Jonathan Cahn Exposes Pride Month and Gives Warnings


Still_Small_Voice
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I liked the message of this video.  Those who are Christians should heed the warnings and information Mister Cahn gives.

 

 

There are two concerns I have in relationship this video and its subject.  The first is the principle of agency that each individual has been given by G-d to choose from either good or evil and become what they will – I believe that agency includes the possibility someone chooses LGBTQ+

The other item of concern addresses the encompassing of sexuality of LGBTQ+ seems to leave out one particular branding of sexuality – that of heterosexuality and the ideas of modesty and chastity.   The preservation and sustainability of the human race require heterosexuality and respect of modesty and chastity.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/nbc-out-proud/re-coming-children-chant-nyc-drag-march-elicits-outrage-activists-say-rcna91341?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=649b7b94f8ccd40001c2880a

Summary:

  • The LGBT parade chanted "We're here!  We're queer!  We're coming for your children!"
  • NBC started out saying that they couldn't really tell if the LGBT people were the ones saying that or if some agitator was saying it to get a sound bite.
  • People in the crowd claimed that they were chanting it specifically to get a rise out of conservatives who already think this of them.
  • Others said that they're saying this to
    • One person: take the sting out of conservatives making these accusations.
    • Another: To destigmatize "this"

Whatever "this" refers to.   Gee, what could it be?

"We're coming for your children."

They say they're joking or they are being sarcastic.  But that kinda contradicts:

"We want to destigmatize this."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen so many videos of school boards, legislators (both state and Congressional), individuals on the street that are all for allowing LGBT books be freely available to elementary school children.  But once they actually see what these books contain, they have a hissy fit.

You'd think that such a reaction would make them agree with conservatives.  NOPE. Instead, they censure the conservatives bringing it to light.  How DARE they read such filth in the hallowed halls of government.  (News flash: Public schools are government offices.).  But they still refuse to remove those books from children's libraries.  

Consider:  They deemed it inappropriate to bring up for discussion among polite adults.  But they refuse to remove them from children's libraries.

I even saw one video of a woman who read that stuff and said, "No, that's not the kind of book I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the books that were required reading when I was a child."  When she was informed that these were the books that conservatives want to get rid of, did she have some understanding of what the real problem was?  Some light bulb go off? Did she change sides?  Nope.  She just walked off because she refused to talk to a conservative about the issue.

This is the mechanism that will separate the wheats from the tares.  When they come face-to-face with the real problems, certain people will have to make a decision.  They must either switch or they will have to double-down.  At some point, they will have to be perfectly ok with the fact that they are sexualizing children or they will want to protect them. 

They tell themselves that it isn't all that bad.  As percentage and degree, they are currently correct.  But the real question that will have to be put to every voter in America is "When has it gone too far?"  If someone doesn't have a clear definition of when they've reached that point, they will never be able to answer it.  It will never be too far.

My fear is that for so many who want to straddle the line, or have chosen to step "just a little bit" onto the other side of the line, they won't even know when the line has moved (and they have moved with it).  They'll wake up and embrace what they once thought was completely demonic.  And they will give themselves to the movement completely.

No, it's not a religious movement at all.  Nothing to see here.

On the bright side:  I just read that Seskatchewan has banned Planned Parenthood because a "sexually graphic depiction" from a PP resource which ended up in the hands of a high schooler.  If even Canada is seeing that this is bad to the point that they banned Planned Parenthood, there is hope for us.  But if this is jut a blip and they go right back to it... no hope.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/27/2023 at 10:33 PM, Traveler said:

I believe that agency includes the possibility someone chooses LGBTQ+

Hi, I'm new here. I am a lifelong active member of the church and have been serving in stake leadership since 2019. I only mention that because I am a temple-attending, covenant-keeping member of the church with a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

HOWEVER, I am technically a member of the LGBTQIA+ cohort.

I did NOT choose to be that way, and the very idea that someone somehow chooses a path of pain, rejection, and mental anguish is anathema to any right-thinking individual.

