Hmmm . . . let me think . . .
OH! Well, ONE characteristic MIGHT be that he provides for his own.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Effeminacy
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
OH! Well, ONE characteristic MIGHT be that he provides for his own.
I've known some men over the years who seem to have a little lace around their drawers. They are not gay. They are married (to a woman). I think it is just in their dna to be a little on the effeminate side. They are a little flamboyant in their dress. Their speech is effeminate. They walk with a priss. They are more artistic in nature. Who am I to say that isn't the way God made them?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes.
And many other effeminate traits:
They envy any other man around them, who steals. 'their attention'.
They emotionally manipulate the women in their churches into being a cheerleader/hit squad...ensuring that most of the men will be 'forced' to go along with their 'leading'.
They can 'counsel' women, but men are mocked when they need advice/guidance.
Their doctrine is a mess, but their outfit is perfect.
Yes.
You don't have to say, the scriptures already damn them to Hell for it. I Corin. 6:9
Maybe God made g@ y men that way too.
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
Since this thread seems to have risen from the debate we had a few days ago in the music thread and I feel what I said may have been misunderstood--okay, I'll bite.
First off, tough subject and actually I don't really have a very defined or set opinion--my main objection was that I just do not get the accusation of calling some style of singing effeminate. I do not consider Chris Tomlin's singing to fit this description and none of the guys I know seen to think it is either.
As to my views on this topic in general--I do believe there is a line since men and women do have differences and Biblically men are not to try to purposefully appear as women, but as to where the line is, that's harder to define. I do think it's largely defined by society, meaning it is subjective to some degree and largely dependent on what society you live in. Just as I believe that dressing modestly may to some degree or another depend on society and what society considers provocative--such as how breasts are very sexualized in western culture, but from what I hear that's not the case so much in some other countries around the globe. A long time ago showing anything above the ankle was considered indecent, but that's hardly the case today with even many conservative circles thinking plain old shorts to be within the boundaries of modest dress.
But then these are areas where even on a forum spanning several denominations what I am saying would meet with a lot of controversy and debate, and not unwarranted at that. While I do have an overall very conservative view on doctrine and the standards I hold regarding sexuality and modesty (since I brought those up), what I have said here may strike some as rather "liberal". I consider myself anything but liberal and would think it an insult to be referred to as one, but I am a libertarian and so my outlook on social issues tends to be a bit different than that of the socially conservative people I hang around.
But controversy aside--I know of few if any conservative Christians who would consider Chris Tomlin effeminate.
But you know what--it doesn't really matter. If you see him that way there's no convincing you otherwise. I agree to disagree. It's a difference in opinion, not the end of the world.
God bless, brother.
First off, tough subject and actually I don't really have a very defined or set opinion--my main objection was that I just do not get the accusation of calling some style of singing effeminate. I do not consider Chris Tomlin's singing to fit this description and none of the guys I know seen to think it is either.
As to my views on this topic in general--I do believe there is a line since men and women do have differences and Biblically men are not to try to purposefully appear as women, but as to where the line is, that's harder to define. I do think it's largely defined by society, meaning it is subjective to some degree and largely dependent on what society you live in. Just as I believe that dressing modestly may to some degree or another depend on society and what society considers provocative--such as how breasts are very sexualized in western culture, but from what I hear that's not the case so much in some other countries around the globe. A long time ago showing anything above the ankle was considered indecent, but that's hardly the case today with even many conservative circles thinking plain old shorts to be within the boundaries of modest dress.
But then these are areas where even on a forum spanning several denominations what I am saying would meet with a lot of controversy and debate, and not unwarranted at that. While I do have an overall very conservative view on doctrine and the standards I hold regarding sexuality and modesty (since I brought those up), what I have said here may strike some as rather "liberal". I consider myself anything but liberal and would think it an insult to be referred to as one, but I am a libertarian and so my outlook on social issues tends to be a bit different than that of the socially conservative people I hang around.
But controversy aside--I know of few if any conservative Christians who would consider Chris Tomlin effeminate.
But you know what--it doesn't really matter. If you see him that way there's no convincing you otherwise. I agree to disagree. It's a difference in opinion, not the end of the world.
