsure but definitely not an evolutionist. As you rightlyMicro evolution is a perfectly respectable, thoroughly demonstrated fact
pointed out, I don't even understand it other than very basically.
On 04/07/2026 23:59, John wrote:
Traditionally I'm a crationist, primarily based on my previous
Christian background, back to being a kid.
Than if you believe in a God Who created the world, why do you not
worship Him?
On 04/07/2026 23:59, John wrote:
Traditionally I'm a crationist, primarily based on my previous
Christian background, back to being a kid.
Than if you believe in a God Who created the world, why do you not
worship Him?
Does that help?Now, I'm unsure...
No, because the second part logically follows the first part. Now if IThan if you believe in a God Who created the world, why do you not
worship Him?
is this what they call a non-sequitur
There are only two alternatives - a Creator God or godless evolution.Does that help?Now, I'm unsure...
On 05/07/2026 11:06, John wrote:
There are only two alternatives - a Creator God or godless evolution.Does that help?Now, I'm unsure...
(There are variations in both, but essentially there are thw two alternatives.)
If you are not sure whether God created the universe, then you owe it to yourself to investigate the alternative. Just sitting on the fence and bleating "I'm not sure" is neither rational nor intelligent.
Either you will find that evolution is a load of nonsense, or you will
find that it is wonderfully sensible and entirely plausible, and you can
let us know which side of the fence you have dismounted on.
On 05/07/2026 06:28, Madhu wrote:
Than if you believe in a God Who created the world, why do you not
worship Him?
is this what they call a non-sequiturNo, because the second part logically follows the first part. Now if I
had written, "If you believe in a God Who created the world, why do
you not worship the devil", *that* would be a non-sequitor.
How about a third possibility, human life began with visitors from
another planet, due to their planet dying out. There's a BBC series
based on that theory called Outcast,-a which I really enjoyed.
There's a hint of that in Genesis when the sons of God mated with the daughters of men. Could the inhabitants of earth have been primitive
beings (erectus, habilis) have developed into sapiens this way?
I'm not saying that did happen, but I like the theory.It is certainly intriguing speculation.
Thanks, but as I read it, the discussion or question was about John's
views on "The Creationism vis a vis Evolution" talking points.
In that context the question of whether one should worship the creatorIt seems surprising to me that someone should believe in a Creator but
(or anyone else, or at all) does not seem relevant. So when John's
views on "creationism vs evolution" were established bringing up the
second question up did not seem an approrpriate response.
On 06/07/2026 00:06, John wrote:
How about a third possibility, human life began with visitors from
another planet, due to their planet dying out. There's a BBC series
based on that theory called Outcast,-a which I really enjoyed.
No, that is not a third possibility, that is merely the same two possibilities one planet removed. Did God create these "visitors" or did they evolve?
There's a hint of that in Genesis when the sons of God mated with the
daughters of men. Could the inhabitants of earth have been primitive
beings (erectus, habilis) have developed into sapiens this way?
The reference in Genesis is so cryptic and is not repeated anywhere else
in the Bible, so I would be wary of putting too much weight on it. The interpretation I was taught, and which I think plausible, is that the
"sons of God" were those humans who followed God while the "daughters of men" were those who followed Cain in rejecting God. Samson, you may
recall, felt a similar fascination.
On the other hand, the few other references to "sons of God" do appear
to point to intelligent beings from locations other than earth. My main objection to your theory is that so far as we know, Earth is the only
part of God's creation that yielded to satan and I find it incredible
that beings from unfallen worlds should visit planet Earth and, while so doing, fall violently in love with human women.
I'm not saying that did happen, but I like the theory.
It is certainly intriguing speculation.
On 06/07/2026 02:50, Madhu wrote:
Thanks, but as I read it, the discussion or question was about John's
views on "The Creationism vis a vis Evolution" talking points.
Now if you had picked up on my typo, putting "than" instead of "then",
you would have a point.
In that context the question of whether one should worship the creator
(or anyone else, or at all) does not seem relevant.-a So when John's
views on "creationism vs evolution" were established bringing up the
second question up did not seem an approrpriate response.
It seems surprising to me that someone should believe in a Creator but
not take the logical next step and worship Him. After all, if God
created you, He has the right to expect homage.
But you say that believing in a creator means you should worship that creator, that doesn't necessarily follow.-a If we lived in a perfectIf you don't like the word "worship", pick another one - respect, obey, recognise.
world that may be true, but we don't.
The general theory is they were rebel angels and your interpretation is one-a I've not heard before, but if it were true (and it could well be)
how do you explain the offspring being giants?
Not that I'm a strict believer in satan but how do you know that Earth
is the only planet to succomb to satan's wiles?
Far from being unfallen creatures, the Earth just got more wicked
according to the narrative.
On 06/07/2026 12:23, John wrote:
But you say that believing in a creator means you should worship thatIf you don't like the word "worship", pick another one - respect, obey, recognise.
creator, that doesn't necessarily follow.-a If we lived in a perfect
world that may be true, but we don't.
If you create an avatar in Second Life, wouldn't you be fairly miffed if
it went off and ignored you, did the opposite to your instructions, and generally behaved as if you had no rights over it?
You created God and object to Him not obeying you?If you create an avatar in Second Life, wouldn't you be fairly miffed
if it went off and ignored you, did the opposite to your instructions,
and generally behaved as if you had no rights over it?
Absolutely, God did exactly that in 2000, although you can swap the instruction to prayerful petitions.
On 06/07/2026 12:23, John wrote:
But you say that believing in a creator means you should worshipIf you don't like the word "worship", pick another one - respect,
that creator, that doesn't necessarily follow.-a If we lived in a
perfect world that may be true, but we don't.
obey, recognise.
in this sense worship of God is totally different from the worship of
Statues
Even if god had once been permitted isralites to imitate the blood
sacrifices and the worship of demons of their neighbours, and apply it
to god
The "Hindu" dictum that God is the eventual recipient of all worshipHmmm. I think that needs a bit of unpacking, but C.S.Lewis in "The Last Battle" puts this speech in the mouth of Emeth, a servant of Tash, a
does not really work, it's just propaganda for the prevailing powers who
are the only undeserving beneficiaries of our "worship"
[...]The "Hindu" dictum that God is the eventual recipient of all worshipHmmm. I think that needs a bit of unpacking, but C.S.Lewis in "The
does not really work, it's just propaganda for the prevailing powers who
are the only undeserving beneficiaries of our "worship"
Last Battle" puts this speech in the mouth of Emeth, a servant of
Tash, a horrible monster the very opposite of Aslan, the lion.
So God - the one true God - receives all true worship and all good
deeds, whether offered by Christians to Lord Christ or by Hindus to
Lord Krishna. Nevertheless, it is better to know and worship the true
God than any false god.
This is just incorporation of the "Hindu" dictum into Christian doctrine
in the context of western banking and the justification of its
iniquities. Assimiliative "Hindu" thought and tradition is precisely
about this sort of adjustment to the world.
It sounds great, but it
isn't theologically sound, and is certainly not biblical.
C S Lewis
certainly used the talents of propagana as an apologist for Christianity,
but that doesn't make him an authority.
It sounds great, but it
isn't theologically sound, and is certainly not biblical.
Psalm 87 can be interpreted a couple of ways, but it does seem to me
that it states that when God decides who is among His people, He will
take account of a person's birthplace (ie. culture, religion, etc).
In addition Jesus speaks of His other sheep "not of this fold". He
speaks of gathering them in, but while that is the ideal, there may be reasons why that is impossible in this life.
I would never claim that someone can reject Jesus and still be saved,
but I do believe that there are those who have never heard of Jesus
but who did respond to God's Spirit and while therefore be saved.
I have no dispute with this. My dispute was with the interpretation
that work for Tash is accounted for as work for Aslan. Nowhere in the
bible does God say that worship of the Baal will be accepted as worship
of God. (However this is there in the Gita)
The bible
does state that God uses Nebuchadnezzar and the Pharaoh for his purpose,
but that does not stretch to the ultimate interpretation that working
for the angels of satan is working for God.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:50:04 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,965 |