I have subscribed here to challenge the very ideas at the root of our indoctrination on this topic. ❤️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2023 at 10:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

Hi, I'm new here. I am a lifelong active member of the church and have been serving in stake leadership since 2019. I only mention that because I am a temple-attending, covenant-keeping member of the church with a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

HOWEVER, I am technically a member of the LGBTQIA+ cohort.

I did NOT choose to be that way, and the very idea that someone somehow chooses a path of pain, rejection, and mental anguish is anathema to any right-thinking individual.

I have subscribed here to challenge the very ideas at the root of our indoctrination on this topic. ❤️

Thank you for your response.  Sometimes it is difficult to have deep discussions on the internet.  A little of my background.  I am an old, retired guy.  I fulfilled a military obligation during the Vietnam conflict, served a mission, attended BYU – math and physics.  After college (and marriage) I went to work for the government (near DC – anti submarine and mostly defensive armaments).  Leaving behind government projects I worked as an engineer in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  The last 12 years or so I had a little consulting business.

I believe in agency.  I also believe that humans are an intelligent species that learn and acquire cognitive behaviors.  I am quite sure that sexual behaviors in humans are cognitive behaviors that are acquired by various “levels” of learning or conditioning. 

While in the military, I was attached to an army intelligent unit specializing in interrogations and indoctrinations.  I was greatly surprised with what individuals could be convinced of through the dark arts of various brain washing technics and how difficult it can be to undo troubling acquisitions of intense (or stimulated) behaviors that can become addictive.

I do not support anything contrary to the Law of Chastity or anything even remotely in opposition to the Law of Chastity.  I also believe the prime principle that has divided heaven and created the opposition of Satan is the principle of Agency and not LGBTQ+ as some may imply.  My first allegiance to any divine principle or law is to the principle and law of Agency.

My opposition to LGBTQ+ society is based in two problems.  First it that there is a lack of support for the principle of agency – that a person has the power to determine what they will be.  That LGBTQ+ promotes that humans are born a certain way and cannot repent or change whatever behaviors or attractions they have deliberately or unknowingly acquired during their mortal probation.

The second great concern is that “H” is left out of the list – especially that “H” is the only divinely inspired sexual orientation in all eternity that can create human life.

 

Welcome - I am glad you have posted.  I hope to help you in your travels.

 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2023 at 10:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

the very idea that someone somehow chooses a path of pain, rejection, and mental anguish is anathema to any right-thinking individual.

I'm not commenting on gay or trans of it all...but.....

A lifelong member, but you don't understand that wrong choices lead to pain, rejection, and mental anguish?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not commenting on gay or trans of it all...but.....

A lifelong member who doesn't understand that wrong choices lead to pain, rejection, and mental anguish?

Interesting.

Some hardships (like addiction and consequences of criminal activity) are inflicted upon ourselves. Others (like anti-LGBTQ prejudice) are inflicted by others. I believe that's an important distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Godless said:

Some hardships (like addiction and consequences of criminal activity) are inflicted upon ourselves. Others (like anti-LGBTQ prejudice) are inflicted by others. I believe that's an important distinction.

Of course it's an important distinction. One that he isn't making in his argument. He's saying no one would ever choose pain, rejection, or mental anguish -- ergo -- no one would choose LGBTQRSTUV-dom. Since people clearly, often, choose things that lead to pain, rejection, and mental anguish, the ergo here doesn't work.

Like I said, I'm not commenting on the gay and trans stuff as relating to choice. But the argument he's making isn't a sound one. And claiming that any right thinking individual would accept that falsehood is wrongheaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aquatic Contraption said:

Perhaps someone can tell me how long the moderation process continues before it is possible to hold a discussion without a time-induced disconnect. 10 posts? Maybe 20? One week? One month?

It was being left to me to decide and I've been on vacation.  I'm not convinced this conversation is the right fit for this forum. And yes we've banned many card holding members before.  So sharing your temple recommend has no bearing on the decisions of the moderators.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2023 at 11:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

HOWEVER, I am technically a member of the LGBTQIA+ cohort.

I'm not sure what you mean by "technically" and "member".  Please expound.

On 7/9/2023 at 11:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

I did NOT choose to be that way, and the very idea that someone somehow chooses a path of pain, rejection, and mental anguish is anathema to any right-thinking individual.

Explain what you mean by "that way" and how that automatically equals a life of pain, rejection...

Please explain what you mean by "pain, rejection, and mental anguish."  Please give examples.

On 7/9/2023 at 11:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

I have subscribed here to challenge the very ideas at the root of our indoctrination on this topic. ❤️

Exactly what is our "indoctrination" which you want to challenge?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2023 at 9:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

Hi, I'm new here. I am a lifelong active member of the church and have been serving in stake leadership since 2019. I only mention that because I am a temple-attending, covenant-keeping member of the church with a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Bona fides firmly established.

On 7/9/2023 at 9:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

HOWEVER, I am technically a member of the LGBTQIA+ cohort.

So, apparently, is literally everyone else, given the ever-increasing number of letters and the convenient plus sign.

On 7/9/2023 at 9:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

I did NOT choose to be that way, and the very idea that someone somehow chooses a path of pain, rejection, and mental anguish is anathema to any right-thinking individual.

No true Scotsman could disagree.

On 7/9/2023 at 9:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

I have subscribed here to challenge the very ideas at the root of our indoctrination on this topic. ❤️

I must challenge the root of your indoctrination on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:
On 7/9/2023 at 12:32 PM, Aquatic Contraption said:

HOWEVER, I am technically a member of the LGBTQIA+ cohort.

I'm not sure what you mean by "technically" and "member".  Please expound.

 

13 hours ago, Vort said:

So, apparently, is literally everyone else, given the ever-increasing number of letters and the convenient plus sign.

I have to admit, I struggle to understand where AC is coming from because the acronym is too inclusive. Stake leadership could be RS, so maybe L or G (or even B -- no offense if L or G). Or maybe even T if not transitioned. Or one of the 2 Q's (have we settled on whether that's "Queer" or "Questioning"? I've seen it both ways). AC didn't choose this life, so maybe AC was forced into A-ship when a child came out as LGBTI? Probably not I though since it hasn't come up in the thread yet (but here we are threadjacking on the length of the acronym so AC could be thread-jacking to focus on I).

AC, are you comfortable being more specific, or would you prefer that we place all the letters in Schroedinger's box, give it a firm shake, and pull out letters as you post in the forums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I have to admit, I struggle to understand where AC is coming from because the acronym is too inclusive. Stake leadership could be RS, so maybe L or G (or even B -- no offense if L or G). Or maybe even T if not transitioned. Or one of the 2 Q's (have we settled on whether that's "Queer" or "Questioning"? I've seen it both ways). AC didn't choose this life, so maybe AC was forced into A-ship when a child came out as LGBTI? Probably not I though since it hasn't come up in the thread yet (but here we are threadjacking on the length of the acronym so AC could be thread-jacking to focus on I).

AC, are you comfortable being more specific, or would you prefer that we place all the letters in Schroedinger's box, give it a firm shake, and pull out letters as you post in the forums?

I wonder if Hilbert was used as the source of the comic strip name "Dilbert."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2023 at 10:32 AM, Aquatic Contraption said:

Hi, I'm new here. I am a lifelong active member of the church and have been serving in stake leadership since 2019. I only mention that because I am a temple-attending, covenant-keeping member of the church with a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

HOWEVER, I am technically a member of the LGBTQIA+ cohort.

I did NOT choose to be that way, and the very idea that someone somehow chooses a path of pain, rejection, and mental anguish is anathema to any right-thinking individual.

I have subscribed here to challenge the very ideas at the root of our indoctrination on this topic. ❤️

You may not have chosen it but I know of someone who did. (Nothing lasting was coming from dating the opposite sex so they decided to date amongst their own.) I know of someone else that has seemed to always have a rebellious streak that has said they're gay but I won't be surprised if that doesn't last. 

Edited by Manners Matter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share