Speakeasy forum: Isn't it strange

decides she wants to be a prostitute, does that then mean someone who was opposed to prostitution on moral grounds should decide it's time to change his tune on it? No. He should resign immediately, since he was elected to represent those who have differing views from what he now professes. If he's got any honesty left, I await to read of his resignation.

has two dictionaries he uses. One is recent and the other is a few decades old. He found that "homosexual" is in both, but "homophobia" is in the newer one only. It's defined as 'an unreasoning fear of homosexuals'.
Not a bad view IMO (and my brother's). The existence of gays in the world is no more troubling to me or to Jehovah than the existence of straight adulterers or alcoholics or thieves, and some of those are of immediate danger to me. But the situations mentioned illustrate the problem faced by Christians who would get involved in mens' governments. John 17:11-17

Let's stick with the three actual Bible- not James D- quotes.
John 1:14, NIV "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
1 John 4:2, ibid. "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God"
2 John 1:7, ibid. "I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."
All three agree with the KJV that Jesus came in the flesh- as a human- therefore he must have "suffered in the flesh, died in the flesh." We believe that. There are religions (yours included?) that claim he also had 'another nature' or some such. Not scriptural; we don't believe it.
Then you write, "and was resurrected in the flesh." A common belief, but not ours; not scriptural. Otherwise his associates would have recognized him when they saw him. John 20:13 ff.; Luke 24:13 ff. He didn't go to heaven in his physical body. 1 Cor 15:13,22,35 ff. The bottom line: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit ... I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
Or pick another. From the NIV translation committee, via the Watchtower of 7/15/79 p. 27.
"Why did the recently published "New International Version" (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:
"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it;that is how many have bought it to date;and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh ... It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you."
JW comment: "Palmer cites "King James tradition" as well as mercenary considerations to rationalize removing God's name from His own book. However, it is of interest that even the "King James Version" itself puts such reasoning to rout when saying of God's opposers: "Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Ps. 83:16-18."
James, do you want to end up like Pharaoh? "But Pharaoh said: "Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice?" "And the waters kept coming back. Finally they covered the war chariots and the cavalrymen belonging to all of Pharaoh's military forces and who had gone into the sea after them. Not so much as one among them was let remain."

The translators should have used the exact name/s for God as they appeared in the original manuscripts instead of caving to pressure (Jewish?) and substituting Lord vs LORD for distinctions between Adonai and Yehuvah (Jehovah, Yahweh, or whatever it would sound like with all the vowels included). The name is very similar to Jehu combined with Yah.

I am exclusive to use of the KJV. No, I prefer the RVS personally and certainly not the NIV. I use the KJV more for online discussion because so many fundamentalist seem wedded to that version. Sometimes I used the Duoay when I know the person is Catholic. I won't use the NWT because the provenance of it's translators abilities is almost non existent. As for YHWH, I know that LORD is the substitute in the KJV and just translate over to YHWH in my mind when I read it.

The practice of not using God's name verbally among the Jews began during the Babylonian captivity. They were derided as "yahoos" in a derisive tone of voice, so they decided to avoid having God's name used in vain by the heathens there, they'd substitute a different word, which for them I believe was the Adonai. Now some of them take it to an extreme where they won't even print God but G-d for some similar reason, probably because the word God is used improperly by so many in expletives.

I don't agree with their approach, God's powerful enough if He has a problem with heathens and their improper usage of his name, if He chooses, He can deal with it. I don't believe God's people are responsible for those who misuse God's name.

We don't have to be concerned much about how God wanted to be called in the OT today, but rather the term Jesus used, which was "Our Father" denoting a closer relationship to be established for believers in this age.

In the OT there are also various combinations with YHWH creating compound names, supposedly describing some characteristic of God, or so some believe. I do remember at the beginning God was Elohim which was a plural form of "E L".

There's also a glaring disconnect in the JW belief where they expect to remain here on Earth as an Eden restored, even though Jesus spoke of "Paradise" as being elsewhere, not here. Yet at the same time they want to deny the corruptible flesh becoming incorruptible. Even Job in the OT said in the last day he'd come up from his grave and with his own eyes see his Redeemer.

Job chapter 19


25"As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.

26"Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;

27Whom I myself shall behold,
And whom my eyes will see and not another.
My heart faints within me!

You seem to have people going away to only be a spirit and then also have people living here on a glorified earth all while denying the resurrection of Christ flesh and the coming resurrection of His chosen, in the flesh. "Then we shall be changed in the twinking of an eye" says Paul.

We've been over all this before, haven't we?

and then tell others that they've chosen the wrong one.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

elects someone who changes his mind afterwards and says the Civil Rights Act should be nullified, that would be OK with you?

What sort of justification for his change is valid?

My son is gay so now I support gay rights.
My daughter prostitutes herself so I now support legalized prostitution
My wife cheats on me so I now will become her pimp
My mother drives drunk so I will support repeal of laws against drunk driving
My father is a bigamist so I now support polygamy.

Where does it end?!

He should resign immediately, since he was elected to represent those who have differing views from what he now professes.

So if they change their mind on a political point, any political point that they campaigned on, they should resign?

He didn't change all his positions just one.

Are you saying any politician that makes a campaign speech about a talking point then changes his mind after elected should resign immediately?

I wonder how many special elections or appointments that would bring about every year. Only a fanatic or idealogue never changes his mind.

supporters want him to resign?

I understand the idea, it's not as bad as deliberately campaigning on a lie, but many would consider it close.

I wouldn't expect him to resign on one issue, unless there was real evidence a majority of his supporters felt he should. Then it becomes up to him to decide what he should do. The voters may not like his change in position, that's why we have elections fairly often although senators have to longest time between elections. But we don't just elect a parrot to repeat what we say, we elect someone hoping they'll do what is best and will recognize it. When we believe they fail, we replace them next election.

however, I don't know that all states have such.

Given the expense of such, I suspect most states that do require a fairly high level expressed desire for a recall to justify such. Not unreasonable, if you can't get say 20% of the registered voters to sign a petition, can you defeat him in an election? Of course, less than 50% of registered voters will vote anyway. That means 20% of registered voters would be 40% of those voting.

So 20% of registered voters may be a high standard. Maybe 10%? Of course 40% isn't enough to replace the official anyway.

Wikipedia says there was at least 150 recalls in 2011, none for federal officials, only state.

Another site records there has never been a recall of a member of congress although at least 18 states have some provision for it.

Seems some require a court ruling on specific infractions, not just dissatisifaction, for any recall election.

Then you won't mind when we change it back!! Glad we can count on you.