God bless, brother.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its those fellows that keep the local churches doors open.....ahh, you generally can tell....they walk behind their wives, say yes dear allot and bring the covered dish to the pot luck's on Sunday's .....ooooooooohhhhh:smilewinkgrin:
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
If you pick and choose your verses you can make scripture say about anything. I don’t believe anyone should ever quote I Cor 6:9 without including verses 10 and 11, it changes the meaning completely. 6:9 tells us the unrighteous will not “inherit the kingdom of God,” and then verses 9 and 10 list some of those sins, but then verse 11 says those same unrighteous can be saved by Jesus Christ. The bible does not condemn those listed sinners to hell any more than it condemns any of us that reject Christ. It lists some sins, but then says the members of the Church at Corinth included members who had commited those sins.
The Greek word translated effeminate in I Cor 6:9 is malakos. It occurs in scripture 4 times, the other three times it occurs are in Matt 11:8 (twice) and Luke 7:25. In both verses it is translated “soft” and is used as an adjective to describe clothing. I Cor 6:9 is the only place in scripture where it is used as a noun. Most Greek lexicons and dictionaries define malkos as a reference to the passive partner in a male homosexual act. If you exclude those with a specific agenda to legitimize homosexuality it is unanimous.
Some scholars incorrectly define this word as simply a homosexual man, but it is much more specific than that. It can be used to describe male prostitutes, especially those who dressed and acted like women as part of the pagan temple prostitutes that made up much pagan worship in Paul’s day. A malkos did not have to be a transvestite prostitute, but a transvestite prostitute would certainly be a malkos.
So let’s be clear here. Paul is not condemning (anyone really) girly men or men that are more feminine than others. The sinners listed are homosexuals, including transvestite prostitutes. Which of course, when we look at verse 11, and realize that some of the members of the church had been malkos, it gives a good view of the acceptance, tolerance, and forgiveness of the early church. How many of our churches today would welcome a former homosexual transvestite prostitute?
Some men are certainly more feminine than others. We can’t all be manly mountain men. That does not make them any less men or any less capable of being affective husbands and fathers. There are certainly times in my own life I could have displayed a bit more understanding and insight.
And yes, SolaSaint, I have known quite a few preachers over the years that demonstrated feminine qualities. They had to have the silk suit, the styled haircut and the manicure. Their watches and rings held more gold than most women’s jewelry and they probably spent more on their shoes as well. I think most of us would be better off with a little less polish and a little more spit, and that includes the women as well as the men. But that is just the mountain man in me speaking.
Where is your still?
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
It's on the discovery channel Tuesdays at 9, but that is a topic for a different thread.
saturneptune
New Member
Best post of your career.
saturneptune
New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t think that this is necessarily related specifically to homosexuals, but it is a sexual sin. Tim Keller defines it as the female role in a same sex male relationship…but I am not sure. I think that it goes back to the Law and not intermixing gender roles (not talking stay at home dads being girly men - that comment was off topic, out of line, and in jest and I apologize … kinda like the one I’m about to type).
Anyway, I think the moral of the story is for the Mike Hard Lemonade drinkers - get a testosterone shot and grab a beer.
Anyway, I think the moral of the story is for the Mike Hard Lemonade drinkers - get a testosterone shot and grab a beer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guinness is good for you....2 is better. Drink them at room temperature :love2::love2:
That's a strange response.
I might be inclined to agree with it in many cases, but does anybody besides me think it is weird?
You usually are attacking somebody when you do this kind thing.
Who do you have in mind?
Since I have beat the dog out of you so much recently in these debates:smilewinkgrin:, I figure it might be me. But I am not a stay at home dad for your information.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It is weird that God determined for him to say that, I wonder what God was thinking?
:type:
This is inappropriate behavior. It is highjacking the thread.
Start a thread on why God determined that many men would be effeminate. But highjacking this one, or hounding me in all of my threads with this agenda of yours is beneath the behavior expected of a moderator.
No it isn't.
What sort of thing is that?
No one in particular, and I clarifed what I meant. Men and women switching gender roles.
Homosexuality and effeminism are not just about sex and softness. They're about one's nurturing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's what I was going to say:
Your misconstruals and mischaracterizations, such as that above, by which you jump to erroneous conclusions is why I doubt your appraisal of the non-disruptive behavior of your seven dinner friends and the character and purpose of the Christian group dining there.
Last edited by a moderator: