RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
The boy who’s becoming a girl
At the age of 7, Thomas Lobel was diagnosed with gender identity disorder. At age 8, he began “transitioning.” With the active support of his parents—a lesbian couple who adopted him when he was 2—Thomas is in the process of becoming “Tammy.” Now 11 years old, Thomas, who dresses like a girl and is called Tammy, has begun taking hormone-blocking drugs to stop him from going through puberty.
Parents Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, who live in the San Francisco area, report that at the age of 3, Thomas told them (through sign language used due to a speech impediment), “I am a girl.”
According to a report in Britain’s Daily Mail, Moreno believes they’re doing what is best for their child. “The protocol now is to transition these children as soon as you can make a diagnosis, because otherwise they end up being not one thing or the other . . . because they experienced puberty.”
An implant in Thomas’s arm blocks the release of hormones, essentially keeping him, as Moreno explains, “a pre-pubescent boy until she decides and we feel that she can make this decision about surgery.” At age 14 or 15 Thomas will choose whether to go through male or female puberty.
San Francisco is one of four cities in the United States that has a hospital with a program for transgender children. No doubt Ms. Moreno and Ms. Lobel had little difficulty finding a psychiatrist to lead them all through this process, or perhaps even to suggest and encourage it. They report having a good support system, with friends who make it a point to tell Thomas how pretty he looks.
I also have no doubt that Thomas is a troubled child who needs help. And the help his parents, psychiatrist, and friends have chosen to give him is to change him from a boy to a girl.
To be given an official psychiatric diagnosis of gender identity disorder at the age of 7 is unconscionable. To begin “transitioning” an 8-year-old little boy into a little girl is tragic. My heart breaks for Thomas and for a world in which gender confusion prevails.
back to top337 Comments to “The boy who’s becoming a girl”
Repulsive.
Report comment to moderator
I think this exceeds the things Sodom and Gomorrah did.
Report comment to moderator
There are no words strong enough for how evil this is. To take away a little boy’s chance to be a man, a husband, and a father is despicable. But I guess they hardly know how significant manhood is, so they wouldn’t know that. All I keep thinking is someday they will answer to God for this one.
Report comment to moderator
“And the help his parents, psychiatrist, and friends have chosen to give him is to change him from a boy to a girl.”
Actually? None of this will actually change him from a boy to a girl. I don’t care if the surgury goes perfectly, the hormone therapy does it’s job, and he perfects his mannerisms and, adjusts his psyche. He will never, ever be a girl. He might not have the genitalia of a boy anymore, but what he becomes, will never be a girl.
He will always have the chromosomes and genetics he was born with, the body he was born with. The surgury might change a few things about that body, but it cannot change him into a girl….
Report comment to moderator
Everyone around the emporer may SAY he has a wonderful new suit, but if he is stark raving naked, it doesn’t matter if a million people say he’s clothed…
Report comment to moderator
All that being said, I have no animosity toward this boy. My heart grieves for this person who is so confused. A great deal of pain awaits….. I would spare him all that if I could.
Report comment to moderator
Our family is grappling with a similarly confused young man, er woman, who is engaged to a woman, but is he then a lesbian or a guy? And even though he was puzzled, the docs in Berkeley went ahead and did whatever surgery they did to make him a guy.
Oh, and before that happened, he divorced the woman he married as a man–and is she ever confused 10 years later.
S/he recently had a psychotic breakdown (age of 31) and while in the psych hospital was visited by a chaplain who reminded him/her of who Jesus is. This young person reaffirmed his/her commitment to the Lord and the chaplain advised him/her to find strong Christians who would love him/her.
Enter members of our family, who are also confused as to how to help.
Tragic.
But perhaps more convenient for the boy’s parents–today. Does anyone think this boy/girl will grow up to live a fulfilled normal life?
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, see how confusing it gets? He had a surgery to become a woman four years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Repulsive doesn’t seem an adequate enough term. It’s even worse than repulsive. It’s disgusting how these degenerate so-called parents are projecting their perversions onto the child. Disgusting. They should be brought up on child abuse charges.
Report comment to moderator
“At age 14 or 15 Thomas will choose whether to go through male or female puberty.”
You can’t get a 15 year old’s ears pierced without signing a raft of forms because the legal assumption is that they’re incapable of forming consent to an almost-harmless procedure. But he’s going to decide on a life-altering and dangerous set of medical and surgical treatments when he’s 14 or 15. Oy vey.
Report comment to moderator
This is just one example of how sin is destroying our nation and families. May God have mercy on our souls.
Report comment to moderator
This is just another natural consequence of homosexualism. They want our children and they want them perverted. They will start as early as humanly possible. They will even use drugs (or any other means necessary) on children to do it.
Report comment to moderator
To take away a little boy’s chance to be a man, a husband, and a father is despicable.
The article makes it seem like he could choose, at 14 or 15, to go through male puberty and become a sexually mature (physiologically speaking) man.
None of this will actually change him from a boy to a girl.
I tend to think it’s a little more fluid than that. For instance, some XY babies have a defect that renders their cells unreceptive to androgenic hormones. In extreme cases they’re born with normal female genetalia (but are sterile). If such a baby is born, raised as a girl, and finds out in adulthood that she has a Y chromosome, does that mean she’s actually a man? I don’t think so.
What about hermaphroditic children? Male or female? If one of them had an operation (and hormone therapy) in order to encourage “male development”, would that person then be a boy? Or would he/she forever be “something else”?
For the record, I don’t agree with this couple’s decision.
Report comment to moderator
This is child abuse.
Report comment to moderator
People in San Francisco are OK with the treatment of this child? But they want to ban circumcision under the guise of child abuse.
San Francisco is one messed up city. I guess it’s no coincidence that all these lost souls are gathering on top of a major fault line.
Report comment to moderator
People in San Francisco are OK with the treatment of this child? But they want to ban circumcision under the guise of child abuse.
Two differences: circumcision is both involuntary and irreversible. What’s happened to this boy so far is neither.
I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that if the parents had said, “Hey, we want a girl, so we’re going to turn our boy into a girl regardless of what he wants,” and the kid had no interest in becoming a girl, that San Fran residents would be suitably outraged.
Report comment to moderator
13– we knew a family whose child was born a “hermaphrodite”… hospital wanted to make the child one particular gender because it would be easier. Family insisted on chromosome testing and went with genetics which happened to be the opposite of what the hospital wanted to do; child grew up perfectly normal and went on to marry and have children. Yay for genetics!!
Report comment to moderator
and I highly doubt that the majority of transgendered people have a genetic based confusion.
Report comment to moderator
And people wonder why we oppose homosexual adoptions.
Report comment to moderator
“What about hermaphroditic children? Male or female? If one of them had an operation (and hormone therapy) in order to encourage “male development”, would that person then be a boy? Or would he/she forever be “something else”?”
I don’t know why people always bring up the hermaphroditic and strange genetic exceptions in the context of changing people from one known, fixed sex to another. The exceptional cases present difficult challenges, it’s true, but really have nothing to do with taking an unambiguously physically male child and playing around with his body.
“What’s happened to this boy so far is neither.”
In a legal environment where for any other purpose, required consent is deemed impossible at the age of 8, you can’t exactly call it “voluntary,” either. And it’s orders of magnitude more invasive and potentially destructive than circumcision.
Report comment to moderator
What could be and probably is irreversible is the psychological damage being done here.
An adult making this decision is one thing. Doing this to a child is horrendous.
Report comment to moderator
Just an observation – I’m a teacher, and when a three-year-old boy tells me (in sign language, Chinese, English, Spanish or hieroglyphics!) “I am a girl,” I automatically assume he is either a) confused about what this word means or b) being silly to get a reaction. THIS little guy got a lot more than he bargained for! (Plus, had he ever even learned the sign for ‘boy’ growing up with two mommies?) What’s next? A child tells his mom “I’m an apple” and we start talking about whether he wants to be a pie? GOOD GRIEF!
This story made me sick to my stomach, literally, thinking about what that little guy has been through and how this will irreversibly affect the rest of his life. Really want to slap some sense into whatever judge gave this 2-year-old to these two women. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes when they are asked to give an account for this one.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting article on this very subject, which draws no conclusions. I wish we could be as dispassionate on the subject and admit what we do not know or understand about what God, in His infinite wisdom, creates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder_in_children
Report comment to moderator
@ 19, Debra – No one wonders why *you* oppose homosexual adoptions. But it’s got nothing to do with this article whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
“I tend to think it’s a little more fluid than that.”
Not really. It’s only “fluid” in a very small percentage of the population. Usually it’s quite clear.
To be fair though, the OP did not include any genetic or chromosomal information in this case…. Including such might make us think a little harder about this. But one does not bring up an extreme minority case to make broader points…
Report comment to moderator
I’m with you, Debra.
Report comment to moderator
And Katiecumbie, too.
Report comment to moderator
Smoking in public is also seen as a scourge and an outrage in SF. But not this?
Report comment to moderator
“What’s happened to this boy so far is neither.”
So far. If surgery is done, then that’s not very reversible is it? Once you make a cut on someone, things are never the same. Ever again. And if you remove part of their body, it’s even worse.
And that’s exactly what they’re talking about doing isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
But as NJL points out, what’s being done psychologically isn’t very reversible either….
Ever try to help someone who has been severely and chronically traumatized at an early age?
Not reversible.
Report comment to moderator
This is just another natural consequence of homosexualism. They want our children and they want them perverted. They will start as early as humanly possible. They will even use drugs (or any other means necessary) on children to do it.
Not only that but there’s a giant blob of protoplasm which is going to absorb us all.
By the way, JM, who else can you think of that has designs upon children at a young age? Who will use lots of tricks to convert them to a certain way of thinking? Maybe convince them that there is no other way to think? Perhaps even scare them into thinking the right way?
Report comment to moderator
@Pentamom: I don’t know why people always bring up the hermaphroditic and strange genetic exceptions…
Because MiM seemed to suggest gender is “cut and dry” when he said that no matter what happened to this boy he would always and forever be a boy.
I’m not sure gender is always so well defined. From MiM’s perspective, the presence or lack of sex characteristics and sex organs does not determine gender. I thought he might have been using chromosomal makeup (XY vs. XX) as the determinant of gender. If so, then children who are hermaphroditic or have complete androgen insensitivity would present a problem for him.
@Pentamom: In a legal environment where for any other purpose, required consent is deemed impossible at the age of 8, you can’t exactly call it “voluntary,” either.
True. But at least in this case the child is making uninformed consent.
@Pentamom: And it’s orders of magnitude more invasive and potentially destructive than circumcision.
Not yet it isn’t, if the article’s to be believed. At least not from a physical standpoint. They can remove this implant and he’ll go through male puberty like normal, albeit a little late.
@MiM: Usually it’s quite clear.
So what are your criteria?
Report comment to moderator
This kid is not a hermaphrodite, so that’s not relevant.
This one I don’t get unless is a typo: “But at least in this case the child is making uninformed consent.”
No minor is legally capable of consenting – “uninformed” or otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
OK, little boy in a household that has decided males are optional, even for male roles such as, say, fathering. When he speaks of feeling like he’s a girl, the women who are trying to mother him have a hard time hiding their delight. Wow, wouldn’t it be cool to take one of them and make him one of us instead?
That may not be at all intentional, but it’s hard to know sometimes the lengths a child will go to to gain the pleasure of his parents. And when a child has been abandoned by birth parents (whatever the circumstances, even if it was death), loss of a parent is traumatic to a young child, and feels like abandonment), he has all the more cause to try to win approval.
There might be other factors at play here, but I’d be willing to bet that this fits in there somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
So would I, Cheryl.
There is a standard the law recognizes: “the peculiar vulnerability of children.”
This child is being served up for slaughter.
Report comment to moderator
No minor is legally capable of consenting – “uninformed” or otherwise.
Legally, sure. But there’s a difference between giving a kid a sucker when he asks for one and forcibly shoving it into his mouth while he’s trying to keep it closed. Clearly in one instance he wants “whatever” to happen and in the other he doesn’t.
In evaluating San Francisco’s response to this kid’s situation vis-a-vis their desire to ban circumcision, I think people are taking into account the fact that the kid wants to be wearing a dress and behaving as a girl. Compare this to circumcision, where the baby has no capacity whatsoever to make a choice.
In general, I’m guessing San Francisco residents aren’t opposed to parents making kids do stuff they don’t want to do for their own good. See: vaccinations. What four-year-old wants to get shots in his arm because he realizes it’s going to stave off disease? None I know. But parents get them shots anyway, and nobody bats an eye. So why, in this case, would San Fran be critical if the parents put him in therapy and tried to get him back on the track to male identification? Unlike vaccinations, the assumption made is that such therapy (and, in general, trying to get him to identify as male) is actually damaging.
If you start from a belief that trying to get this kid to grow up male would be harmful (which can certainly be disputed) then San Francisco residents’ reaction (or lack thereof) isn’t in any way hypocritical as Scott suggested.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, this kid IS male. What if he said he is a dog–would it be harmful to try to reorient him to his humanness? I would say it would be extremely harmful to put him through surgery to make him more doglike. Furthermore, he wouldn’t really ever be a dog.
Obviously, most parents who circumcise a child do so for the child’s own good. Waiting till he is old enough to consent is actually harmful; better to do the minor surgery when he is a newborn. (I know two boys who had to have it done at about age eight, for medical reasons–how much better to have done it in infancy than to wait till the child can say, “I wish you’d have me circumcised.”) Sure, the child isn’t consenting. But neither is he consenting to most of the parents’ other choices for his well-being–so what? That is part of being a child, by definition. Parents make decisions for their children all the time. But cutting off significant body parts, for reasons short of medical necessity, is abuse, even if the child thinks he wants it done.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing new under the sun. Ancient eastern emperors held eunuchs in their courts, while pagan priests held them to serve in the temples. In 18th century Europe, they castrated boy sopranos and altos to prevent them losing their upper ranges. These castrati developed vocal abilities which cannot be equaled today. This practice, which the textbooks decribe as against human dignity, was abolished after the French Revolution. So now the world comes full circle yet again.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, this kid IS male.
More or less I agree. Though, my questions to MiM were in the abstract, not necessarily represented to this particular boy’s case.
Basically he’s saying, “There’s male, there’s female, there’s no in between, and it’s always easy to tell who’s male and who’s female.” That’s the assertion I’m pushing back against.
Waiting till he is old enough to consent is actually harmful
Not really. If he decides he does want to be circumcised then he has to undergo minor surgery and recovery. That’s a slight amount of harm. If he decides he’s glad he’s not circumcised then he gains…the ability to live the rest of his life without being circumcised. When you circumcise infants you remove that option. Which is worse: having to undergo minor surgery (by choice) as an adult, or being stuck with the results of a surgery someone else chose for you without your input?
In the spirit of full disclosure I have a son who is not circumcised.
Report comment to moderator
Err, “represented” should be “related” in that second sentence.
Report comment to moderator
31 – Arcadia, excellent points, all.
Report comment to moderator
“Basically he’s saying, “There’s male, there’s female, there’s no in between, and it’s always easy to tell who’s male and who’s female.” That’s the assertion I’m pushing back against.”
No that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I was saying was that gender is not as fluid as you indicated. And the only reason I say that is that intersex or androgenous characteristics affect a very small percentage of the population. Most of the time gender and sex as defined by genital, chromosomal, and genetic makeup is very clear cut.
I did NOT say there is no in between. And it irritates me that you said so.
Report comment to moderator
So sad. This just goes to show how much sin has corrupted the world. Children are born with cancer, missing limbs, etc. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that people can be born with gender confusion, etc. (if that is actually the case here. I would agree with #22 about the silly things kids say that shouldn’t necessarily be taken seriously). However, that doesn’t make it a good thing. Suppressing the poor child’s hormones is a big mistake, regardless of what “decision” he makes for his body.
Come, Lord Jesus!
Report comment to moderator
Homosexualism has its designs on recruiting, perverting, and exploiting young children. Those who get angry when I point this out don’t have a rational answer to the facts. They just get mad. The sad thing is that their anger somehow works with some people who allow themselves to be intimidated by evil. Some would rather feel good and appease evil forces than face the hard and dispicable facts about homosexualism and how evil it is.
Homosexualism is a belief system that can worm its way into any other systen that allows itself to be perverted. IOW, what I am saying also applies to some corrupt Catholic priests as much as to devious perverters of mainline Protestant churches that would rather embrace homosexualism than stand up for the gospel. As I recall, the unrepentant homosexual episcopal “bishop,” Gene Robinson, also ran a website that recruited teens into homosexuality and homosexualism.
They want your children.
Report comment to moderator
OMG THE BOOGAYMAN!!! *hides under bed*
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, I’m not male, not yet married, will have only stepdaughters, and have no chance ever to bear a son. I have lots of boys in my family, most of them probably circumcised, but it’s mostly an academic topic to me and of no critical importance. In other words, I make no claim for expertise on this subject, nor am I ever likely to have to make the decision for or against the surgery, or even to counsel anyone on making it.
I have heard arguments for and against it. One of the arguments for it is that it occasionally is medically necessary later in childhood, and far less traumatic in infancy than in puberty or pre-puberty. Having known of two such cases personally, I know this isn’t simply an abstract argument, but worth at least considering. Some have also said that wives of uncircumcised men are more subject to infections (for sure some STDs, which isn’t relevant if the man is sexually pure, but other infections can be more likely too–and as someone susceptible to UTIs, that is relevant to me). So it seems to me like there are some legitimate reasons to do it.
I’ve also heard there can be problems if it is done badly; someone I know hesitated to do it for her son until she found out her doctor used a safe method, and then she chose to do it.
But without being an expert on this, and without wanting to go into the kind of detail that would be inappropriate (in other words, you may know something I don’t–and yes, I do know other reasons some men don’t like it), it seems to me that as long as parents are careful to see that it be done safely and well, having had it done without one’s consent is not likely to be “bad” enough to feel like the decision was inappropriate. It seems like most of the negative news is from it being done badly. The fact that it was actually done to a whole cultural group in Scripture, at God’s command, at least tells us that we can’t say it’s an unnatural or harmful surgery, if done correctly. And those grown men who go around fuming at what their parents did to them without their consent seem to me like they need to grow up. Unless they suffered actual injury, it’s unlikely this ruined their lives; grow up and deal with it, the way adults deal with actual problems.
Report comment to moderator
This discussion is really very off-topic, however, and again, there is no comparison between parents deciding that circumcision is a good idea and parents encouraging major, unnecessary, harmful, life-altering surgery.
Report comment to moderator
@47 – Cheryl, I’m not even going to use biological terms here, but I am curious. If surgery was done involuntarily to women which made it nearly impossible to experience marital pleasure, but did not interfere with the actual act, conception or childbirth, would you consider *that* major, unnecessary, harmful, life-altering surgery.
Report comment to moderator
I see only the Christians have taken up the cause for the child to have a right to make his own decision about his own life and body.
Report comment to moderator
All of Creation is tainted by sin. The ravages of original sin impact every child ever born. Why then, do we as Evangelicals seem to think that a person’s sexuality, even their gender identity could not be messed up at birth?? Why is it impossible for a child to identify as a girl at a young age? To have gender identity issues? Does sin give our sexuality a pass?? No. If we hold to original sin, then we must accept that some will be born homosexual, or even with gender issues, just as some will be born with a proclivity toward depression, or any other physical, mental or emotional disorder. I believe it’s entirely possible that this child has gender identity issues. And, I’m a conservative Evangelical, PCA presbyterian.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, it’s possible, Kathleen, and I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise! The reason is debatable, of course, but without a doubt this child is confused. The problem isn’t that; it’s whether surgically mutilating him is the proper response to his confusion.
Report comment to moderator
Lucy Cat, from anything I have read on the subject, “nearly impossible to experience marital pleasure” is a wild exaggeration. Remember that this surgery has been done to the vast majority of American males until very recent years, and I have heard of no epidemic of American men failing to enjoy sex. From what I have read, it may sometimes lessen it . . . but make it “nearly impossible,” no.
Report comment to moderator
@ 52. Well, there’s this: http://intactnews.org/node/131/1316710012/study-links-circumcision-personality-trait-disorder
And this:
Myth – Routine circumcision of baby boys cannot be compared to Female Genital Mutilation.
Fact – Rationales offered in cultures that promote female genital cutting – hygiene, disease prevention, improved appearance of the genitalia, and social acceptance – are similar to those offered in cultures that promote male circumcision. Whatever the rationale, forced removal of healthy genital tissue from any child – male or female – is unethical. Boys have the same right as girls to an intact body, and to be spared this inhumane, unnecessary surgery.
Myth – To oppose male circumcision is religious and cultural bigotry.
Fact – Many who oppose the permanent alteration of children’s genitals do so because they believe in universal human rights. All children – regardless of their ethnicity or culture – have the right to be protected from bodily harm.
Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits later in life.
Fact – There is NO link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy’s genitals creates immediate health risks. The foreskin is actually an important and functional body part, protecting the head of the penis from injury and providing moisture and lubrication. Circumcision also diminishes sexual pleasure later in life.
Report comment to moderator
“Rationales . . . are similar” isn’t enough to say the results are similar. I’m sorry, but if you’ve read anything at all about female circumcision, you’d know they should have chosen a different name, because it suggests similarity where there is none.
Rationales may also be similar for encouraging women to have pap smears. Does that invalidate them, if that is the case? Similar rationales do not mean similar outcomes, similar side effects, or anything else except similar arguments.
Clearly there is at least some benefit for the minor surgery, or God wouldn’t have required it of His people in the Old Testament. Now, it wasn’t required for health reasons, but if you look at the Old Testament law carefully, it’s amazing how medically wise many of the laws were. And none of them were medically bad, unless circumcision is mostly bad. The fact is, modern America says that MOST of what God calls good is bad, and eventually God is proven right. (Bread, milk, abstinence from premarital sex, etc.–there are naysayers to everything God calls good.) I am not saying that circumcision is somehow mandatory, or even that in modern medical times it is “better” to do it than not; families have to decide that for themselves. But I am saying that we can’t say it’s a 100% bad medical decision, or God would not have endorsed it.
Report comment to moderator
“Why then, do we as Evangelicals seem to think that a person’s sexuality, even their gender identity could not be messed up at birth??”
Who said I did? In fact, I did not. I allow room for error. But I stand by my point that the vast majority of the population does not experience such problems.
Report comment to moderator
“All children – regardless of their ethnicity or culture – have the right to be protected from bodily harm.’
Even if they are unborn?
Report comment to moderator
KATHLEENMM (#50) wrote; “If we hold to original sin, then we must accept that some will be born homosexual, or even with gender issues, just as some will be born with a proclivity toward depression. . . “
I think I disagree with you, KATHLEENMM, unless you are talking about a rare aberation. We live in a world wherein there are such aberations, sad to say, but I think far too many of us rush to some biological, physiological or chemical explanations for too many aberations of behavior. Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but I think Christians should know and do better.
One thing is sure, no one is born homosexual. it is something one is recruited into or deceived into or develops a preference or inclination for over time due to various circumstances that involve many factors including the moral choices we make. Some of these factors may occur at an early age too, but simply being born homosexual is the most harmful lie of our time. Christians know better.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl @ 54: The Mayo Clinic, as with other medical publications, agrees with your assessment of male circumcision:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done
Report comment to moderator
#51
Cheryl,
You said, “The problem isn’t that; it’s whether surgically mutilating him is the proper response to his confusion.”
Reminds me of one of the recent Popes who said that a man who has undergone a sex change operation is nothing more than a mutilated man.
Report comment to moderator
There might be such a thing as gender identity disorder, but it seems to me that the best way to address it is to help the person suffering from it to accept his or her actual, biological gender, if it can be determined. Sort of like people who believe themselves to be animals or machines or whatever else a disordered mind might think! Help them to accept reality.
As a teacher with 25 years of experience, I have seen many girls who said that they were boys and a few boys who have said that they were girls. All of them, as far as I know, outgrew it, and it being no big deal at all. We have to make allowances for girls who are somewhat boyish and boys who are somewhat girlish, and help them to accept themselves as they are.
In the rare cases that a person has ambiguous gender, then work through a process of discovering what medical science can do to solve the problem–hormones? surgery? psychological counseling? We should do whatever we can to help such a person live a full, happy life.
Report comment to moderator
After years of being in the custody of this flaky pair of lesbians, the poor boy probably IS suffering from gender identity disorder now. But is that really so surprising? The point is, people who are themselves confused or ambivalent about their own sex and the normal function of their own bodies, or worse, who have actively embraced inner tendencies to perversion, should not be allowed to adopt. Nor should they be put in a position to influence the sexual formation of any minor.
Homosexual adoption is perversion looking for a place to appear normal and spread. What has happened to this boy is state-sanctioned child abuse. What’s more, if we ever get the nationalized healthcare some want, tax dollars will probably end up paying for this kind of abuse. And much more.
Report comment to moderator
@ 61 – Debra, if you’re going to use words like “flaky” and “perversion” and “child abuse”, it would do you well to recognize that the mental health authorities that define these terms professionally might themselves conclude that you have a problem yourself.
An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?
By LISA BELKIN
Data drives policy. Or, at least, it should. In recent months there have been several studies suggesting that children raised by same-sex couples are certainly no worse off (and in some ways are arguably better off) than children raised by heterosexual couples.
Now, in an article titled “Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?” in the August issue of the journal Applied Developmental Science, researchers go one incremental but important step further. Rather than simply letting the research speak for itself, they conclude that their new findings should lead to the end of existing bans on adoption by same-sex couples in the United States.
“From a policy perspective, our results provide no justification for denying lesbian and gay adults from adopting children,” Rachel H. Farr and Charlotte H. Patterson, of the University of Virginia, and Stephen L. Forssell of George Washington University write.
Antihomosexual bigotry – often characterized by hateful rhetoric and demonization tactics – is perversion looking for a place at Christ’s table to seem normal and spread…
Report comment to moderator
Go back to sleep kitten. You don’t know it, but you’ve already been bagged and tagged. If or when they come for me, there will be no problem figuring out where I stand. And I prefer it that way. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
64 – Debra, I bet you’re a hoot at parties. The idea that “they” are “coming for you” is something you probably should have checked out. Your comments are presenting a very interesting mental health picture.
Report comment to moderator
“already been bagged and tagged”. I like that. Wouldn’t it be cool if she found out she was in the wrong “bag”?
Report comment to moderator
Lucy, just so you know, suggesting that someone’s disapproval of perversion makes her a candidate for treatment under America’s “new and (un)improved” mental health system is against the rules of this blog–all personal attacks are.
Report comment to moderator
Grab a butterfly net!
Martin J. Kantor, MD, author specializing in psychology and gay men’s issues, wrote the following information in his 1998 book Homophobia: Description, Development, and Dynamics of Gay Bashing:
“[T]here are aspects of homophobia that are symptomatic, which closely resemble aspects of emotional disorders, so that homophobia is in many ways as much like a mental illness as some homophobics say homosexuality is like one. For example, many homophobes reason like patients with paranoia… Too, homophobes feel that gays and lesbians are out to seduce them like paranoids feel that enemies are singling them out and persecuting them. And like these paranoids, homophobes stay perfectly calm and unflustered until their ‘favorite subject’ comes up – persecution in the case of paranoids, homosexuality in the case of homophobes, at which time all concerned become equally overwrought, hysterical, panicky, and defensive…
Many homophobes experience the same feelings of weltuntergang (delusion of world decay) that severe depressives and schizophrenics experience, with all concerned suffering from the false belief… that the world… is ‘going to hell in a hand basket,’ and all because of what gays and lesbians do in bed, or because gays and lesbians want to get married legally.”
Report comment to moderator
#64 Ha. How quickly we forget, LucyCat— you presented the spectre of who ‘they’ are in #62. But I’m still fascinated about the possibility of a professional definition of ‘flaky’. Do tell.
And btw, when you quote, it’s a good idea to provide a link, so everyone can critique both the article and the source.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, the problem with your argument is that in a discussion of mental illnesses and pshychological problems where metal health of other individuals is on the table, it seems a bit odd to rule out the mental health of someone who might be making claims and using terms that might apply to themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Overdue, indeed it would. And I always hold out hope for the walking dead. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
Debra, you used the term “flaky”, not me. Why don’t you define it for us? This way we can speak in clinical terms instead of disparaging ones. That IS what you want, no?
Report comment to moderator
As to the article, the book is cited. You can find it in a library, or on Amazon.
Report comment to moderator
“Not yet it isn’t, if the article’s to be believed. At least not from a physical standpoint. They can remove this implant and he’ll go through male puberty like normal, albeit a little late.”
Pumping non-medically indicated hormones into someone for a number of years is far, far more invasive than the removal of a small piece of external skin is, whatever your view of circumcision is (and for the record, I’m mildly anti and my sons did not undergo it.) No one in any other context would claim that pumping drugs into someone for a number of years and then removing the implant was like nothing at all had happened, if the person was normal afterward. Even the surgical aspect of an implant is more major than circumcision itself.
“If you start from a belief that trying to get this kid to grow up male would be harmful (which can certainly be disputed) then San Francisco residents’ reaction (or lack thereof) isn’t in any way hypocritical as Scott suggested. ”
“Trying to get him to?” He IS male. “Letting him grow up male” involves not doing anything to affect the health of a perfectly physically healthy person.
And yes, it is hypocritical to ban one procedure of debated health benefit that is performed without legal consent of the child while permitting another, far more invasive procedure of debated health benefit that is performed without the legal consent of the child. Or if not hypocritical, wildly inconsistent, and it’s perfectly fair to point out the inconsistency.
Report comment to moderator
@ 73- Penatamom – I agree with you, mostly. But the implant is a hormone blocker, not hormones – his body will still produce them, but not to any effect.
Here’s the rub: “Letting him grow up male” involves not doing anything to affect the health of a perfectly physically healthy person.
It MIGHT affect his mental health.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Lucy Cat, that quote is a cute example of someone pretending to sound scientific, but this is simply silly (”I don’t like these people, and I disagree with them”), not scientific anything: “suffering from the false belief… that the world… is ‘going to hell in a hand basket,’ and all because of what gays and lesbians do in bed, or because gays and lesbians want to get married legally.”
But that still doesn’t address the fact that questioning someone’s mental state is against the rules of the blog.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the rub: “Letting him grow up male” involves not doing anything to affect the health of a perfectly physically healthy person.
“It MIGHT affect his mental health. ”
I’m not going to argue that point, but it’s beside the point I’m making. Even those who think this is a potentially good course of action have to admit that suppressing his sex is making something happen, not the other way around. Buddyglass was making it sound like allowing him to grow up male was some kind of intervention. Appropriate or not, it’s the suppression and the movement toward sex change that’s the intervention.
And thanks for the correction — it is a hormone blocker, but it is introducing a foreign substance, which was my point.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, Cheryl. Then everyone should stop it, as in comments like 9, 21, 30, your own at 51, 60, 61.
I wonder what your take on 63, 65, and 70 are, Cheryl? Do they sound rational to you, or even on topic?
Report comment to moderator
@76 – Pentamom… It’s a physical intervention, to be sure. And the fact that it’s experimental is disturbing, as is the fact that 14 /15 year olds aren’t allowed to decide far more weighty matters for themselves.
But what if it helps this person live a happy life?
Report comment to moderator
Pumping non-medically indicated hormones into someone for a number of years is far, far more invasive than the removal of a small piece of external skin is
Removing a body part permanently that’s irreplaceable (though perhaps only marginally useful to begin with) seems more invasive to me than temporarily delaying puberty, assuming the hormonal effects of the implant are truly reversible.
“Trying to get him to?” He IS male.
Not per their understanding. To them he’s basically a girl trapped in a boy’s body. From their point of view all their doing is changing the exterior to match the interior.
And yes, it is hypocritical to ban one procedure of debated health benefit that is performed without legal consent of the child while permitting another, far more invasive procedure of debated health benefit that is performed without the legal consent of the child.
They consider circumcision to be without medical benefit and very likely harmful, though in a fairly minor sort of way. They consider what’s happening to this boy to actually be beneficial. So there’s no hypocrisy. You can accuse them of being wildly confused to hold those views about the benefit/harm of circumcision vs. gender reassignment, but given those are the views they hold I don’t think they’re acting inconsistently.
It’s also worth noting that the 8-year old, while unable to legally consent due to his age, is at least on board with the stuff that’s happening to him. It’s not being done against his expressed wishes.
Report comment to moderator
“Not per their understanding. To them he’s basically a girl trapped in a boy’s body. From their point of view all their doing is changing the exterior to match the interior.”
You said the word “change.” That’s the point. Whatever they believe about his inside, physically, he IS male. IT requires a *change* to make him something else, they don’t have to “try to make him” something else, physically. Whatever else is going on, the “get him to” be something is all on the part of making his body something it currently is *not.*
And you’re still not getting the part about how circumcision, even if undesirable, is objectively less invasive than pumping things into a person’s body over a course of years. You can’t zero out an implantation for the purposes of chemical intervention just because its effects aren’t “permanent.” It’s still a serious physical intervention. You can’t just compare the results at the end and say, well, this person lacks something, and this person is fine, so obviously what was done to the second person is a bigger deal than what was done to the first. That’s like saying removing the skin surrounding a mole is a bigger deal than chemotherapy because the scar is permanent, but the person recovers and is fine after the chemo.
The fact that “they consider” something more settled than the other is irrelevant — the medical profession and society do not agree. In both cases, the question is up for debate as both a matter of medical science and societal acceptance. Therefore, responsible legislators should, at the least, acknowledge that they’re not being consistent in how they address the two situations, but are motivated by ideology rather than a reasonable approach to law and justice.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s also worth noting that the 8-year old, while unable to legally consent due to his age, is at least on board with the stuff that’s happening to him. It’s not being done against his expressed wishes. ”
It’s also worth nothing that an 8 year old can have no conception of what’s involved here. I’m not even talking about the sexuality side of it — have you talked to any 8 year olds lately? They are not capable of decisions of this magnitude. They don’t even understand the medical implications well enough, let alone all the other implications. (Even delaying puberty has huge implications an 8 year old just can’t get a handle on.) The fact that he’s on board with it is, to my mind, completely irrelevant. It makes it no better than if they strapped him down and did it, because his consent is no more positive an indicator than his resistance would be. I don’t care any more about his consent in this matter than if he needed cancer surgery — if adults decide it’s good for him, he should have it no matter how much he doesn’t want to, if it’s not, his wanting it shouldn’t play any role.
Report comment to moderator
And, BTW, “something his body currently is not” includes “unable to go through physically normal puberty.” So even a delay is a change forced upon his body. Letting nature take it’s course is not “getting him to be” anything.
Report comment to moderator
I am a post-operative Trans woman. I actually knew I felt female and preferred to be female from my earliest memories, age 3-4 y.o.. I spent years trying to repress my feminine side and trying to be a boy in order to avoid the rejection by family, peers, Church etc. For years I thought I must be gay; however, there was more to the equation than that. I felt more connection to the gay community than the straight community but it was not an entirely perfect fit. Finally in my mid 40’s I began to get educated on Transgender issues, met some Trans folks, and realized that I was indeed Transgender. That realization was an “Ah ha” moment and my life finally made sense in an instant. At age 55, I chose to have Gender Reassignment surgery. It’s now been 4 years since my surgery. I have NO regrets. I finally feel that my brain identity and my body are congruent. People seem much more comfortable with me as a woman than they ever did as a very effeminate man. I think this child is very lucky to have parents who are clued in to this issue and allowing the child to decide how he/she chooses to live their life. I never had that option. If I had that option I would have definitely elected to block the Testosterone spurt of puberty which caused the development of secondary sexual characteristics which I hated and transition as soon as I legally could. I feel certain, especially after my own transition experience in mid-life, that would have spared me years of confusion, feeling alienated, and depression.
Report comment to moderator
Nikki,
Not knowing anything about the process, I have several questions… Do you mind answering them for me?
Do you have to continue taking hormone therapy?
Are there any after effects or pain due to the surgery?
Report comment to moderator
But a CHILD can’t decide, Nikki. That’s the problem.
Report comment to moderator
The thing about blocking hormones in a preteen is that it is also preventing the rest of the body, including the brain, from maturing. Not only physical growth will be stunted. The areas that control of mental functions such as decision making and impulse control are not fully matured until the late teens. Emotion control areas are also not fully formed before puberty. The physicians who are experimenting with these procedures are seeking to manipulate a process that science still does not understand fully. Results may vary.
Report comment to moderator
@ Make it man: Happy to answer your questions. I do continue to take hormones but at a much lower level than prior to my surgery. I obviously do not need to take an anti-androgen since my surgical castration prevented Testosterone formation.
I was advised that my body chemistry after Gender Reassignment surgery was similar to a post-mmenopausal woman and I could elect to use hormones or not depending on how I felt. I choose to take a dosage that keeps me at a level for a genetic female at my age.
I see an Endocriniologist regularly to monitor my levels and check liver enzymes to rule out any toxicity or allergic reaction.
I have no pain associated with my surgery 4 years ago. I took almost 6-8 weeks before I was entirely out of pain from the surgery and could sit without an inflatable donut but no problems now. It’s the best thing I ever did and wish I could have done it as a teenager but growing up in the 1960s and 70s there were no Trans role models or surgeons. There was no information . No Internet. I had no idea of what was wrong with me or how to fix it. I felt only shame and alone and these feelings continued to eat away inside of me like a cancer until I finally realized I had a medical diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and took action to correct the issue. Life is good now!
Report comment to moderator
Nikki, I’m glad you’re in good health now.
What would you say to the more virulent commenters in this thread who are hostile to people such as you and the idea that this is an issue that requires further scientific study?
Report comment to moderator
@ NJlawyer: I agree that a child can not make such a complicated decision and that is why it is crucial to have supportive parents and mental health professions. The puberty blockers allow the child with severe gender conflict to avoid the development of secondary sexual characterics that will make it much harder for that child to successfully transition and “pass” until they are at an age where they can make such a life defining decision. It is the most humane thing you can do for that child.
We allow people to marry at age 18-21 depending on the state. We allow for teenage pregnancy, although do not encourage it. People at that age can join the military, vote, drink alcohol and are expected to choose a career in college. A child at age 18 to 21 is very capable of making an informed decision if they are given the support and tools to make that choice in an informed way. I would have been so happy and grateful to have had my surgery at age 18. I knew without a shadow of a doubt that I was not happy as a man. I knew by that age that this was not a phase and this feeling not going away. I had that self realization even though I had NO support from family, friend, mental health professionals. Had I had resources to help me decide what my options were, it would have saved me many. many years of torment. Luckily, the world is a different place for GLBT people than it was in the 1960s and 70s.
Report comment to moderator
@lucycat: Thank you for your comment. As far as the comments from those who do not agree with me, I don’t let it worry me. I tell my story and try to educate people. The science is pretty much out there to confirm that Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are a biological issue and not a lifestyle choice. If people choose to ignore the scientific reality, there is really nothing I can do.
I believe that prejudice is rooted in fear and ignorance so I try to speak out to help dispell that. I try to share my personal story of how difficult it was to grow up “different”. You plant some seeds. Some will take root and grow and others fall on barren land and die.
It breaks my heart to hear stories of violence against GLBT people and discrimination. Personally, I have been denied employment, asked to leave a restaurant/nightclub because I was Trans, laughed at, made fun of, bullied, beaten up,and spit at. I have lost friends and had family members refuse to speak to me. I have a friend who’s been denied entrance to every Christian Church in her small Georgia town. As much asd it pains me to re-live my past, I do it because I feel Jesus would have me speak out. Discrimination and hatred is wrong. There’s just no valid way to justify it, especially as a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Your story is all too common, and I’m sorry you had to go through that. I wish you well and will pray for you. Ignorance and hatred often do go hand in hand, and the manipulation of science AND religion to support hate is amazing to me.
The so-called “Christian” groups who denounced Chaz Bono’s appearance on Dancing With The Stars kind of show the lay of the land.
Be well.
Report comment to moderator
Totally agree with you Lucycat. It amazes me how selective Evangelical Christians are when it comes to certain political issues. We would never think it was OK to stone a disobedient child or someone who worked on the Sabbath as recommended in the Old Testament or for women to be silent in the Church as Paul advocated. These same Biblical literalists take isolated scriptures taken completely out of the cultural context and use it to condemn same sex relationships or Transgender folks, concepts that weren’t begun to be understood until the mid 20th century, probably while eating a shrimp cocktail or wearing polyester or mixed fabric clothes (also considered an abomination).
I watched last night with horror a documentary of the “Kill Gays” bill in Uganda, which was fueled by Evangelical Christians from America. All using the Bible to justify their hate. The want to punish being gay or lesbian with the death penalty. Sound like Hitler? This is a perfect example of how Scripture can be twisted and misused to promote a hateful political agenda.
I think it is clear that the Bible is a book of writings by men and was strongly influenced by their limited scientific understanding and cultural biases. It ceretainly is not a fax sent down from heaven…lol. Robert Beckford, an academic Christian theologian, made an excellent documentary called “Who Wrote The Bible”, which can be seen on YouTube. It explores how the Bible was written and how the books were chosen and translated and re-translated. It’s one of the best documentaries I have seen to show how culture and politics influenced the canon of the Scriptures that we read today.
Ultimately, I believe that we must understand complex modern day issues through the prism of the life of Christ rather than being shackled by writings 2,000- 4,000 years old by men who had a very limited understanding of the world and science. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and religious leaders of the day who held rigid interpretations of the Scripttes for not understanding the spirit of the law and called them a “brood of vipers”. Jesus command to his disciples was to love your neighbor as yourself. He reached out to those who were most marginalized by society. No one was ever turned away at the Sermon on the Mount. All were welcome. That message of love and tolerance is clear and is much more reflective of the life and message of Jesus than outdated religious prohibitions on sexual orientation or gender identity, which are relatively only recently understood as biological and psychosexual conditions that one is born with and are not chosen. Think about it!
Report comment to moderator
Nikki,
Every human being is made in the image of God, and should be honored accordingly. There is no call for being spat on or insulted. (I’ve been subject to such treatment myself, BTW–just this week I was bodily thrown out of a neighbor’s house for politely explaining why my fiancee and I are not sleeping together or otherwise engaged in sexual play–I didn’t even bring up the subject, I simply politely answered questions that I was asked.)
Disagreeing with people’s sexual choices that the Bible calls sin is not “prejudice,” however, and is a very different issue than dishonor and disrespect. Saying that homosexuality is wrong (just as premarital sex is wrong) is a matter of biblical truth, not “bias.”
BTW, there is no scientific “evidence” that people are biologically compelled to homosexual desire–but even if there were, that wouldn’t change the fact that some of our desires must be rejected and not acted on. Whether homosexual desire is nature or nurture doesn’t change the question of whether it’s sin. (And I’m just not going to get into your case–personally I believe it’s better for the biologically male to learn to act as males than to change their bodies, but I do know some “present” as biologically male but their chromosones say differently, and I’d think surgery in such a case might be warranted. If a person is genetically and biologically male, that’s a different story altogether, just like the case of the boy who thinks he’s a dog is a different story.)
Report comment to moderator
Nikki Dane, your understanding both of Scripture and of evangelicalism is very limited. No, evangelicals do not believe in killing homosexuals, but homosexuality is indeed still a sin–our Creator doesn’t have to wait till the 20th or 21st century A.D. to find out how things really work!
Report comment to moderator
Nikki, I agree that we should look to Christ as our primary example of how to live the Christian life. Jesus did indeed reached out to the marginalized in society. When the Pharisees censured Him for eating with sinners, His reply was “They that are whole do not need a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:31-32)
It was, in fact, Christ who reaffirmed that God created two distinct sexes. “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’” (Matthew 19:4)
God created a perfect world, but man’s rebellion brought sin, death and illness upon the earth (Genesis 3:16-19, Romans 5:12). One of those illnesses is gender identity disorder and it needs care and treatment like any other mental illness. The question is whether a mental illness, can truly be treated with plastic surgery and hormone treatment, or whether such treatment merely masks a deeper identity problem.
If, in your teens, you had been given therapy which affirmed and encouraged you in a positive way to embrace your chromosomal identity as a male, do you think that your decision to have a sex change later in life would have been any different that it was?
Report comment to moderator
And yes, it is hypocritical to ban one procedure of debated health benefit that is performed without legal consent of the child while permitting another, far more invasive procedure of debated health benefit that is performed without the legal consent of the child.
Can we just stop hating on San Francisco here? Especially when the City’s supposed hypocrisy is nonexistent anyway, because the
circumcision ban was seen for what it was by 61% of the populace, — an unwarranted intrusion of government into the private lives of people.
And God always has his remnant, even in the Sodoms and the Ninevahs of the world — Jews for Jesus, for example has its headquarters in SF.
It is not reflecting the heart of God to look forward to the destruction by earthquake of a City God pities, because “they do not know their right hand from their left.” Or their boys from their girls.
Report comment to moderator
And LucyCat,
Are you by any chance Kitthez from the Exodus thread? You sound much like her. We had a little discussion there (see comment #126) and I demonstrated how an appeal to a psychiatric authority holds little weight among reasonable people, given the crisis the profession is experiencing.
The whole Mental Health system is the definition of insanity, but if you really want to go by their descriptions for disordered thinking, be advised that the new DSM manual uses an extremely broad brush to describe the mentally ill because according to an article in the JAMA, cited in the link above, ““in primary care settings, approximately 30 percent to 50 percent of patients have prominent mental health symptoms or identifiable mental disorders, which have significant adverse consequences if left untreated.”
It is indeed harder and harder for anyone to be labeled “normal.” So just give up on your psychologists okay? Most are in the pockets of Big Pharma.
Report comment to moderator
Nikki, what scientific tests confirmed that you were really a woman rather than a man? Do you have an XX chromosome profile? Did you have an atypical balance of male and female hormones?
I do not want to insult or offend you, but I want to understand it better.
It seems to me that the “science” that confirms people being transgendered is that the people believe themselves to be so. How is that different from people who believe themselves to be robots or extraterrestrials or historical figures?
I also wonder what is different between a person who persists in believing that he or she is the opposite sex and the child who outgrows that belief?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark wrote “One thing is sure, no one is born homosexual. it is something one is recruited into or deceived into or develops a preference or inclination for over time due to various circumstances that involve many factors including the moral choices we make. Some of these factors may occur at an early age too, but simply being born homosexual is the most harmful lie of our time. Christians know better.”
No matter our sexual identity, we are to be good stewards of our sexuality and use it in a way that brings glory to God. But I have to ask, how do you know that a person isn’t born homosexual? If we are born with original sin, why isn’t that possible?
Report comment to moderator
@ Kyle … I, like Nikki, am a post-operative female. I can’t speak for her, but as for me there were no ’scientific’ tests. As far as I know I had no imbalance of hormones, though that wasn’t tested for either.
There is some science, however, that speaks to the relationship of transexualism and certain sexually dimorphic brain structures (http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/5/2034.full and a less technical link @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism) … there is also shown to be a link between long repeat CAG trinucleotide sequences in exon 1 of the Androgen receptor gene (hhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18962445 …
Now, do I think that this is proof? Nope. Personally, for me all I need is my lived life as proof. I am regarded as female by all I come into contact with … I form emotional and physical relationships with males (none who knew my status prior to meeting me) … I am successful professionally and personally. I, like Nikki, have a great life.
I can’t answer your last question well Kyle, though a long-standing, persistent feeling usually bespeaks a transexual’s experience.
HTH,
Sara …
Report comment to moderator
When we deny that a person could be born homosexual, aren’t we just buying into the liberal, atheist notion that we are born as “blank slates” and that it is our environment that shapes us? Aren’t we denying the existence of original sin and its ravages upon creation?
Children are born crippled, blind, deaf, and mentally handicapped. Why do evangelicals insist that somehow our sexuality will be unscathed at birth, or even in utero, by sin??
Report comment to moderator
Karen, I wasn’t hating on San Francisco — I was just talking about the subset of all people who do think that circumcision of minors should be banned and hormonal suppression of physically healthy minors should be tolerated. A “shoe fits” kind of thing, not a “how awful San Francisco is” kind of thing. I do realize the discussion started with SF in particular, but I didn’t mean to go there with it.
I actually agree with your point — I dislike it when whole groups of people, whether ethnic groups, or cities, or whatever, get written off as irremediably rotten and untrustworthy and prone to every possible kind of wickedness. As someone whose ancestors left Germany a couple of centuries ago, I get pretty sick of that kind of thing myself and try to avoid it.
Report comment to moderator
It will take me some time to catch up with the comments to this post, and so I will decline to respond to slurs like “repulsive” since such comments are unproductive in any case. My posts will be long and there will probably be several of them. i apologize in advance but the subject is not a “short answer” question.
But I’ll start at the top and look for laces where a point needs, IMO, to be countered.
“To take away a little boy’s chance to be a man, a husband, and a father is despicable.”
Speaking as a transsexual who knew by the age of 8 what my condition was (though obviously not with all the info this girl has) I can tell you that the biggest blessing my life could have ever had could have been to have been able to avoid “manhood” – the number of tears which have been cried by myself and others because I believed and tried to live what you believe surely runs into the tens of millions.
There are legitimate cautions to be voiced, not every child at that age has the feelings persist into adulthood – but for many of us they do, and for almost every transsexual, we knew at that age.
I promise you if the child really is trans, you are not blessing her but cursing her if you insist she “be a man.”
“He will never, ever be a girl. He might not have the genitalia of a boy anymore, but what he becomes, will never be a girl.”
So? She will be feemale for EVERY practical purposes short of reproduction (and we have plenty of infertile XX females running around, do we not?) whatever your personal conclusion about her genetic structure (one wonders how often you speculate about other people’s genetic code) what difference does it make?
In fact, it will make even less difference in this case because this child will never be socialized as a male and have all the mental baggage that comes with that, and with years of testosterone influence.
“A great deal of pain awaits….. I would spare him all that if I could.”
Take the voice of experience, a VAST amount of pain waits if they try to force the child to be a male if he’s convinced otherwise. If you would really spare this child pain, you are on the wrong side of the issue.
“Enter members of our family, who are also confused as to how to help.”
Here’s how to help: Accept and support this person in the identity they feel comfortable with and don’t try to pour them into the mold you find satisfying. If this person says “i’m a female and i ask you to accept me as such” then do so without reservation. Trust me, the difficulties we have with depression and so forth are far more often a result of how you folks respond to us, not what we think of ourselves. I mean yes, I had to work through the process of realizing I was never going to be a “normal” man and accept that I was something else but the MAJOR reason for not wanting to be as i am had to do with how people would react to me – no one wants to be the “freak”
“It’s disgusting how these degenerate so-called parents are projecting their perversions onto the child.”
Your comment reflects a profound lack of information about the subject you comment upon (as so many comments about us do). I was raised in the 1960’s, in North MS, in a perfectly normal Christian home with no abuse, sexual or otherwise, and would not have known what a lesbian was until at least my teenage years. but I knew before I was 8 that I should have been a female. the VAST majority of us were NOT raised by people you would view as perverts (in fact, quite a few of us are utterly rejected by our parents when they find out what we are.
We’d all be better served if you learned about a subject before spreading disinformation inadvertently.
“This is just another natural consequence of homosexualism. They want our children and they want them perverted.”
“They” are not, in fact, coming to get you or your kids. If they were, why has the percentage of gays in the population not increased at all over the 40 years they’ve had ever increasing visibility? thinking is always more helpful than paranoia.
“and I highly doubt that the majority of transgendered people have a genetic based confusion.”
It’s certainly possible, and it’s also possible it is something else present from birth. Not all birth defects are genetic in nature. I’ll refrain, in this post, from detailing the current thinking but it doesn’t depend on genetics, or if it does, it would be the mother’s genetics.
This is probably an appropriate moment to mention this: the words “transgender” and “transsexual” confuse the general population of people who’ve never had any real reason to think about trans people. they are, in fact, not synonyms but refer to different things.
“Transgender” refers to the whole broad spectrum of everything from drag queens to fetishistic cross-dressers to “gender variant” lifestyles (the folks who like to call themselves “genderqueer” to intersex folks (what used to be called hermaphrodites) to transsexuals. MOST, virtually all, of those people not in the last two categories are making a lifestyle choice and were NOT born with any condition beyond their control. They just simply choose to live in defiance of societal gender norms. Nothing I say in this thread should be understood to refer to such people. and in point of fact, none of those people wish to physically alter their body to the other gender (with the exception of a few committed drag queens who get implants)
“Transsexuals” are born with a birth defect which leaves them with, in layman’s terms, a female brain in a male body or vice versa. it is a physical condition which there is no cure for (other than transition). We either live with it in misery (not unlike a paraplegic might be miserably depressed because of their physical state)or we transition – or we kill ourselves. You can apply denial for a time and put a band-aid on the pain, but it always comes off.
so when you say “the majority of transgender don’t have a genetically based…” (and by this i assume what you really mean is “inborn”)you speak the truth, but if you insert the word transsexual (as this child seems to be) then you are incorrect.
And with that, I will break for length.
Report comment to moderator
Kathleen, you ask, “When we deny that a person could be born homosexual, aren’t we just buying into the liberal, atheist notion that we are born as ‘blank slates’ and that it is our environment that shapes us? Aren’t we denying the existence of original sin and its ravages upon creation?”
No, I really don’t think so. Partly because we’re saying that the “norm” is attraction toward the other sex, and that variation from that is a twisting, an abberation, and not a trivial genetic difference like green eyes or brown. I do think we are all born sinful, and maybe even born with a proclivity to a particular sin, but being born homosexual is not the same as being born with one leg that’s too short, and at least part of the reason is this: Homosexual behavior is a sin. To say a person is “born” homosexual makes no more sense than to say a person is born an adulterer. We wouldn’t say someone is born a murderer. A person may be born with the genetics to make his besetting sin anger, and he may end up murdering if he lets the anger get control of him. It’s possible a person is born with a twisted sexual makeup, born with a tendency to be drawn to his own sex . . . but that wouldn’t “justify” sin. He would in effect need to either grow in grace until his desires are more in line with God’s design or stay single and celibate.
But no one has ever proven the genetic link or a “born with it” hypothesis, and as it does seem to justify an argument that this person “can’t” change, and we know that the grace of God can give either contentment to be chaste or proper desires leading to marriage, we definitely cannot say a person is born homosexual (homosexuality is an action, not an identity, in the same way adultery or fornication are) and at best we “don’t know” if anyone is born with that predisposition.
Report comment to moderator
And people wonder why we oppose homosexual adoptions.
May or may not be a valid position, but is irrelevant here.
I don’t know why people always bring up the hermaphroditic and strange genetic exceptions in the context of changing people from one known, fixed sex to another. The exceptional cases present difficult challenges, it’s true, but really have nothing to do with taking an unambiguously physically male child and playing around with his body.
And this is the fatal flaw people refuse to consider – a transsexual is NOT “unambiguously male” because the brain is a physical organ too.
Consider this. The following are true verifiable scientific facts that every poster here will agree with:
1. birth defects do occur.
2. Birth defects occur which affect the genitalia. (as referenced in your comment)
3. Birth defects occur which affect the functioning of the brain, which is a physical organ of the body just as the breast or the penis, such as autism.
4. The brain is not only the primary organ involved in determining sexual orientation and gender identity, it is in fact the ONLY organ involved.
Given that we know these things, by what logic or reasoning (come now, let us reason together) do we emphatically reject the possibility that one can be born with a birth defect (1) affecting the brain (2) which corrupts the natural design (2) in regard to sexual orientation or gender identity (4)? Not only is that irrational (any remotely logical reasoning would conclude it’s almost certainly what’s going on) to suggest, but in the most very generous (to the traditional position) reading, it is intellectually impossible to completely reject ANY possibility that such a defect is possible.
An adult making this decision is one thing. Doing this to a child is horrendous.
Comment proceeds fro the assumption that the desire did not in fact originate with the child. this assumption is baseless and likely results from a prejudice against the mother’s lesbian relationship.
I automatically assume he is either a) confused about what this word means or b) being silly to get a reaction.
Such an assumption, in some cases, is a grave mistake. I agree wisdom and caution are required, but no one confirmed me in my female gender identity at that age (in fact, my father demonstrated considerable disappointment I was not a “manly man” in later years) and yet my self-perception NEVER wavered.
This story made me sick to my stomach, literally, thinking about what that little guy has been through and how this will irreversibly affect the rest of his life.
If he really is trans, the condition will be lifelong no matter what they decide to do about it.
Not really. It’s only “fluid” in a very small percentage of the population. Usually it’s quite clear.
Very true. the question is, should we not exhibit compassion when dealing with those very few people? why do we insist on forcing those few people into the mold that makes us comfortable?
To be fair though, the OP did not include any genetic or chromosomal information in this case…. Including such might make us think a little harder about this. But one does not bring up an extreme minority case to make broader points…
there need not be a genetic or chromosomal marker for it to be a legitimate example of one of those “very few” people. there’s certainly no information provided to the contrary. The “broader point” is irrelevant when the subject at hand is the finer point.
And that’s exactly what they’re talking about doing isn’t it?
A decade or more down the road, assuming the child is still sure.
Ever try to help someone who has been severely and chronically traumatized at an early age?
Not reversible.
Transsexualism is not reversible in any case, whether you accept it or fight it.
OK, little boy in a household that has decided males are optional, even for male roles such as, say, fathering. When he speaks of feeling like he’s a girl, the women who are trying to mother him have a hard time hiding their delight. Wow, wouldn’t it be cool to take one of them and make him one of us instead?
Irrelevant and anecdotal. the vast majority, well well over 90%, of trans people who self-identify as pre-teens are raised in standard two parent (male/female) homes. Whatever you’d like to imply about these parents prove nothing on the overall issue.
Buddy Glass, this kid IS male. What if he said he is a dog–would it be harmful to try to reorient him to his humanness?
Analogy fail. There is no reasonable thesis by which one can surmise the human mind believing itself to be a non-human short of outright psychosis. there’s a perfectly logical rational about how this can occur with gender.
All of the incorrect reactions in this thread stem from the insistence on denying a child can know they have an “abnormal” gender identity at a pre-school age and this is manifestly untrue. I know because I was one of them. And all the hackneyed attempts to explain it away (absent father, sexual abuse, exposed to porn, whatever) – none of them happened to me.
if you start with a faulty premise (it’s impossible for a kid to legitimately feel transsexual at that age) then you will reach faulty conclusions.
Break for length.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe the title of this scientific article will help people understand.
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
This child was always anatomically female in certain respects. Her brain was feminised long before she was born. Superficially, her body looked male, or mostly male – since about 10% if Transsexuals have other, more obvious Intersex conditions too, apart from the cross-sexed brain parts.
I’ll quote the abstract from
Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.
Research has shown that all the common ideas about “absent fathers” and so on don’t actually match the facts. They always were just conjectures, based on less than a dozen case studies and 19th century Freudian theories. When the issue was looked at, it was found that transsexuals had no higher a rate of this than anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
So sad. This just goes to show how much sin has corrupted the world. Children are born with cancer, missing limbs, etc. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that people can be born with gender confusion, etc… However, that doesn’t make it a good thing.
Being born blind or autistic or whatever isn’t a “good thing” either, but we do not dismiss such children as freaks and perverts or force them to live a miserable life in order to conform to our social norms.
They want your children.
Insanity.
This discussion is really very off-topic, however, and again, there is no comparison between parents deciding that circumcision is a good idea and parents encouraging major, unnecessary, harmful, life-altering surgery.
You seem to be assuming YOUR definition of “unnecessary” is definitive. others among us would disagree.
I see only the Christians have taken up the cause for the child to have a right to make his own decision about his own life and body.
Which is EXACTLY what the hormone delay treatment is for. Your vision is apparently flawed. what I see is Christians calling this “repulsive” and claiming to have been made sick to their stomachs” and speaking with a great deal of ignorance about a subject that quite frankly very few of them have ever given 10 consecutive minutes thought to.
In fact, a lot of folks who would be shouting “praise God!” if an 8 year old child had professed faith in Christ but are wildly skeptical if an 8 year old child expresses an opinion about their own heart and mind.
I’ve been a believer in Jesus Christ since I was nine years old,I’ve spent my entire adult life trying to reconcile my Southern Baptist faith system with what i knew to be true of myself including over 20 years in the ministry under the impression that if I repented enough, and served enough, and evangelized enough and tithed enough that God would do what all my religious training had told me he would do – heal me of my “besetting sin.”
After I’d been miserable for over 35 years trying to understand why I was a “freak” that neither God nor man could love, after I’d spent decades crying out to him for relief, after I’d done everything known to man to heal my “brokeness” and after drifting back and forth from the ledge of despair which says “there’s no point in living if you have to live like this” I had to learn that the reason I was miserable was not GO’S opinion, but the opinion of “good Christian” people who, in their ignorance, were sickened by people like me.
I had to quit living for what “good Christians” thought and see what God thought of me.
Nevertheless, none of the folks who share my faith tradition have ANY problem accepting that I understood the weighty matters of eternal salvation at the age of nine, yet the great majority of those same people insist knowing my own mind at the same age is impossible.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, it’s possible, Kathleen, and I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise!
then you aren’t paying attention.
The problem isn’t that; it’s whether surgically mutilating him is the proper response to his confusion.
As opposed to? No reputable mental health professional in the world would agree it’s possible to correct this issue with therapy. (there are some “reparative therapists” floating about but their peers consider them laughable).
Who said I did? In fact, I did not. I allow room for error. But I stand by my point that the vast majority of the population does not experience such problems.
I want to highlight this again for truth. Gay/lesbian people are no more than 2-3% of the total population. trans people are considerably fewer than that – no more than one or two per thousand by most estimates. Of course, what that means is that in my rural MS county of roughly 22k people, there are a dozen or more of us (assuming even distribution).
So we are very few, but we are numerous enough that we deserve some consideration
I think I disagree with you, KATHLEENMM, unless you are talking about a rare aberation. We live in a world wherein there are such aberations, sad to say, but I think far too many of us rush to some biological, physiological or chemical explanations for too many aberations of behavior.
so because it is rare, this gives liberty to assume that any given individual instance is illegitimate? it’s always “some other” case that’s a representation of the “rare instance”?
Tell me, in the case of this child or my own case, what brings about this “aberration of behavior”? During the 20+ years I spent in the ministry, pleading god in complete faith believing he would deliver me from this curse, and wanting nothing more in life than to be a normal man, I never once did anything that might be construed as aberrationally feminine” – neither behavior nor willful desire was an issue in the slightest way. Yet I knew perfectly well, as well as I know the reflection of my own face, on each and every day of those years that I had the mind of a female.
How is this defined as an aberration of BEHAVIOR? and if i am one of the rare valid cases, how do you know from your easy chair whether this child is or is not, or whether any one of us is or is not? What qualifies you to make that call?
One thing is sure, no one is born homosexual.
Because you say so?
Some of these factors may occur at an early age too
Such as? and how do you explain when a homosexual comes from a relatively perfect Christian home where none of these factors exist? the truth is, you dare not accept anything that causes you to re-evaluate what you have been taught to believe. You are letting the pre-determined point of view – one indoctrinated into you by others as it was indoctrinated into them before – filter your perception of the data. This is not wisdom.
Reminds me of one of the recent Popes who said that a man who has undergone a sex change operation is nothing more than a mutilated man.
well, I have to respect the Pope’s vast scientific, medial and psychological training and experience…oh…wait…
There might be such a thing as gender identity disorder, but it seems to me that the best way to address it is to help the person suffering from it to accept his or her actual, biological gender, if it can be determined.
It would be – if it worked. It doesn’t.
Sort of like people who believe themselves to be animals or machines or whatever else a disordered mind might think! Help them to accept reality.
it’s actually nothing at all like that, for reasons i’ve already explained.
All of them, as far as I know, outgrew it, and it being no big deal at all.
Often happens. but not always.
We should do whatever we can to help such a person live a full, happy life.
Why is it so hard for yall to do that for me? IF you acknowledge that there are cases, hard cases, where such treatment is necessary – then who are you to pick and chose which cases you will respect science on and which cases you will insist the professionals are wrong about?
Antihomosexual bigotry – often characterized by hateful rhetoric and demonization tactics – is perversion looking for a place at Christ’s table to seem normal and spread…
Well said. It’s a cultural bigotry dressed in the robes of religion so that people might feel justified in their hatefulness. The history of the church is a long chain of such abuses – ask any Christian south of the Mason Dixon line in, say, 1960 whether or not interracial marriage was unbiblical.
I’m going to skip over the rest of that debate about homosexuality, it’s not directly my issue.
“Trying to get him to?” He IS male. “Letting him grow up male” involves not doing anything to affect the health of a perfectly physically healthy person.
Physical health is not the only health to consider. Besides, if a young person takes their own life in shame that the whole culture considers him/her a “freak” – that’s not physically healthy either.
You said the word “change.” That’s the point. Whatever they believe about his inside, physically, he IS male. IT requires a *change* to make him something else, they don’t have to “try to make him” something else, physically. Whatever else is going on, the “get him to” be something is all on the part of making his body something it currently is *not.*
The ultimate problem with this is that being male or female is ultimately not defined by your physical construct – If a man is castrated he is still a man, if a woman has a hysterectomy she is still a woman. the reason for this is because their gender identity is not driven by their anatomy but by their BRAIN.
I do not dispute the reality that PHYSICALLY this child is male, as was I. I simply ask you to consider that your self identity is not driven by those outward characteristics. No child ever looked in a mirror at, say, 4 or 5, and said “Hmmm…I see a penis, therefore I’m clearly a male.” It doesn’t work that way. A child born paralyzed and completely unaware of their genital construction would still be able to say with confidence “I am a boy” or “I am a girl”
It’s also worth nothing that an 8 year old can have no conception of what’s involved here. I’m not even talking about the sexuality side of it — have you talked to any 8 year olds lately? They are not capable of decisions of this magnitude.
She’s most certainly capable of understanding what she is and what the basic implications are (though not the nature of the surgery and so forth). You should hear the horror stories (I could tell one, almost all of us could) of being aware of oncoming puberty and what it would do to us and wishing desperately that these things would NOT happen. We’re a lot more self-aware of these things than other kids because we are always being reminded that we are “freaks.”
And, BTW, “something his body currently is not” includes “unable to go through physically normal puberty.” So even a delay is a change forced upon his body. Letting nature take it’s course is not “getting him to be” anything.
but for her, if indeed she is trans, the things that will happen to her body via a male puberty are FAR more devastating than the potential downside of a delayed male puberty if she decides to remain male-bodied. There are many things people like me can’t begin to overcome short of very expensive and very painful procedures which we would not have to deal with had we not had male puberty. in fact, folks like yall who are most likely to disapprove of us – to not give as a job or a place to rent or a place to worship – are MUCH more likely to recognize I am trans than will be the case for this child.
it’s difficult to overstate how much easier her life will be without that burden. That there is a relatively minor trade off in giving her a few more years to be sure is a TINY price to pay, even just in terms of health.
Report comment to moderator
As far as the comments from those who do not agree with me, I don’t let it worry me. I tell my story and try to educate people. The science is pretty much out there to confirm that Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are a biological issue and not a lifestyle choice. If people choose to ignore the scientific reality, there is really nothing I can do.
Well said Nikki. it’s refreshing to find 80+ posts in that i’m not alone on this.
It breaks my heart to hear stories of violence against GLBT people and discrimination. Personally, I have been denied employment, asked to leave a restaurant/nightclub because I was Trans, laughed at, made fun of, bullied, beaten up,and spit at. I have lost friends and had family members refuse to speak to me. I have a friend who’s been denied entrance to every Christian Church in her small Georgia town. As much asd it pains me to re-live my past, I do it because I feel Jesus would have me speak out. Discrimination and hatred is wrong. There’s just no valid way to justify it, especially as a Christian.
Hear. Hear. That kind of ignorance leads to trans kids being put out on the street by heartless parents, the destruction of lives by unaccepting spouses (I do not mean here those who choose not to continue the relationship, but those who go to war and spend years creating antagonism between the trans parent and their children) and so much more needless human pain.
I can’t imagine how this condition, even if one disagrees with it, is worthy of such astonishing hostility – particularly by people of faith.
Disagreeing with people’s sexual choices that the Bible calls sin is not “prejudice,” however, and is a very different issue than dishonor and disrespect. Saying that homosexuality is wrong (just as premarital sex is wrong) is a matter of biblical truth, not “bias.”
There are valid exegetical explanations for all those verses you’ve been taught to understand as “homosexuality is sin. i won’t go over all of them here but you can find an explanation of many of them at a site ran by a wonderful Christian woman that can be found here:
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/
Nikki Dane, your understanding both of Scripture and of evangelicalism is very limited. No, evangelicals do not believe in killing homosexuals, but homosexuality is indeed still a sin–our Creator doesn’t have to wait till the 20th or 21st century A.D. to find out how things really work!
Nikki references other instructions by the same author as the Old Testament prohibitions on homosexuality (and even that prohibition has an exegetical context)
Likewise, she might have pointed out that the same writer who implies in some NT passages that homosexuality is sin also wrote that YOU should keep silent in the church and not come before God with your head uncovered – do you follow these restrictions? if not, why not?
Furthermore, it is more than a bit arrogant to assume one’s one understanding of Scripture is definitive. In point of fact, well-educated and well meaning and very sincere Christian scholars cannot agree among themselves what the Bible says about the very foundations of the faith such as Baptism or prayer or the means of salvation. if this is the case (and in manifestly is) then by what reasoning can we assume that the ONE doctrine in the bible we can be CERTAIN of is the sinfulness of homosexuality?
It was, in fact, Christ who reaffirmed that God created two distinct sexes. “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’” (Matthew 19:4)
Sure, and neither male nor female were blind – yet children are born blind. Pulling that verse out of context doesn’t really prove anything.
God created a perfect world, but man’s rebellion brought sin, death and illness upon the earth (Genesis 3:16-19, Romans 5:12). One of those illnesses is gender identity disorder and it needs care and treatment like any other mental illness. The question is whether a mental illness, can truly be treated with plastic surgery and hormone treatment, or whether such treatment merely masks a deeper identity problem.
the track record for mental health in post operative transsexual is astonishingly high, VASTLY more so than any other attempted course of treatment. And in those rare cases where difficulties remain, they are almost always environmental (as in the case of the father who’s ex wife spends all her time alienated the affection of the children they had together, leading to depression) – that is, the difficulty arises from the reactions of an uncaring world, not the condition itself.
Nikki, what scientific tests confirmed that you were really a woman rather than a man? Do you have an XX chromosome profile? Did you have an atypical balance of male and female hormones?
I do not want to insult or offend you, but I want to understand it better.
These do not typically result in transsexualism unless the attending doctors at birth “flipped a coin” and picked wrong when dealing with an inter-sex infant. Transsexualism typically (the great majority but there are exceptions) arises from the construct of the brain (brain scans have shown that transsexuals born male, even those who have not yet received HRT, have a typically female brain structure. but the science is still developing there.
At present, the best confirmation that the physical condition exists is the virtually spotless record of success post-transition in terms of quality of life. there are a couple of notorious cases of people trying to “go back” – an interestingly in every such case the person was heavily evangelized by a church which insisted the repent – basically a massive guilt trip.
It seems to me that the “science” that confirms people being transgendered is that the people believe themselves to be so. How is that different from people who believe themselves to be robots or extraterrestrials or historical figures?
Because there is a legitimate scientific explanation for how a male human can have a female brain (or vice versa) and there is no such explanation for a human having a canine brain.
I also wonder what is different between a person who persists in believing that he or she is the opposite sex and the child who outgrows that belief?
In the latter case, it is an example of typical childhood whimsy, for lack of a better word, in most cases. Which is why caution is advisable.
Children are born crippled, blind, deaf, and mentally handicapped. Why do evangelicals insist that somehow our sexuality will be unscathed at birth, or even in utero, by sin??
A question most would rather not consider.
No, I really don’t think so. Partly because we’re saying that the “norm” is attraction toward the other sex, and that variation from that is a twisting, an abberation, and not a trivial genetic difference like green eyes or brown.
Are not all such conditions twisting of the natural order? is not autism something tragically divergent from God’s perfect will for that child?
Again I suggest your conclusions are driven by a pre-existing bias which arises from your cultural indoctrination. You have to be willing to step outside that structure of “everybody knows” or what you have always been taught and look at the evidence objectively. otherwise your conclusion is pre-determined.
and we know that the grace of God can give either contentment to be chaste or proper desires leading to marriage
NO. In my experience we know no such thing. We know people can repress their nature in bondage to that idea for some length of time but such bondage ALWAYS ends badly. the landscape is littered with the spouses and children of people who lost their traditional home when the person repressing their true nature could no longer continue and maintain their sanity. that ways lies a huge amount of tears.
My STRONGEST advice to any young person who thinks they might be trans: never ever ever EVER get married. if you are do you are potentially condemning that person, and your potential children, to MASSIVE grief.
(homosexuality is an action, not an identity, in the same way adultery or fornication are)
Because you say so?
Until the Christian church is unanimous in it’s understanding of the fundamental verities of the faith, i’ll take with a huge grain of salt any declarations of absolute truth regarding either my condition, or homosexuality. clean up under your own doorstep before trying to ruin (inadvertently but still) the lives of those who do not share your views.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks to the several transgender folks who showed up here.
So much of some of the regulars’ minds here are filled with horrid fantasies and condmenations of folks like you that it was most refreshing.
I do have to comment on one comment.
The whole Mental Health system is the definition of insanity
But believing in angels, giants, demons, 500 year old men, the resurrection of a three days dead person who then vanishes, a three-story universe, and a talking snake are not?
Report comment to moderator
There are genuine birth defects of the genitals (of either sex) that need to be treated as best they can be, but that is no excuse to justify emasculating physically healthy men or women. It is appropriate to have compassion for folks who have this mental/spiritual disorder or other genuine sexual confusions brought about by the type of abuse caused by the lesbian couple in this post. But promoting or accommodating or otherwise justifying their behavior as in any way ‘normal’, is not a healthy societal response.
Report comment to moderator
I am in the middle of reading a fascinating book by Matt Ridley (who also writes for the Wall Street Journal, which is where I discovered his science writing) called Nature VIA Nurture. It is all about how genes and the environment interact to cause people to turn out the way they do.
He goes through a great many examples, of which homosexuality is only one, and given a less extensive discussion than schizophrenia, to which he gives a whole chapter. So far he hasn’t mentioned transsexuality, but similar mechanisms could be at work.
One explanation of what may cause homosexuality in some males (he points out that there can be other causes in other people – after all, there are different causes for being born blind) has to do with the mother’s genes, not the boy’s, and the reaction of her body to having previously carried other male children in her womb. It appears that her body may produce something that prevents some of the normal processes of male development from taking place. So far, most studies looking for a genetic basis for homosexuality have focused on the homosexuals’ own genes, not their mothers’, so the data is limited at this point, but this theory is consistent with the evidence regarding number of older brothers and lower birth weight for many homosexual males.
Ridley is quick to point out, in this context, that “is” does not mean “ought” – in other words, even if some people are homosexual from birth, in that they will experience only same sex attractions and not opposite sex attractions, that does not mean that homosexual behavior is appropriate. After all, as he points out, men seem to be biologically predisposed to promiscuity, but that doesn’t mean promiscuity is appropriate behavior.
I would not be at all surprised if there is a similar interaction between genes and environment that sometimes results in a child having genital structures that are male but brain structures that are female, or vice versa. As a mother of an autistic child, I’ve done quite a bit of reading and thinking about what can affect the brain, that in turn has a profound affect on the child’s way of thinking and acting, that cannot be detected by looking at his chromosomes (I had an amniocentesis because it was thought he might have Downs and we wanted to be prepared financially and emotionally if he did).
For those of you who see the treatment being given to this boy as horrific, would it make a difference if it could be shown that he is one of those born with a female brain and male genitals? Which do you think should be considered the deciding factor in his gender identity? If he really has a female brain (which I know you consider to have genuine differences from a male brain, in the case of those who also have the outward characteristics of females), does that make the treatment he is getting a more reasonable solution to his situation?
Report comment to moderator
If he has male genitals and male chromosomes, he’s male. If someone has both genitalia, that would be a birth defect, and I would think it makes sense to use the most functional or the chromosomes as a determiner. Obviously there are genuine birth defects that are no ones fault and are not the result of abuse. I don’t know that you can say that the brain is definitively male or female at birth apart from chromosomes. Though we definitely exhibit personality traits pretty much from birth that are considered more masculine or feminine. Is that the claim being made, Pauline?
Report comment to moderator
God created this boy. Something happened to his parents. The state gave him to these two demented women. Now doctors are helping the women to maim him. I believe God will severely punish any nation that allows this type of activity within its borders.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Pentamom, I appreciate your clarification.
The “hating on” SF part of my comment was directed at #15 — but Churchianity is rife with this attitude. I hear these slurs all the time, and everyone thinks it is funny.
Report comment to moderator
And Arcadia you have so much rationality on your side, too!
Aliens seeding the Earth, the Multiverse, the theory that lightning strikes a pond of goo, and abracadabra, a complex life form arises–like magic.
But this is the worst in aberrant thinking — that an unborn child is not human until the priesthood of Bioethicists declares it so.
Report comment to moderator
Nothing about this is the least bit funny. Residents of Northern California should try to determine how far it was from Sodom to Zoar.
Report comment to moderator
I know someone who was castrated as a young boy because of birth defects, and who had to go through hormone tratments as a teen to go through puberty into manhood–but even as a eunuch, he’s very much a male (tall, deep voice, male way of thinking, etc.), though he has no sexual desire without continued hormones. Has anyone here even talked about the possibility of including hormone treatments as part of helping the boy accept his maleness, the girl her femininity? Y
es, there are differences in the male and female brain–though my hunch is that these kids have brains that are more “like” the other sex, and not 100% there on the continuum, and we also know that our society sometimes separates some traits as “masculine” or “feminine” rather stereotypically–but every cell of our body reflects male or female, and much is determined by hormones. Surely a hormonal regimen is less invasive and destructive than changing the child’s sex, or trying to, and giving hormones of the OTHER sex instead!
It seems to me like a grand experiment, Rather than saying “oh you’re female?” and making a boy into a girl, it seems we could do more in helping the boy be more of a boy–and an involved father and male hormones would probably do much to that end.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the insightful and informative comments by other Trans folks, especially TammyBeth and Zoe Brain. I must admit that I sometimes feel like I’m beating my head against a brick wall when debating with conservative Christians on GLBT issues. There is so much bias, fear and outright hatred that is spewed by uniformed people hurling isolated and selected scriptures out of context with a theological comprehension of a 7 year old, yet with 100% certainty. These same people seem to be political activists on a mission to obstruct every piece of legislation to allow GLBT people to be treated equally and fairly. It borders on hysteria and cultic behavior.
It is encouraging that many mainline Christian denominations are revisiting the issues of Gender Variance and Homosexuality and coming to very different conclusions than the historical Christian teachings. The work of progressive theologians, many GLBT themselves and feminist theologians, have helped to separate the academic truth from cultural prejudice that has persisted throughout the centuries.
What is so sad is that so many GLBT folks have been turned off by Christianity due to the intolerance and hate that they have experience. My faith is my anchor in life. I do not know what I would do without it. Reconciling my spirituality with my identity was one of the most difficult things I dealt with in accepting myself as a Trans person and my decision to transition and live honestly. I had to undo years of negative indoctrination and socialization before I could remove the blinders and think rationally. Had I been exposed to a different message as a child, life would have been so much easier. As Ghandi said: “I like your Christ. I just don’t like your Christians”.
Report comment to moderator
I’m amazed that people would say “he has male genitals and chromosomes, so his Gender Identity or brain gender MUST be male”.
We have no problem believing that conditions such as ADD, Dyslexia, ADHD, Schizophrenia, Turet’s Syndrome etc. which are all neurobiological conditions of the brain that affect behavior. When it comes to brain gender somehow they can’t wrap their minds around Gender Dysphoria being anything but a sinful choice, not a biological condition.
I think the problem lies in the fact that people have a very naive understanding of Gender. Anatomical Sex is a binary concept (unless you happen to be the 1 in 2,000 births that is Intersex). You are born with either a penis or vagina, simple enough.
Gender Identity/ presentation, however, is a complex psychosexual issue and is a spectrum with most people falling at either end of the spectrum. On one end is G.I. Joe and on the extreme feminine end would be Barbie. Very few men are G.I. Joe but most men come closer to that than Barbie. Very few women are Barbies but most women are near that end of the continuum. Some men fall on the more traditionally feminine side being overly sensitive, emotional, more verbal, artistic, musical, less competetive…things we traditionally associate with femininity.
Most men are more competetive, aggressive, etc. I realize I’m
generalizing because many of these traits are culturally prescribed but you get my point.
Some men identify more with the feminine traits and some women would be described as “butch”. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily Transsexual but they may be considered Gender Variant compared to the traditional gender norm. Go to the mall and just look at people and you’ll see men and women who are at many different spots on the gender spectrum. If they are not too severely gender nonconforming, we don’t think too much about it. We might (incorrectly I may ad) assume that they are Gay or Lesbian but we don’t freak out. We pretty muich accept it as a normal aspect of human nature. Some people are so extremely Gender Variant that they feel they are actually born in the wrong body. That is a Transsexual. It’s just a matter of the extent of the gender variation. It takes years of profession therapy for a Transsexual to decide if their gender conflict is so severe that they actually need to transition and have Gender Reassignment Surgery or if they can be happy living in the body they were born with. Of those people who choose to transition and have surgery, the post-surgical outcome surveys indicate well over 90% are satisfied or very satisfied with their decision.
Report comment to moderator
Having personality traits that are more or less stereotypically feminine or masculine is really irrelevant to whether one is actually male or female, because being male or female is primarily a physical state. I suppose that in some cases the persistent feeling of being another sex could be considered a spiritual disorder or a delusional mental illness much like schizophrenia. But feelings can be changed in time. Acting on those disordered feelings is clearly a choice. For a man, putting on a dress and makeup is not a feeling; it’s an unhealthy choice. Getting surgery and mutilating a healthy body is not a feeling; it’s a self-loathing choice. It is a bad idea for an adult to make these choices. To make them on behalf a child, is criminal. But with our culture’s trend toward normalizing sexual deviancy of all kinds, and homosexual adoptions, I would expect gender confusion issues to increase in the future—perhaps dramatically.
Report comment to moderator
There are genuine birth defects of the genitals (of either sex) that need to be treated as best they can be, but that is no excuse to justify emasculating physically healthy men or women. It is appropriate to have compassion for folks who have this mental/spiritual disorder or other genuine sexual confusions brought about by the type of abuse caused by the lesbian couple in this post. But promoting or accommodating or otherwise justifying their behavior as in any way ‘normal’, is not a healthy societal response.
And I ask again as I asked before: upon what basis do you argue that a physical deformity of the genitalia is possible and a physical deformity of the brain relating to gender is impossible?
Lay aside your philosophy and your indoctrination and THINK. Based on what evidence do you make the assertion?
Report comment to moderator
One explanation of what may cause homosexuality in some males (he points out that there can be other causes in other people – after all, there are different causes for being born blind) has to do with the mother’s genes, not the boy’s, and the reaction of her body to having previously carried other male children in her womb. It appears that her body may produce something that prevents some of the normal processes of male development from taking place. So far, most studies looking for a genetic basis for homosexuality have focused on the homosexuals’ own genes, not their mothers’, so the data is limited at this point, but this theory is consistent with the evidence regarding number of older brothers and lower birth weight for many homosexual males.
Indeed. In the case of transsexualism there’s a good hypothesis which is similar to the one you mention. During pregnancy, all fetuses begin as females by default. Over the course of gestation, at two separate times, there are events which might be called “hormone baths” – one affects the brain and one affects the genitals and secondary characteristics. Each creates mascilinzation in the fetus.
If one revives the bath for the brain, and not the body, the result is a F2M identity, if one receives the body wash and not the brain, it results in a M2F identity. This is not conclusively proven but it is a very sound thesis.
The implication being that if there is indeed a genetic component, it’s not the child’s genes but the mothers which are involved.
Ridley is quick to point out, in this context, that “is” does not mean “ought” – in other words, even if some people are homosexual from birth, in that they will experience only same sex attractions and not opposite sex attractions, that does not mean that homosexual behavior is appropriate. After all, as he points out, men seem to be biologically predisposed to promiscuity, but that doesn’t mean promiscuity is appropriate behavior.
I.E he throws a bone to his religious readers. Promiscuity is inappropriate whatever the gender of the participants. there is NO logical rational non-religious argument why two men or two women in a long term committed relationship analogous to a long term hetero relationship such as a marriage is in any objective sense “wrong” in a way similar to the ways one can rationally conclude promiscuity is a bad thing.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know that you can say that the brain is definitively male or female at birth apart from chromosomes.
Which demonstrates ignorance of the science on your part, yet nevertheless you feel comfortable making pronouncements which were they headed would have a profound negative impact on hundreds of lives. Perhaps more learning and less opinionating is warranted?
Report comment to moderator
I believe God will severely punish any nation that allows this type of activity within its borders.
And yet nations around the world in which Christians are tortured and killed for their faith in Christ go merrily on their way. how does that make any sense?
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Debra (post 121).
Again, no one is disputing that people do struggle–struggle is part of the human condition. And our culture is not kind on some issues of sexuality, especially with what it means to be a man–but a day in which multiple men can come on a forum and say, “I’m a woman now, but really I always was” is a bizarre thing. If a woman thinks she’s a cucumber, she gets help to think of herself as a woman. But if she thinks she’s a man, doctors will pretend like they can make her a man? Honestly, that is just weird–and sad.
It’s ironic that in some ways our culture says male and female are interchangeable, so we have women (for example) going to war to defend men, and men being encouraged to show their feminine side. But on another level, traditionally male pursuits like art, poetry, and music are now considered “feminine” and the man who is interested in one of them may have his masculinity questioned.
Seriously, there is a range of human experience. My fiance and I think a lot alike. But he’s no less male and I’m no less female because we’re both analytical (stereotypically male) but feel deeply (stereotypically female).
I had no social skills as a child and young adult, and didn’t interact naturally with other women, as I hadn’t had the practice. I had to learn as an adult what most girls learn as children, and sometimes I still feel like I do some of the steps of the dance differently–but honestly that doesn’t matter. I have many friends now, and I’m comfortable with where I am “like” other people and where I am “unlike” other people. I’m confortable that I’ll never be in the in crowd in any setting with strong cliques; over time I’ve learned how lonely some of those on the inside are, and I’ve learned to value that I have more actual friends than most “popular” people do.
One thing that helped me was to realize that nearly all people feel some level of being on the outside and “different” from all other people, and to realize that people’s uniqueness is part of our charm and beauty.
Yes, a boy who struggles with not feeling like a boy needs help–maybe even serious intervention, maybe even medical intervention. But he doesn’t need major surgery to start all over again as a “woman.” That is one thing he cannot be, any more than a kitten can grow up to be a dog.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone here even talked about the possibility of including hormone treatments as part of helping the boy accept his maleness, the girl her femininity?
Yes. doesn’t work. Besides, there’s no logic in prescribing high doses of Testosterone to people who already have normal levels of it in their system anyway. Also, consider the post-menopausal woman. does she, absent HRT, suddenly consider herself male?
we also know that our society sometimes separates some traits as “masculine” or “feminine” rather stereotypically–
Indeed, much gender-centric behavior is culturally driven. The fascinating thing is that in whatever culture one finds a transsexual, they crave a life which conforms to the female (or vice versa) norm within their own culture. There is certainly a huge and largely still not understood, interaction at a very young age between “brain gender” and the culture norms for gender the child is exposed to.
But this is not evidence that a child without a male role model wants inevitably to become female – the vast majority of trans kids come from traditional homes.
It seems to me like a grand experiment
and not an original idea. It was one of the very first things applied for the treatment of this condition. it simply doesn’t work.
Report comment to moderator
My “grand experiment” comment was unclear, as I noticed as soon as I posted. I meant cutting off body parts and pretending a man can now be a woman is a grand experiment.
I can’t really speak to what “works” and what doesn’t work. What I do know is this: God speaks to what it means to be a man or a woman, not in great detail but in some particulars. (And He also speaks of eunuchs, those who are somehow outside the normal sexual framework.) Nowhere does He say “this is how a man should act (unless he can find someone to turn him into a woman).” He speaks as though a man is supposed to act like a man. And our minds can inform our behavior–consistently saying no to our own desires can reshape them. I don’t know what I’d tell an unbeliever in such a context–but I’d tell the person who claims to be a Christian that if God made you male, you need to thank Him for that and ask for his help in being male, not seek to change it.
I think the same thing would be true of the man who “feels” like a woman as is true of the man who is sexually drawn to other men–we are all called to obedience. For some, that will mean lifelong chastity when they’d rather be married. (As a woman who will soon be marrying for the first time at 44, I have some sympathy for the person in this position.) For others, that may mean being always a little uncomfortable with being a man or a woman, or with other aspects of identity. (People who’ve lost a limb have their own struggles.) Changing “reality” (one’s body) to fit one’s feelings and thoughts has never been considered a healthy way to deal with mental hangups, and I’m sorry our culture is dead-set on this particular experiment. But living one’s life in a wounded world in the body God gave you, and not pretending to be something else, seems physically and spiritually healthier than major surgery–though I recognize that that path may involve suffering (as obedience in other areas may too) and I do not say that glibly.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose that in some cases the persistent feeling of being another sex could be considered a spiritual disorder or a delusional mental illness much like schizophrenia. But feelings can be changed in time
Ever want to bang your head against a wall? Do you know how frustrating it is to spend hours of your time writing thousands of words trying to aliviate ignorance and at the end of all that people STILL demonstrate an abject ignorance of what’s actually true and an obsessive and irrational urge to cling to their ill-informed pre-conceptions?
This is not a “spiritual disorder” – if for no other reason than it generally begins at an age before a child even has a spiritual sense of the world. But also because most of us spend many years repenting of it and forsaking it and if it were not but spiritual then what kind of god do you believe in if he will not honor that?
Like schizophrenia? At the most extreme end maybe you could squint and see that – but you still have to demonstrate how our making peace with our own bodies is anything like as harmful as the mental illnesses we are compared to. Schizophrenic people, left untreated, can be a danger to themselves and others (as can conditions like Bi-polar) – but the only harm arising from being transsexual is that which results directly from the culture not accepting us for what we are.
Acting on those disordered feelings is clearly a choice. For a man, putting on a dress and makeup is not a feeling; it’s an unhealthy choice.
Unhealthy in what specific (non-religious) way?
Getting surgery and mutilating a healthy body is not a feeling; it’s a self-loathing choice.
Such as getting breast implants or a nose job?
But with our culture’s trend toward normalizing sexual deviancy of all kinds
what do you mean by deviant? Morally or statistically?
Report comment to moderator
RickyWeaver, #117
Perhaps a more Gospelly measure for that Northern Californian might be this — how far the lost are from Jesus –and to determine what distance, maybe even as far as San Francisco, they must go to take their Cross and follow Him.
“For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.” (Mark 8:35)
Report comment to moderator
NikkiDane,
We have no problem believing that conditions such as ADD, Dyslexia, ADHD, Schizophrenia, Turet’s Syndrome etc. which are all neurobiological conditions of the brain that affect behavior. When it comes to brain gender somehow they can’t wrap their minds around Gender Dysphoria being anything but a sinful choice, not a biological condition.
I have no problem believing that your Gender Dsyphoria is a biological condition. But as a person who has struggled with anxiety and depression my whole life, with a disordered mind that originated in a traumatic experience in early childhood, I’d like to challenge your thinking a little bit. In some fashion or other, some theorize from a surge of adrenaline that burnt neuropathways in my tender child’s brain, I was crippled with fear and melancholy nearly my whole life. I never knew a day without great sadness or gut-wrenching tension. I often wanted to die. But then Jesus came into my life, and I was made new. Unfortunately the old feelings remained.
But as a Christian, I have “fully wrapped my head around” my responsibility to believe what Jesus says about Himself, and what He says about me — that my inability to trust Him completely was sin, my fear was sin, my hopelessness was sin. Agreeing with Him about this was the beginning of my freedom. Learning to train my thoughts according to His truth revealed in the Bible– what psychologists would call cognitive therapy — led me to peace and rest. It was six years of hard training of those faulty neural pathways but now they fire rightly. I walk in consistent freedom from those life-crippling feelings.
I have no judgement or hatred of you, or the other Trans folks who have written here, just compassion. As a member of the mentally ill community, I am a recipient of plenty of prejudice and stigma. I wrote to a brother who struggles as a celibate homosexual Christian further thoughts on this, and you are welcome to read them here.
Report comment to moderator
If a woman thinks she’s a cucumber, she gets help to think of herself as a woman. But if she thinks she’s a man, doctors will pretend like they can make her a man? Honestly, that is just weird–and sad.
The analogy is certainly weird. Laying aside the irrationality of the attempt, please explain to us but what biological mechanism a human being may believe themselves, from an early age and persistently throughout life despite professional and spiritual intervention, to be a vegetable.
What process of nature, functioning properly or improperly, produces such a result. Educate me.
–but honestly that doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter because none of what you said has anything to do with being transsexual. it might have some application with other forms of transgender lifestyles, but not this.
I’m comfortable with
And there you have the difference. I’m UNcomfortable with exterior genitalia, I’m UNcomfortable with hair on my face, I’m UNcomfortable with the absence of breasts (in the same way a woman who’d had a mastectomy would be) – I don’t have to be pretty, sexy, loved, or anything else. If I could not have surgery until i was 80 years old I would still want it.
Why is it so difficult for you people to accept that you do not have to control that which you do not understand? Why do you give so much ground to the human failing of seeking to identify all the folks you there that you are better than?
and to realize that people’s uniqueness is part of our charm and beauty.
As long as we are not TOO unique, right?
That is one thing he cannot be, any more than a kitten can grow up to be a dog.
Utter nonsense. spoken like one who has absolutely no knowledge or experience in the area they choose to speak to. I’ll admit for a late-life transitioner there is a lot of socialization to overcome and one might even make the argument that we will never be 100% female in all aspects because of the personal interaction we missed.
But in the case of a person diagnosed and treated early – and there are more and more who have their surgery before, say, 25 thanks to society growing up just a bit – there is not one thing that keeps them from being a woman in any sense you might wish to cite other than childbearing. And those who choose to know and befriend these women see it clearly.
You might have a better understanding if you’d put aside your assumptions and meet some of us.
Report comment to moderator
I do not believe that China, North Korea or Iran would allow such maiming of its children. It is easy to see how residents
of many countries consider the US to be a primary source of evil in the world.
Report comment to moderator
My “grand experiment” comment was unclear, as I noticed as soon as I posted. I meant cutting off body parts and pretending a man can now be a woman is a grand experiment.
What you call “pretense” thousands of women and their loved ones call “life.” The proof is in the pudding, in almost every case a post-transition woman lives an entirely ordinary female life indistinguishable from any other female of a similar age. In the few cases which are otherwise, it’s almost always a result of those who know her past purposely making life difficult for them out of spite or bigotry.
I can’t really speak to what “works” and what doesn’t work.
WE CAN! Why do you not respect our input?
What I do know is this: God speaks to what it means to be a man or a woman, not in great detail but in some particulars. (And He also speaks of eunuchs, those who are somehow outside the normal sexual framework.) Nowhere does He say “this is how a man should act (unless he can find someone to turn him into a woman).” He speaks as though a man is supposed to act like a man.
what I do know is that you, like the vast majority of Christians, look to the Scripture to confirm that which you already believed in the first place.
What I know is that there isn’t a single thing in the bible which addresses trassexualism.
Big surprise! We’re less than 1% of the population! The Bible doesn’t say what to do about autism either, wonder why? I’m sure if we look hard enough we can find a way to make it say what we want it to so nothing makes us “uncomfortable” or “disgusted”
And our minds can inform our behavior–consistently saying no to our own desires can reshape them.
For how long? I put in almost 25 years on that exercise, What’s your experience with it?
I don’t know what I’d tell an unbeliever in such a context–but I’d tell the person who claims to be a Christian that if God made you male, you need to thank Him for that and ask for his help in being male, not seek to change it.
Did that. Didn’t work. why is your voice of assumption valid and my voice of experience wrong?
Changing “reality” (one’s body) to fit one’s feelings and thoughts has never been considered a healthy way to deal with mental hangups
I’m sure you can explain what specifically is unhealthy about it.
But living one’s life in a wounded world in the body God gave you, and not pretending to be something else, seems physically and spiritually healthier than major surgery–though I recognize that that path may involve suffering (as obedience in other areas may too) and I do not say that glibly.
Sure. and a child born blind, who can be given sight with a transplant should, nevertheless remain blind rather than have major surgery, right?
Report comment to moderator
I do not believe that China, North Korea or Iran would allow such maiming of its children. It is easy to see how residents
of many countries consider the US to be a primary source of evil in the world.
Wait – you are saying killing a person for being a christian….stoning to death a woman who was raped because she was an “adulteress”…aborting every child in the family beyond the first one…torturing someone until they converted to the right religion….all these are LESSER offenses than “mutilation?
Seriously?
I’m just gonna have to give that one a pass because there’s no discussion possible where one of the positions is flat out insanity.
Report comment to moderator
Karen Butler, 130, I like your theology and compassion. However, I would advise parents with children to flee before the fire and brimstone start coming down.
Report comment to moderator
t as a person who has struggled with anxiety and depression my whole life, with a disordered mind that originated in a traumatic experience in early childhood, I’d like to challenge your thinking a little bit. In some fashion or other, some theorize from a surge of adrenaline that burnt neuropathways in my tender child’s brain, I was crippled with fear and melancholy nearly my whole life. I never knew a day without great sadness or gut-wrenching tension. I often wanted to die. But then Jesus came into my life, and I was made new. Unfortunately the old feelings remained.
I share a home with a person JUST LIKE that. Now, here’s a question – if there were a surgery, even a major surgery, which could go in and make an adjustment and give you peace – would you decline? (assuming no other medical conditions were in conflict of course)
I wrote to a brother who struggles as a celibate homosexual Christian further thoughts on this, and you are welcome to read them
The question remains, WHY does he need to struggle? If hew has a mature well behaved relationship with another man, who is he harming? It’s not like being a drunk, or a brawler, or a drug addict. what kind of god forbids people to do a thing that harms no-one even at the expense of their spiritual and mental health?
The thing about understanding the bible, beyond the obvious exegetical rules that most Christians completely ignore when it comes to homosexuals, is that we must understand God within the WHOLE counsel of Scripture. The bible is not just a rule book, but a revelation of who he is, what his nature is.
And in my opinion the rule-centric practice of Christianity when it comes to homosexuality (and far LESS so when it comes to heterosexual sin) is antithetical to the nature of God as revealed to us. If rules would save us, Christ need never have come.
I believe that God’s arm is not short, and his holy spirit is not mute. If a person is a believer in Christ and God’s holy spirit convicts THAT individual they need to make a change, then they should. But he doesn’t need our help to go about straightening folks out. I, for one, am going to show my fellow human being love, and grace, and point to a God who offers them the same – If HE wants to clean up their act, he’s more than able. I’M not going to act where he has not.
Speaking from my personal experience, I prostrated my condition before him for my entire adult life and HE never convicted me that it was sin – PEOPLE did. I finally decided he did not call me to live according to the judgement of men.
What I gained from that decision was the most spiritual peace and “rightness with God” I’d ever felt. peace my fellow believers had stolen from me for over 20 years.
A pox on that.
Report comment to moderator
Modern day Americans know exactly how Lot felt in Sodom.
Report comment to moderator
lame troll is lame
Report comment to moderator
Tammy Beth,
You ask, “why is your voice of assumption valid and my voice of experience wrong?”
Well, neither assumption nor experience can be trusted as a guide to truth. Scripture can. So when our experience is contrary to Scripture, then our experience isn’t trustworthy.
In other words, “I couldn’t help myself; I had no choice” isn’t a good guide to what is right and wrong. If a man is sexually drawn to six-year-old girls, he can’t say, “I can’t help myself. This is the way I am; it must be the way God made me.” He has to judge his personal experience by Scripture.
Many people struggle with a weakness or a besetting sin (I’m not going to classify yours as to which it is) much of their life. The fact that the struggle goes on for years, and that you earnestly desired it to be gone, says absolutely nothing about the truth of your situation. A blind man struggles too; a woman with epilepsy struggles; a person with a craving for alcohol struggles. The struggle itself simply is not a good guide to truth. Nor does God promise to remove all of our struggles, or to do so quickly.
I am not meaning to diminish the pain you experienced. I don’t understand it, and won’t pretend I do. I will say that I myself struggled mightily with an issue of my own for many years and was glad when God took me to the end of it. But I was called to live in truth and not in my “feelings” in the meantime. I also spent the first twenty-three years of my life virtually without friends; a friend who knew me in college told me recently that when she saw me in those days she wondered if I would survive; my pain and aloneness was so palpable. (I was far from anyone I knew, and had not yet learned how to make friends, so I was in great and despondent isolation.) So I am not speaking as someone who has lived a pain-free life and writing in some glossy little pamphlet.
But I can say that God can be trusted and our experiences and personal feelings cannot. God doesn’t say He will make our lives easy. But for the Christian He promises strength (and His Holy Spirit) to follow in obedience. Who knows what God may be choosing to do in our weakness if we believe Him, trust Him, and walk in obedience even in the very dark times?
Report comment to moderator
Well, neither assumption nor experience can be trusted as a guide to truth. Scripture can. So when our experience is contrary to Scripture, then our experience isn’t trustworthy.
Indeed. now show me the verse that says I am sinning.
In other words, “I couldn’t help myself; I had no choice” isn’t a good guide to what is right and wrong.
Correct, but that’s not relevant since it’s not what’s claimed. Also, it doesn’t apply if the subject at hand is not, in fact, sin.
. If a man is sexually drawn to six-year-old girls, he can’t say, “I can’t help myself.
False analogy. Child molestation harms an innocent.
Many people struggle with a weakness or a besetting sin (I’m not going to classify yours as to which it is) much of their life. The fact that the struggle goes on for years, and that you earnestly desired it to be gone, says absolutely nothing about the truth of your situation. A blind man struggles too; a woman with epilepsy struggles; a person with a craving for alcohol struggles.
and if the blind or the epileptic cna seek treatment which ends the struggle, do you deny it to them because “god made them that way”?
Nor does God promise to remove all of our struggles, or to do so quickly.
In this very thread it’s been said that turning from this sin will result in God’s helping us to overcome this. it’s a pretty common opinion among Christians.
I will say that I myself struggled mightily with an issue of my own for many years and was glad when God took me to the end of it.
But it did end.
I also spent the first twenty-three years of my life virtually without friends; a friend who knew me in college told me recently that when she saw me in those days she wondered if I would survive; my pain and aloneness was so palpable. (I was far from anyone I knew, and had not yet learned how to make friends, so I was in great and despondent isolation.)
anyone ever tell you that situation was sinful and you should repent of it before God?
But I can say that God can be trusted and our experiences and personal feelings cannot. ,/b>
Indeed. And i repeat, given that Scripture does not directly address my condition, why is your inference about his will any more valid than mine? Various Christian denominations cannot agree on how one is to be baptized, or to pray, or even to obtain salvation, because of at least some ambiguity in the Word. and these are the most foundational doctrines of the faith.
This being the case, by what logic should I assume there is one definitive message in the Bible about my condition? do we serve a God who cannot clearly communicate salvation to his people but CAN clearly communicate what sort of sexual activity is allowed?
(and that’s laying aside that being trans isn’t a sexual activity or orientation)
Does that REALLY make sense to you? clearly the fault is not his, it’s ours. As flawed human beings we “see through a glass darkly” and have great difficulty rightly dividing the word of God. That being true, it’s nonsense to assume that people can’t reach consensus on the verities of the faith but they CAN be VERY sure that people like me are sinning.
That makes no sense at all.
I repeat, if god disapproves his arm is not short, and he does not need your help – why will you judge people as being in the wrong when those people in their personal relationship with god feel no such conviction? Upon what authority?
Who knows what God may be choosing to do in our weakness if we believe Him, trust Him, and walk in obedience even in the very dark times?
Indeed. I believe I spent 20+ years on the wrong side of this issue, indeed preaching and teaching the very things which have been said against people like me in this thread, so that I could be equipped to step forward now and provide a well-informed (on both sides of the issue) correction to the false doctrine that led to so much pain in my own life.
How do you know I’ve not been prepared specifically for such a conversation as this, to open your eyes specifically?
Report comment to moderator
apologies for the busted code above.
Report comment to moderator
It is sad for an adult to have himself mutilated. It is criminal for demented adults to maim a child.
Report comment to moderator
Debra,
We can’t know definitively what anyone’s brain is like, it’s the part of the body that we still have the most to learn about. But it’s amazing what scientists have learned about it in just the past decade or so.
We do know more about fetal development, such as that the “default” way a human fetus develops is female, and it only develops male characteristics as various genes carry out their role, over a period of time. If something interferes with the process at some point, some male characteristics can fail to develop properly. There are so many steps and so many genes involved, it doesn’t seem at all strange to me that some parts – such as the genitalia – could develop normally – but not other parts, such as the brain, or at least significant parts of it.
I don’t claim to know that this happens, but it seems perfectly plausible, considering what we know about other brain-based conditions (such as those Nikkidane lists in #120). Certainly plausible enough to consider the possibility that a boy who claims he is a girl and wants to be treated as a girl, really has a girl-type brain rather than a boy-type brain. (Especially seeing as most boys rebel against even having to pretend to be a girl in a skit, and persist in aggressive boy-type behavior no matter how much well-meaning adults try to discourage it.)
Report comment to moderator
First, like Nikki, TammyBeth, and Zoe, I’m transsexual as well.
I knew before I was 8 or 9 I should’ve been born a girl, and many times I wanted to do harm to myself to get rid of the hated birth defect between my legs. There have been many, many other stories of little transyouth born as boys who’ve done the same thing.
Second, I’ve yet to see mention of the tragic story of David Reimer. This as a story of not only severe child abuse, but the fact that one *cannot* force a boy to live like a girl, and vice versa.
In 1966, twin boys were born to parents of limited education and income in Winnipeg, Alberta, Canada. During the circumcision, one of the boys had his penis partially burned off.
Devastated, the parents were wondering what to do, when they saw a documentary on Dr. John Money, who was one of the leading experts of gender of the day. His theory was that children *are* a blank slate and that gender was imposed on them by society. The family contacted Dr. Money, who immediately invited them to Johns Hopkins, eager to find two subjects for his theory.
Dr. Money convinced the couple to begin raising Bruce as a girl, as he told them if they changed her name to Brenda and surrounded him with girls’ toys, dresses, and other traditional female toys, he’d grow up to be a well-adjusted, proper girl. He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Brian rejected his girls toys, and wanted to play with his brother’s trucks.
As he grew up, and began to have feelings for girls, he thought he was a lesbian, until his parents finally told him the truth — that he was born a boy.
Dr. Milton Diamond, who had heard of the famous “John/Joan” case (as Dr. Money referred to and had made millions lecturing on the case around the world), decided to do what Dr. Money failed to do — follow up on the case.
Dr. Diamond found David living as a male, married and adopting the two kids she had from a prior marriage.
Dr. Diamond then wrote a scathing expose of Dr. Money in Rolling Stone, and it was followed up by John Colapinto’s book “As Nature Made Him”.
Sadly, David was swindled out of the advance he received for the book, lost his job at the meat-packing plant he was working at, and his wife left him, threatening divorce. Like his brother before him in 2002, David completed suicide in 2004.
It was then exposed that Dr. Money forced the two boys in the 1960s and 70s to have sexplay together in order to reenforce “Brenda’s” femininity.
So here, my dears, is a *clear* case of that you *cannot* force someone who *never* expressed transgender feelings to be transgender.
To Ricky and the other naysayers, let me say this: the lesbian moms didn’t make this decision willy-nilly, or on the quick. No doubt their child has made repeated pleas, and will be taking a long hard look and a long road to insure their child truly is transsexual.
There’s also another physical cause for transsexualism: the hypothalamus. Researchers have found there’s a segment of the organ called BSTc which has been repeatedly found to have the same size and structure in post-op male-to-female transsexuals as it is in natal females.
Just as an aside, I grew up in the United Methodist church, and I left in my early teens because it couldn’t answer the questions I needed to have answered which science could.
I’d also like to remind the naysayers that there’s a passage in regards to eunuchs: Matthew 19:12 — For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others — and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (NIV)
Report comment to moderator
Tammmy,
I have deliberately NOT said this or that is sin; again, this isn’t an issue I’ve had to research out of any personal need. But God does speak to what it means to be a man, and says some things that are specifically forbidden (including a man dressing like a woman), and it seems to me there’s nothing in there about “unless you know that you’re ‘really’ a woman.” So it seems to me that these issues are addressed in terms of what is proper for a man and what is not. I’d think that having surgery to “become” a woman would fit into that category.
We live in a day where it’s extraordinarily hard for ANY man to know what it means to be a man, and the possibility of having surgery offers a unique temptation to do so. But if Christ would tell a person who had no option of surgery to live as a man, it’s hard to believe He’d change His “advice” to someone else simply because surgery was available.
I think the person who has a struggle with his sexual identity, but lives in a day where sex roles are unambiguous, has a far easier time than a man living today without that clarity. (”Suck it up” and do what you have to do.) In other words, if men farm the fields and women make pies (or whatever the village does), then no one has time or energy to sit around saying, “But I’d rather farm, and I think I might really be a man.” People simply do their task, and life goes on.
With the “luxury” of new medical technology combined with a real ambiguity of what it means to be male combined with a paucity of male role models, I think very few men today actually get through adolescence with total clarity about what it means to be male. From what I’ve heard, most men feel like they’re “bluffing” on at least some level, and hoping others don’t find out how unqualified they are to be men. Add an extra level of confusion, and lack of desire to be a man (from whatever cause–lowered hormones, wacky brain wiring, really bad role models among men, being reared by women who despise men, etc.), and it probably feels insurmountable.
I imagine that sometimes being a woman looks “easier.” In today’s society, nothing is held off limits to women (marriage or singleness, stereotypically male jobs or stereotypically female jobs, even any form of dress). Men have fewer choices, and they may feel constrictive. I think our world is very hard on men; I sympathize. But I do think the biblical answer is that in a fallen world we have suffering, but those who follow Christ still live life the way He has said to, even if it’s hard. Even if, for example, that means staying in an unhappy marriage or staying in the sex that doesn’t feel like a good fit.
But again, it’s easy to give pat answers from the outside, and I don’t want to do that. But I would hope that anyone reading this, and struggling with the same kind of issues, would see that there is a biblical answer even on the tough questions of life, and that God does give grace to endure.
Report comment to moderator
Marlene, I’ve read that book (I own it), and it’s a very tragic story on so many levels. (I read it before the deaths of the brothers, and their deaths seemed like a real tragedy to me.) Their counsel at the end of the book not to choose a sex for hermaphrodite children, but to see how the children act naturally at two or three, seemed uniquely wise.
I’ve mentioned on here the idea of those born eunuchs, by the way, and do think it’s relevant here. Not everyone needs to marry; God gives grace to those who do not. I speak from experience on that one, as a woman single long past the ages of my friends’ marriages, and one who will never bear children.
Report comment to moderator
I’m looking for suggestions. To what country should Christians move if they want to live in a nation that does not actively promote perversion?
Report comment to moderator
Ricky, I see nothing in Scripture that says our job is to avoid sinners or confused people. This is the world we are in; this is where believers are called to minister unless/until God calls elsewhere. God called Lot out of Sodom, but until He did, Lot should have been influencing his culture rather than letting it influence him and his family.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I have taught youth in Sunday School for 30 years. I have never seen anything like our current situation. High school and college students are having homosexuality and other perversions rammed down their throats on a daily basis. A 14 year old in public school was suspended for saying he was a Christian who believed homosexuality was wrong. Luke 9:5 is applicable. Jesus did not stay in places where he was not wanted. I believe it was a sin for Lot to keep his family in Sodom as long as he did.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately, I have heard of a similar case in Georgia. It’s not just in California.
Report comment to moderator
Ricky, it was a sin for Lot to keep his family there with no spiritual purpose. I don’t think it would have been a sin if he had been there consciously following God–teaching his children, ministering to his neighbors. And the whole reason he chose Sodom in the first place was spiritual lukewarmness and desire for wealth; he lost his family in the process. But had he testified of the Lord, and had others come to worship God, then Sodom would have had the ten righteous people who would have meant the salvation of the city. We are to be salt and light where God has placed us.
In “the old days” people went to pagans in Africa and other lands; we are now in pagan America. I personally feel like God has placed me here. If you aren’t sure about that, then pray about it for your own family. But our land has never needed missionaries more.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Wow. Great job.
Report comment to moderator
I have deliberately NOT said this or that is sin; again, this isn’t an issue I’ve had to research out of any personal need. But God does speak to what it means to be a man, and says some things that are specifically forbidden (including a man dressing like a woman), and it seems to me there’s nothing in there about “unless you know that you’re ‘really’ a woman.” So it seems to me that these issues are addressed in terms of what is proper for a man and what is not. I’d think that having surgery to “become” a woman would fit into that category.
Do you mean the category of things upon which god has not spoken directly? if so, we agree. It seems to me that what follows this conclusion is to look for the solution which seems most in keeping with his revealed nature, and with the facts on the ground as we ascertain them.
(and by the way, you might not be calling it sin, but the overwhelming majority of Christian people who say I’m wrong are)
But if Christ would tell a person who had no option of surgery to live as a man, it’s hard to believe He’d change His “advice” to someone else simply because surgery was available.
would you say the same thing if the condition being corrected were blindness or epilepsy?
I think the person who has a struggle with his sexual identity, but lives in a day where sex roles are unambiguous, has a far easier time than a man living today without that clarity. (”Suck it up” and do what you have to do.)
Perhaps. but we can’t know, just as we can’t know how many such people, say, 100 years ago might have live a short brutal life with a death wish which was either fulfilled by their own hands or be seeking out deadly solutions.
Even in our day, most M2F transsexuals try to “man up” by doing the most manly thing the can find to do, such as joining the military. I’m sure that would have been even more true in decades past.
Also, there are cultures in which being trans is a perfectly acceptable, even honored, place in society and has been for centuries the majority of which a final surgical solution or, indeed, even HRT, would be unavailable.
so ultimately the “Suck it up” solution only applies within cultures which reject the condition as unnatural or sinful. Ln cultures where this is not the case trans people live perfectly respectable and well-adjusted lives.
I don’t think we are in a position to make to many broad assumptions about what a resident of, for instance, the U.S. in 1820 might have decided to do about the knowledge that they were born the wrong gender.
In other words, if men farm the fields and women make pies (or whatever the village does), then no one has time or energy to sit around saying, “But I’d rather farm, and I think I might really be a man.” People simply do their task, and life goes on.
I think you underestimate them. if this were true, people would not have had time to consider the question of sin and salvation either. Yes, life was hard particularly in a pre-industrial world, but one’s relationship with one’s own soul does not simply go away.
Also, given the high degree to which this arises first in childhood, a child of 8 or 9, even in those days, is not as overwhelmed with labor as an adult would be. there is NO doubt that there were girls in those days who longed to take to the woods and hunt like the boys, and boys who had no stomach for it preferring to stay home and sew with the women.
They would simply have had that desire repressed by adverse socialization – but that doesn’t mean it goes away.
when I was 12, my parents had a couple of instances of overwhelming proof of what they had on their hands. Their natural reaction was to double down on the “boys don’t do that” mantra and try to force me to conform. Outwardly I did conform, but it did not change my heart.
With the “luxury” of new medical technology combined with a real ambiguity of what it means to be male combined with a paucity of male role models, I think very few men today actually get through adolescence with total clarity about what it means to be male.
Oh my, I’m certain you are assuming FAR too much. At least for my generation. Perhaps there’s a kernel of truth here as relates to those born in, say, the last 20 years – I doubt it but maybe – but in my generation there was NO shortage of “cowboy” role models all around us. My own father was the very definition of the driven, competitive, ultra-hard working blue collar guy. And he was not remotely unusual.
Besides all that, there’s a VAST difference in being uncertain whether a man is John Wayne or Phil Donahue or even Richard Simmons – and wanting to be female.
Particularly when you consider the phenomena isn’t confined to Western Civilization. how do you explain a “boy” raised in a Muslim culture, with NO access to medical intervention, and living in a world in which women are literally property with no rights or stature in society of any kind – yet he believes it’s certain he should be a female?
it happens.
I imagine that sometimes being a woman looks “easier.” In today’s society, nothing is held off limits to women (marriage or singleness, stereotypically male jobs or stereotypically female jobs, even any form of dress).
You should hear the conversations I hear among transwomen about the loss of the “male privilege” – I know, for instance, a woman who (according to her account) was a highly skilled computer programmer. The fixer that everyone in the department come to with the most complex problems to solve. she transitioned on the job, and everyone in the places knows she is the same person. Yet post-transition, she is brushed off as “just a woman” – people explain stuff to her that she knew 20 years ago because they assume “math is hard for women”
Her story is not unusual.
I will grant you this much on this point though – there is a sense in which it’s much more ok for a woman to not be ambitious and competitive, and for a man who has no competitive ambitious nature, that probably does make a woman’s life look eaiser in the matter of the expectations placed on you. but that’s a REAL flimsy reed to use to prop up the idea that guy might wish to be a female instead.
Besides all that – your thesis STILL ignores the reality that transsexualism usually manifest in pre-teen if not pre-school years, long before any of us was aware of the relative easiiness or difficulty of being female or male.
But I do think the biblical answer is that in a fallen world we have suffering, but those who follow Christ still live life the way He has said to, even if it’s hard. Even if, for example, that means staying in an unhappy marriage or staying in the sex that doesn’t feel like a good fit.
Why? I ask again – would you say this to one born blind? if their was a surgery which would have repaired Joni Tada, would you have counseled her to “chin up” and get over it rather than have the surgery? Because the bible implies we must endure through suffering?
You have said again that we should live “as he said to” and yet you have yet to demonstrate in any way that he said for me to “suck it up” in reaction to this condition. you say you did not call it sin, but if you are saying that my choices put me at odds with how Christ said I should live, how DO you define that behavior?
And do you really think that the whole voice of society, culture, and even the law should be based on what you INFER from the bible where there is no clear mandate?
Further, and to me the MOST important question here for a Christian –
One of two things is true:
Either God REALLY doesn’t want me to transition and I am in disobedience, if not sin; OR
God has no problem with my actions to reconcile my body with my mind and find peace.
Had you rather give an account for having assumed the first was true when it was really the second (judging where he has not judged, potentially alienating seekers from his presence) or had you rather account for thinking the second when it was really the first (loving someone he would rebuke)?
As I said before – his arm is not short that he needs any human to convict me of sin if this be sin, or even disobedience. (laying aside the fuzzy distinction between “sin” and “disobedience to God”)
Why do you folks feel the need to directly challenge our own testimony of our relationship with God? Would you feel I had the right to suggest that YOU don’t know the particulars of YOUR relationship with God?
Why is it so difficult for those of you who (as you freely admit) have never had need or opportunity to ponder these issues, nor gather information about them, nor devote yourself to the study of the word specifically on this question, to accept the POSSIBILITY that those of us who have done so have something to teach you?
You seem a person of good will and honorable intent, so let me give you credit for that by asking – if you have been taught false doctrine, would you not want your sister in Christ to point it out to you?
I ask this not just of you (or even particularly of you) but to any Christian of good intent in this thread (pretty much everyone except Ricky) – you have been taught that this, and being homosexual, is sin. Every time you open your mouth on the subject you risk driving a seeker away from the lord you are supposed to draw them to – if you are doing this based on a false teaching, how could you NOT want to know? Is your tradition THAT important to you?
Report comment to moderator
I’m looking for suggestions. To what country should Christians move if they want to live in a nation that does not actively promote perversion?
Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc are all good choices.
Or if you prefer less religion, North Korea but you better pack a lunch.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I have taught youth in Sunday School for 30 years.
I pray this is just a troll but sadly, it might actually be true.
Report comment to moderator
Ricky, it was a sin for Lot to keep his family there with no spiritual purpose. I don’t think it would have been a sin if he had been there consciously following God–teaching his children, ministering to his neighbors. And the whole reason he chose Sodom in the first place was spiritual lukewarmness and desire for wealth; he lost his family in the process.
And yet, when god asked for 10 righteous men – his name was called.
You make a good point, by implication, God was said to be destroying the city for lack of righteous men, it naturally follows he preferred to have some there.
And just by the way, not that Ricky has the discernment to get this – but S&G were not destroyed specifically for the sin of homosexuality. but I won’t bang my head against THAT specific wall as I know what I’m dealing with.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl’s answer at 152 was very good. American Christians who choose to remain here are staying as missionaries to a pagan land. I still believe we need to consider Luke 9:5.
Report comment to moderator
That God does not condone the switching of male and female roles is clearly seen in Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
It is not a sin to be infertile or castrated, as is evidenced by the eunuchs who played an important role in the Bible: Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Nehemiah [the role of cupbearer was for a eunuch], and the two Ethiopian eunuchs (Jeremiah 38, Acts 8). However, they all were castrated males and they were identified as male, fulfilling male roles in their lives, only unable to be husbands and fathers.
When Christ made the statement “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matthew 19:12), He was replying to the disciples’ statement “Since the case of man be so with his wife: then it is not good to marry” (v. 10). They were responding to Jesus’ ban on divorce (v.4-9), and Jesus replied that only certain people are able to remain unmarried.
Paul was one of those ‘eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’, as he mentions in his discussion on marriage in I Corinthians 7: “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I” (v. 7-8). Paul had the “power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles” (I Cor. 9:5); but he chose not to: ‘But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” (I Cor. 9:27) This was not something he found easy.
“But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire… For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! – Romans 7:8, 22-25
Report comment to moderator
Tammy Beth,
It is not sin for a man to wish to be a woman, any more than it is a sin to wish one were taller or smarter or whatever. But the Bible is VERY clear that it is sin for a man to have sex with another man, or a woman with a woman. Trust me, I’ve heard the arguments on why this is not “really” what the Bible says, but it very clearly IS. In addition, the purposes of marriage (including it being a picture of Christ and the church) are all connected with a man and a woman, not two of either, and sex outside of marriage is clearly portrayed as sin. So there is no ambiguity on that one.
And while it isn’t sin for a man to “wish” to be a woman, or vice versa, at some level this does become sin. For a man to act like a woman is sin; and yes, this most definitely would include “transitioning” and having surgery to “become” a woman. This is not at all the same as a person born blind having surgery to be able to see. This is the person with bad eyesight dweliberately gouging out his eyes.
I am sure I was unclear about some of what I’ve said along the line here. But when I spoke of God’s commands to those in a world where surgery is impossible being the same as those in a world where it is, my point is this: If God would say to a man in first century Palestine who “feels like a woman,” but physically is male, to act like a man, then He wouldn’t be saying to those today with the same issue to act like a man “unless” you know (with today’s improved medical tecnhology) that the male brain is different from the female brain and you in fact have a female brain.
There IS a third possibility: that of the eunuch. Apparently it is not a sin to be castrated, to live as a man without male hormones, and this also seems to be allowing for a person who is biologically intersex to live as a single person without the demands of a family. But to pretend to be female is not part of that equation. (Again, I’ve had these conversations in the past with a man who was in that condition, and who had wrestled with Scripture for himself. He was a man, but he had determined a life of singleness was best for him.)
Again, within our culture there is plenty of room for men who are less stereotypically masculine to find meaningful employment and to stay single without anyone questioning it. That is biblically permissible. To attempt to live as a woman is not granted in Scripture. And the attempt to rewrite Scripture and say that homosexuality is OK in the same context in which one says that “reassignment” is acceptable demonstrates how shaky the ground is for the second.
Listen, I’m sorry that Christians and others tend to be unkind to those perceived as being “outside the norm.” I could tell you enough stories of my own life to demonstrate that I’m in that category myself, and was even more so as a younger woman. It isn’t easy to be “different.” And I know that my own taste of this is probably a lot less than yours, but I most definitely do know what it is like; I know what shunning feels like. But there is a difference between struggling because one has a hard time feeling like a man, and is thus culturally odd and kept at arms’ length (the sin of others) and choosing to “become female” in response (one’s own sin).
Monday approaches and I have no further time to hang out here and interact in depth. I have a lot of work to do this week. I do wish you the best, and I am sorry if the sins of Christians are part of what made you feel like you had no choice but desperate measures. And I can’t say I know all the answers or am 100% sure I haven’t said anything erroneous in my comments here. But this I do know, that God’s Word can be trusted and that He does speak to these issues, though His answers may not be appreciated in a world where we think we’re smarter than He is.
Report comment to moderator
Not to haul all the way bact to comment 97, but people who say that “reasonable” people don’t respect the mental health professions should probably stop discussing things in terms defined by them. What a silly argument. I’m glad that some transgender people showed up here to tone down the rhetoric… and I’m sorry that the earlier part of this thread caused to (additional) pain to people who are living a difficult life because of this issue.
Report comment to moderator
#62 Debra, if you’re going to use words like “flaky” and “perversion” and “child abuse”, it would do you well to recognize that the mental health authorities that define these terms professionally might themselves conclude that you have a problem yourself.
Bogus appeals to amorphous athorities is one way of illegitimately redefining the conversation. Since you brought it up, I’m still curious about what professional definition those authorities of yours assign to flaky. I’m sure it must be in the DSM, perhaps somewhere near homophobia, right?
Report comment to moderator
@ 162 – Debra, you used the word “flaky”. How do *you* define it? How about “perversion”? And “child abuse”? Do they mean just what you want them to mean? And if so, what IS the meaning of these terms?
Inquiring minds would love to know. Bogus backpedaling is one way of illegitmately doing a bunch of different things. And BTW, your italicizer-off-machine is busted.
Report comment to moderator
The child needs to be removed from the home. This is wrong…
Report comment to moderator
This is what happens when a society loses its moral authorized.
Report comment to moderator
What we are seeing is the result of decade of society collapses. What ounces was viewed are morally wrong is being promoted as moral right. Which is now being forced onto children. This child needed help not drugs to cause more confusing in him. He needed a mother and a father, so he can see what man behavior is all about, not 2 mothers.
Report comment to moderator
That God does not condone the switching of male and female roles is clearly seen in Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Do you make tassels on the four corners of your cloak? (You do have a cloak, right?)
Better question: Have you stoned any non-virgins lately?
There is a context, by the way, for why God gave that instruction, but context doesn’t seem to be big with some folks around here.
Jesus replied that only certain people are able to remain unmarried.
He was acknowledging that the general principal doesn’t apply to every individual. The logical understanding is that there was no practical way to list off all the exceptions to every principle in the Bible. “Let him who is able to receive this receive it.”
“But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another
Case in point.
Report comment to moderator
The enemy of God is the one who produce confusion not God. People who are confused like this, they need help not drugs or sex changes. Help….
Report comment to moderator
It is not sin for a man to wish to be a woman, any more than it is a sin to wish one were taller or smarter or whatever.
Again with the completely unsound analogy. These are not remotely similar.
But the Bible is VERY clear that it is sin for a man to have sex with another man, or a woman with a woman.
So if I transition and have relationships with women I’m cool because I’m “really a man”? or no?
Trust me, I’ve heard the arguments on why this is not “really” what the Bible says, but it very clearly IS.
So you are just going to completely duck my repeatedly asked questions on that point? Just stamp your foot and says “Does too!!!” ?
In addition, the purposes of marriage (including it being a picture of Christ and the church) are all connected with a man and a woman, not two of either
And yet the stated purpose of marriage is not at all reflected universally in all heterosexual relationships. That the institution has an “ideal” symbolism doesn’t mean every example reflects the ideal. it is basically a grand analogy. In the same way we are told to see God as our father, yet many struggle with that because their own father was abusive. the analogy is a way of explaining things, not a wooden rule.
For a man to act like a woman is sin; and yes, this most definitely would include “transitioning” and having surgery to “become” a woman.
So why did we go through the tedious exercise of you denying that’s what you were saying. now that you have taken your stand, prove it from Scripture. don’t just infer it or assume it or find some shady implication you can read into it: PROVE IT.
Let’s see those exegetical skills.
“unless” you know (with today’s improved medical tecnhology) that the male brain is different from the female brain and you in fact have a female brain.
So you are saying if I went and had a brain scan and an unbiased doctor said “what I see here is a female brain” then you’d agree that transitioning is not outside of God’s will? Why is that test better for you than all the other evidence which already exists? Still, it’s something.
There IS a third possibility: that of the eunuch. Apparently it is not a sin to be castrated, to live as a man without male hormones, and this also seems to be allowing for a person who is biologically intersex to live as a single person without the demands of a family
Lovely. Has nothing to do with what I am. I don’t sit here every day thinking “If i just had less testosterone it would be swell”
That is biblically permissible.
You keep saying that without proving that transitioning is not. You don’t get to win the conversation by just ASSUMING your position is proven when it is not.
And the attempt to rewrite Scripture and say that homosexuality is OK in the same context in which one says that “reassignment” is acceptable demonstrates how shaky the ground is for the second.
Actually, the homosexuality discussion is a complete tangent to me. At most it only serves to demonstrate that the Church IS misreading actual verses – because there are no actual verses for being transsexual.
But there is a difference between struggling because one has a hard time feeling like a man…
Every time you try to put into words what’s going on with people like me, your words demonstrate you have a complete lack of understanding of the situation. That’s fine, in the sense that no one who doesn’t have a condition knows what it feels like to have the condition – but it’s not fine to minimize and downplay it as something that’s simply “not feeling like a man”
I am sorry if the sins of Christians are part of what made you feel like you had no choice but desperate measures.
On the contrary – the sins of Christians led me to live in repression for 20 years too long and cause massive grief and hurt for innocent parties who would not have suffered if I’d listend to God instead of men.
And I can’t say I know all the answers or am 100% sure I haven’t said anything erroneous in my comments here.
But you speak with certainty, and that in itself is erroneous. You can’t have it both ways – if you are not 100% sure then it’s at least possible even in your own mind that you err, if you insist you have not erred then you are 100% certain. And anyone here who thinks they are 100% sure what the Bible says on pretty much any subject beyond the fact that God is and Zjesus is his son is erroneous.
Report comment to moderator
What we are seeing is the result of decade of society collapses. What ounces was viewed are morally wrong is being promoted as moral right.
Just so i can get a read on where you stand pastor, What’s your view of interracial marriage?
Report comment to moderator
What’s your view of interracial marriage?
—
It comes down to one man and one woman being married. That was the ruling of the Courts. They did not change marriage wiht the ruling. The Word of God calls marriage as one MAN and one WOMAN. Race has nothing to do with it.
Report comment to moderator
With that said The Word of God is clear He made man and woman. He did not make a man with a desire to be a woman. He did not make a woman with a desire to be a man. Those desire have come about because of the fall of man. It is mental health issue.
Report comment to moderator
The problem as our society collapses things that were consider a mental health issue and moral wrong, are now being veiw as normal behavior and moral right. If you challenge those veiws, you are called a bigot.
Report comment to moderator
Nor does the Bible speak to interracial marriage EXCEPT in regard to people of different faiths marrying. God calls the Christian to marry another Christian. God called the Israelites to marry other Israelites.
Otherwise, the issue of race is a red-herring in this debate. It is thrown out simply when the other side no longer has viable arguments and is an attempt to “change the subject” to something they THINK is more damaging to Christians.
While some people tried to use the Bible to justify their racial prejudice in the past, they were not particularly successful, since the Bible does not support racial prejudice. People had to really look for things to “reinterpret.”
This is not the case with homosexuality, as it is clearly and repeatedly condemned in the Bible (in as clear of language as one could ask for).
At any rate, even were the topic relevant (and it isn’t), two wrongs do not make a right. Regardless of the interracial marriage misinterpretations of the past, homosexuality is still wrong according to the Bible. There are no reasonable, valid, historical, cultural or language reinterpretations that can change that.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy – Well Stated
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, I wasn’t trying, earlier, to get into what is or isn’t sin. But I wasn’t trying to say that it isn’t a sin to have surgery, and when I seemed to be misread as saying that, I went into more depth and clarified.
I have neither the time nor the interest to engage on proving that Scripture really does condemn homosexuality, and by your own admission that isn’t your issue anyway. My point was that there are biblical purposes for marriage and for male/female, and homosexuality and surgery to change one’s gender are both outside that.
“So you are saying if I went and had a brain scan and an unbiased doctor said “what I see here is a female brain” then you’d agree that transitioning is not outside of God’s will? Why is that test better for you than all the other evidence which already exists? Still, it’s something.”
No, I’m decidedly not saying that–you quoted only part of my sentence. I’m saying that if something needs 21st-century technology to determine, then we can’t say “Everyone who lacked access to this technology and did such and such was sinning, but now that we have the technology, it is no longer a sin.” In other words, the fact that a brain is wired more like a female brain does not make a person a woman, or God would have said, “Act like whichever sex you feel yourself to be.” He didn’t say that. He said act like what you are, and if you can’t comfortably relate in marriage to the opposite sex, then you have freedom not to marry (the enuch option).
I have made no attempt to address everything you have said; as I said already, I do not have further time for this discussion. My week is ridiculously busy as it is. I just thought I needed to clarify a couple of things that seemed unclear to you.
Report comment to moderator
Last note was to Tammy Beth, not just “Tammy.” Sorry, Tammy.
Report comment to moderator
TammyBeth – does that answer your question
Report comment to moderator
It comes down to one man and one woman being married. That was the ruling of the Courts. They did not change marriage wiht the ruling. The Word of God calls marriage as one MAN and one WOMAN. Race has nothing to do with it.
Very sound, you are right that race has nothing to do with it. Now, what would you say to the pastor in 1950 who would make exactly the same argument against interracial marriage (that it is unbliblical) that you would make against homosexual marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Now, what would you say to the pastor in 1950 who would make exactly the same argument against interracial marriage (that it is unbliblical) that you would make against homosexual marriage?
—-
I would tell him to reread the Word of God… That race had nothing to do with it. Now marrige the Word of God is clear on. Only one passage is needed.
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
T
Report comment to moderator
That was from Genesis 2:24
break it down a “man shall leave his father and mother ” not father and father or mother and mother.
“be joined to his wife” not joined to his husband or wife to her wife.
Report comment to moderator
homosexual is the result of the fall of man. God did not make people gay. It is the result of man’s sinful nature.
Report comment to moderator
it is the result of the lust of the flesh.
Report comment to moderator
With that said The Word of God is clear He made man and woman. He did not make a man with a desire to be a woman. He did not make a woman with a desire to be a man. Those desire have come about because of the fall of man. It is mental health issue.
Indeed he did. But you as a pastor should be familiar with the full implications of the concept of the fall. What god made in the Garden was a perfect uncurrupted creation. Adam and Eve were not blind or deaf or autistic or handicapped in any way. But because of the fall, corruption entered into the world.
This corruption is NOT just sin and mental error but physical defects, disease and disability and birth defects. When you assume my condition results from a “mental health issue” and not a physical deformity, you assume facts not in evidence to support your pre-conceived worldview (I’m not judging – i did the same thing for most of my life)
In point of fact, no one in this discussion has offered a shread of proof, or indeed even a reasonable logical hypothsis, as to why this is clearly ONLY a matter of mental health and not physical condition.
It’s an easy and simplistic thing to say “as society collapses” because we were all trained to see the world as slipping fortuher and further towards depravity.
But, in point of fact, you need only look around you to see the many wonderful ways in which the world is better today because the church learned it had read God wrong.
In our “collapsing” world, women are no longer viewed as a man’s property and they can vote, children are no longer put to work before they are 10 years old, people no longer own people of a different race, people are not burned at the stake for a different theological point of view, your government does not impose someone else’s theology on you at the point of a sword, you do not have to buy favor from god by paying the priest, and people of differening races can love each other.
ALL THIS came about because someone showed the church they had read the bible wrong. More people come to know god today than at any other time in history because we are freer, and that freedom comes from LESS religious imposition of rules, not more.
If modern Christians who are so convinced that the world is collapsing morally had to live in, say, 1400 they would come back with a much different view. Heck, even 1800.
Against the long and ugly track record of the church pointing to a thing and screaming “SIN!!” only to be found by later generations to have been grievously in error, how dare we have the hubris in our day to say “Sure, we were right the last 40 or 50 times but THIS time we are right!!!”
How long must we repeat the sins of our ancestors?
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians 5:22-33
Marriage—Christ and the Church
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians 6:1-4
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
TammyBeth – I know what the today society has lead you to believe. I am sorry, but God make people to be a man and a female. He did not make man with a desire to be a woman or a woman to be a man. Those issue are mental issues that need help and prayer. It hard issue to overcome but with God’s Help and strong help from people who deal with this issue, people can over come these desires.
Report comment to moderator
(so running out of time!)
Otherwise, the issue of race is a red-herring in this debate. It is thrown out simply when the other side no longer has viable arguments and is an attempt to “change the subject” to something they THINK is more damaging to Christians.
It’s a common tactic to ascribe devious motives to the person you disagree with. I’d hope we could rise above that. I assure you, my friend, I have thoroughly viable arguments, several of which have gone completely unanswered in this very thread. As a Christian myself, I think it’s best Christians face up to past error.
,b>
While some people tried to use the Bible to justify their racial prejudice in the past, they were not particularly successful, since the Bible does not support racial prejudice. People had to really look for things to “reinterpret.”
not successful? did you miss 150 years of U.S. History?
This is not the case with homosexuality, as it is clearly and repeatedly condemned in the Bible (in as clear of language as one could ask for).
they would have made the exact same claim, as would have been made for many other mistakes before that. The reality is that there is an exegetical context for every one of those “clear” verses and they are only “clear” if you read them in the most basic isolated literal sense.
let me ask you what went unanswered when I asked it before – do you keep silent in the church as Paul instructs? He was very clear on that point. Do you keep your head covered? Do you stay away from dogs?
At any rate, even were the topic relevant (and it isn’t), two wrongs do not make a right. Regardless of the interracial marriage misinterpretations of the past, homosexuality is still wrong according to the Bible.
Except it’s not just “two wrongs” – i could spend the whole afternoon listing things for you that the church was absolutely sure about – yet was wrong.
more to the point, i could spend the rest of the night listing things that faithful Christian denominations disagree about in this very hour. ALL of them CAN’T be right – yet all follow the same Scriptures and the same God? How can this be if the bible is so clear?
I ask again – are you of the opinion that God was somehow unclear about the nature of salvation (which a wide variety of Christians disagree on) BUT he somehow manged to make the doctrine of who you have sex with crystal clear? how does that make ANY sense?
There are no reasonable, valid, historical, cultural or language reinterpretations that can change that.
that’s just abject denial. Argumentation worth of first grade.
Report comment to moderator
More people come to know god today than at any other time in history because we are freer, and that freedom comes from LESS religious imposition of rules, not more.
—
More people are coming to a false christ as the Word of God gets changed to support people sinful desires.
Report comment to moderator
I got as far as Cheryl at 176 but I have somewhere to be and I must save the rest for tonight. Enjoying the discussion so far.
Report comment to moderator
There is a context, by the way, for why God gave that instruction, but context doesn’t seem to be big with some folks around here.
There is indeed a context for this verse. The action of sexual role switching is called an abomination in Deuteronomy 22:5. The Hebrew word used here means ‘disgusting, abhorrent’ [it is not the same word used to describe unclean foods, which is 'polluted']. A further list of such abominations is found in Leviticus 18: incest, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality – “It is confusion” (v.23) is an apt description of all of these things. God then underlines how seriously He views all these willfull perversions of His orginal design.
‘Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.’ (Leviticus 19:24-29)
There is a rule of thumb for determining which laws were moral and which were ceremonial. The ceremonial laws are abolished in New Testament writing, the moral laws are confirmed in the same writings.
“Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)
“Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” (Revelation 22:14-15)
If quoting these verse feel offensive to my fellow Christians, please remember ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend’(Proverbs 27:6).
Report comment to moderator
I ask again – are you of the opinion that God was somehow unclear about the nature of salvation (which a wide variety of Christians disagree on) BUT he somehow manged to make the doctrine of who you have sex with crystal clear? how does that make ANY sense?
—
It is clear, repent of your sin’s turn to Christ. Christian’s do not disagree on this. Christian’s do not disagree on the doctrine of who you have sex with. You have a small group, who have decide to change God’s Word in order to meet the sinful needs of a small group in society. In stead of telling that small group they need to repent and turn back to God.
Report comment to moderator
It is very sad.
I’m sure his double female parents had no influence whatsoever.
I’m sure the media is standing by to see what happens in his future.
Will he continue as a female or become very confused?
Will the media cover it if he has a tragic ending?
What will be the outcome?
Stay tuned.
Report comment to moderator
Our homosexual mayor said being molested in boyscouts had nothing to do with his being a homosexual.
It’s all very sad.
Report comment to moderator
Have half an hour or so here to try to catch up and then I’ll be back later
My point was that there are biblical purposes for marriage and for male/female, and homosexuality and surgery to change one’s gender are both outside that.
Many things are. Marriage in an ANALOGY for our spiritual relationship just as god as “Father” is – that doesn’t mean that every event in human experience must conform to the pattern. We both well know that many many hetero marriages do not conform (such as divorce and re-marriage, such as abusive spouses, and so forth) – unless all hetero marriages conform, why should any other sort? And no, I’m not saying “one sin excuses another” but i am saying that the fact that god himself allowed for divorce under certain circumstances completely counters the idea that every marriage MUST reflect Christ’s relationship to the church, and/or the pattern established in Eden.
or God would have said
You speak as if god gave specific instruction on every single variation of human experience and behavior. We both know the bible is silent on many thing.
Report comment to moderator
I would tell him to reread the Word of God…
and he would say you were corrupted by liberalism and you needed to repent before God for trying to change what he clearly said on the subject. I could give you a dozen or more examples of similar conversations you might have had throughout history with faithful Christians who were entirely convinced and completely wrong.
except, of course, that if you had walked among them you would have agreed with them – and also been completely wrong.
Yet somehow, today, thousands of Christians are willing to say “well sure THEY were wrong but THIS time we have it right!”
Seems kinda dangerous.
break it down a “man shall leave his father and mother ” not father and father or mother and mother.
“be joined to his wife” not joined to his husband or wife to her wife.
Hetero’s are 97-98% of the population (and given the stigma, I’m sure those who dared to openly admit their condition was an even smaller amount than 2%
So, OF COURSE when God is discussing marriage he’s going to describe it in the terms of the 98+% and not the tiny minority, any more than he took time out to to address those who would never marry at all (which he specifically approves of in other places)
You, as a pastor, should be much more aware than these lay-people of the value of proper exegesis and the avoidance of proof-texting. what you just demonstrated was the latter and not the former.
homosexual is the result of the fall of man. God did not make people gay. It is the result of man’s sinful nature.
Indeed. Just like being blind or deaf or autistic or being afflicted with cancer or heart disease. All result from sin entering the world.
Marriage—Christ and the Church
As I explained to Cheryl – marriage serving as an analogy of Christ’s relationship to the church is just that, an analogy. it is not a law or an all inclusive rule – if it were, then all single people would be required to marry in order to conform to the pattern.
TammyBeth – I know what the today society has lead you to believe. I am sorry, but God make people to be a man and a female. He did not make man with a desire to be a woman or a woman to be a man.
You are absolutely right. He did not intend this, any more than he intends for a child to get cancer and die. That proves nothing either way about the sinfulness of it.
Those issue are mental issues that need help and prayer. It hard issue to overcome but with God’s Help and strong help from people who deal with this issue, people can over come these desires.
Have you even taken the time to read my previous posts here? All this has been tried extensively, in myself and others, and utterly failed. And there never lived a more willing subject.
There is indeed a context for this verse.
all the things you list are condemned specifically in relationship to two things: pagan religion, and hygiene. Have you ever noticed nothing in the OT condemns lesbians? why is that?
There is a rule of thumb for determining which laws were moral and which were ceremonial. The ceremonial laws are abolished in New Testament writing, the moral laws are confirmed in the same writings.
and again, virtually all the mentions of homosexuality (which, by the way, is not translated the same way in every place because Paul sometimes uses a word that he apparently coined himself) is in the context of pagan worship practices.
Would you be willing to answer the questions everyone else ignores? does “let your women keep silent in the church” still apply? Is it ok for us to own slaves?
It is clear, repent of your sin’s turn to Christ. Christian’s do not disagree on this. Christian’s do not disagree on the doctrine of who you have sex with. You have a small group, who have decide to change God’s Word in order to meet the sinful needs of a small group in society. In stead of telling that small group they need to repent and turn back to God.
do all Christians agree on the nature of salvation, baptism,or prayer? if god was not crystal clear on these (that is, some men manage to misunderstand) then by what logic can we assume that the far less important subject of sex WAS crystal clear? it makes NO sense.
Saying “repent of your sins and turn to Christ” does not REMOTELY sum up the entier subject.
for just one example, the difference between the doctrine of eternal salvation and the idea you can lose your salvation (millions of believers on each side of that one)
for another – some say you have to do certain things (be Baptized, take the sacraments) to be saved and others say no – millions on each side.
(breaking at 193)
Report comment to moderator
FYI, sex is definitely not a trivial subject; marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society and of family. Yes, singleness is a premissible exception, but alternative forms of marriage (e.g. marriage with easy divorce, “marriage” with another of the same sex) are not.
Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. Not “it is a picture if you decide you want that kind of marriage,” but it IS. So marriage other than God designed it is a false image and a false marriage.
Recently my fiance and I heard of a couple who hadn’t waited till marriage to sleep together, and she ended up pregnant. I thanked my fiance later for being an honorable man, and never attempting any sort of move that would be sinful or likely to lead to sin. And he told me that sex outside of marriage is serious theological error: Since marriage represents Christ and the church, sex outside of marriage represents false worship, or idolatry, man setting his own rules. And he went on to say sex between two of the same sex represents man saying he doesn’t need God.
Seriously, God has told us what marriage looks like, and why it looks that way, and has forbidden sex outside marriage. It really can’t get any clearer. Those who want a different kind of “marriage” aren’t going for marriage as God designed it, any more than those who worshiped Aaron’s golden calf were expressing true worship. And this is not a trivial error, but a grievous one. So are any sex outside of marriage, and divorce (other than because the other person has already broken the marriage covenant). Forgivable, yes, but very serious.
Report comment to moderator
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” I Timothy 3:16-17
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure his double female parents had no influence whatsoever.
upwards of 99% of trans people were raised by heterosexuals; upwards of 99% of people raised by homosexuals are not trans. I’m not sure how much proof you need.
Will he continue as a female or become very confused?
If he does not continue as female, the blockers will be removed and he will have a normal male puberty and a normal male life. Statistically, a child who has persistent trans feelings from pre-school through the middle teens will always be trans. if they go away, chances are they stay gone.
Will the media cover it if he has a tragic ending?
Yes. Controversy sells papers.
Our homosexual mayor said being molested in boyscouts had nothing to do with his being a homosexual.
it’s possible it did. But most homosexuals don’t have a history of such abuse, or other indicators often pointed to be the anti-gay Christian media. The evidence they cite for that is bogus.
FYI, sex is definitely not a trivial subject;
compared to SALVATION?
Yes, singleness is a premissible exception,
how is that possible if the purpose of marriage is to reflect Christ’s relationship with the church?
So marriage other than God designed it is a false image and a false marriage.
and yet Christi himself, as well as Paul, specified legfitimate causes for divorce – what aspect of the Christ/church relationship does divorce reflect?
A.N.A.L.O.G.Y.
From dictionary.com:
a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
Report comment to moderator
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Mark 18: 6.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy Beth,
I’m not good at keeping track of logical fallacies (which line of argument is which fallacy), but it is one to say “this says this, and that is an analogy, and therefore, since that is an analogy, it cannot possibly mean this.” We’re the ones calling it an analogy; Scripture doesn’t call it that. So to downgrade it because of what we label it is erroneous. Marriage represents Christ and the church, period. Any marriage that doesn’t do so is off base, and surely any Christian wouldn’t willingly establish a marriage that goes contrary to what marriage is intended to do.
Furthermore, it’s absurd to say that anything that is “less important” than salvation is somehow therefore trivial. Might as well say that since food and water and shelter are the most important things that a house offers, and everything else is “trivial,” there is no need for homes to be built with bathrooms as long as they have kitchens and roofs.
Sex and marriage are NOT trivial, partly because they indeed DO point to salvation truths (Christ and the church) and partly because they are God’s way of establishing families, and through families, to disciple people. They are foundational, and not trivial in any possible meaning of the word.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – It seems that Tammy Beth is grasping at straws, to find a reason to justify her/his life style in the Eyes of God and Society. You, me and other have spend time to try an explain to her the Word of God and the Christian Standards of living. She / him has time and time again reject the Christian Standard and the Word of God, which was clear presented to her / him. This seem to becoming to point, where all we can do is pray, that God will somehow reach her / him before it is too late.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy Beth “But, in point of fact, you need only look around you to see the many wonderful ways in which the world is better today because the church learned it had read God wrong.”
Let me attempt to summarize your last dozen posts or so:
a) The Bible is not clear on sexuality or marriage or homosexuality.
b) Even if the Bible is clear, people have historically read the Bible wrong. Therefore if we don’t like something the Bible says, let us assume we are also reading it wrong.
c) Most people do not follow the Bible perfectly, therefore it is OK to not do what it says.
d) The Bible treats certain subjects as more important than others, so we shouldn’t get worked up about unimportant things. And so on …
The point is that you have found many ways to rationalize your own sin. I do it. We all do it. But the difference is that most of us continue to admit that sin is sin and we have fallen short, but homosexuals will always rationalize that their own sins are good.
The important question is, “What is true?” The entire LBGT agenda is built on a house of cards. The science is essentially non-existent, the testimonies are flimsy and the end result is horrific sexual abuse and mutilation followed by a life of living a lie.
People who have permanently mutilated their own bodies have no alternative but to say that what they did was right and good, even if they know in their heart that they have made a horrible mistake. Now they must spend their lives advocating this agenda because the more people they can persuade, the better they feel about themselves.
The Bible does not condemn things in order to just be condemning. It explains the truth that we might depart from error and understand what is good and right and true. You have chosen to follow your own imaginations (Rom 1:21) and wherever the Bible disagrees you have chosen to ignore it. God has granted you the freedom to do so. However, the end result is the living of a lie. I do not say this to condemn anyone. I say it regretfully, only because it is true.
Report comment to moderator
Even though it is true that the LGBT agenda is a lie, that is no reason to not be kind. My extremely liberal mother-in-law pastor makes a point of inviting LBGTs, the homeless and even stray cats and dogs to our home every chance she gets.
We have a perfectly good time and I am perfectly comfortable being friends with sinners of all persuasions. I don’t bash them over the head with my Bible. Instead I become a good friend. This does not mean I compromise on what is true. Grace and truth are quite independent. And so, when I am asked what I think, I speak honestly and kindly as so many of you are also doing here. But in this particular case which is clearly child abuse, truth is more important than grace.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, 203 is excellent. Re 204, we speak truth in order that grace may be shown to the child.
Report comment to moderator
Lucycat, (#161)
people who say that “reasonable” people don’t respect the mental health professions should probably stop discussing things in terms defined by them.
My terms were drawn up by Dr. Marcia Angell, who for twenty years was the Chief Editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world, now a lecturer on Public Health at Harvard. Big Pharma has its stooges well and prestigiously placed in the psychiatric industry, and probably cheering on this diagnosing and dosing of pubescent “trans” children reported here too. And if you read Dr. Angell’s articles and you don’t think that giving potent neurotoxins to two year olds diagnosed with Bi-Polar and ADD isn’t irrational behavior, you’re almost as bad as the charlatan who prescribed them for that now dead child. This isn’t insanity? This mental health system that fosters for-profit companies preying on poor and desperate and ill-informed parents to encourage them to sign their families up for SSI – that is, if their troubled children go on meds. Like the case of Rebecca Riley that Angell documents here:
That poor child was so weakened by the drugs that she could not even get on and off the school bus by herself! We are rightly exercised by this poor boy diagnosed as transsexual at seven years of age, but why can’t we see the larger problem? Why do we get so outraged at one child’s maiming by the mental health system here, in this transexual case alone? Why do we shrug at the the thousands of children being treated like human guinea pigs by this new fad of dosing children barely out of babyhood off label? Drugs that are permanently altering their developing brains? Since 1995 the number of children diagnosed with bipolar disorder has multiplied more than 40-fold to roughly 800,000. And with the proposed Teen Screen those numbers will only increase from the one in fifteen that now enter adulthood with the label of “mentally ill.”
Perhaps World can do an expose of this, instead of the usual articles that echo the NAMI (the National Association for the Mentally Ill, an organization that, as reported by the New York Times, receives three quarters of its funding from drug companies) position? Always follow the money, Mr. Olasky urges. How I wish he would do so here, as most Christians are woefully ignorant of the corruption rife in this industry.
Don’t believe a word from any authority LucyCat, until you follow the money. It is a very good rule.
Report comment to moderator
Nikkideane,
Now, here’s a question – if there were a surgery, even a major surgery, which could go in and make an adjustment and give you peace – would you decline?
Yes. Because I believe that we are tripartite creatures made of body mind and spirit, so that disorder in one part will affect the other. Removing a chunk of my bad brain will still leave me with stinking thinking And my stinking thinking will produce another bad brain, anxious and depressed like before. It is not enough to change biology, the soul must change too. That was God’s answer to why He did not heal me supernaturally in response to my pitiful pleas.
And though I would never want to go through those years of severe affliction again, I am thankful for them. I call anxiety “my tether to my Lord” because every time the enemy of my soul tried to batter me about with it, I only wrapped myself around my Savior with even greater intensity.
It made me a disciple of Jesus instead of a double-minded person looking to every wind of false doctrine and wave of a magic wand in hopes to make all the suffering go away quick. It made me compassionate towards others who suffer, and gave me comfort that can give hope to others. This weakness became my greatest strength in my need to constantly depend on Jesus.
You posed this question for Joni Eareckson Tada too. She wouldn’t trade her wheelchair without the healing of her mind either, because the wheelchair was the means God used to change her, as she shares in her book, “A Place of Healing: Wrestling with the Mysteries of Pain, Suffering and God’s Sovereignty” She says, “So here I sit, glad that I have not been healed on the outside, but glad that I have been healed on the inside, freed from my own self-centered wants and wishes.” (see the bottom of page 49 on that Google Books link for the quote)
But Nikkideane, I have a question for you, now:
One of my loved ones has struggled with anorexia nearly all her life, since the onset of puberty. Although she is a healthy weight now, she still has Body Dysmorphic Disorder, and in her mind she is convinced she needs to lose 50 pounds– although achieving that would leave her emaciated, probably endangering her health. Though she is slim and beautiful, in her mind she is ugly and fat.
This disorder completely cripples her life. She cannot bear for anyone to look at her, she has severe social phobia, and she wears ugly shapeless clothing to hide the beautiful body God gave her. She weeps and is suicidal sometimes, wondering why God made her such a freak. It is piteous to hear her weeping sometimes, and what compassionate person would deny her deepest wish and free her from her misery, which is to have liposuction of what she really believes is ugly cellulite? Or perhaps it is just her brain that slows down her metabolism when she tries to diet, and all she needs is some hormone therapy for her thyroid to speed up, and she will be the weight she was really meant to be.
Isn’t it just the world’s judgmentalism that keeps her from her hearts desire? Archaic ideas of what is beautiful? What do you think?
Report comment to moderator
The major thing that’s *always* forgotten when discussing Scripture is the cultural, historical, and sociological context of the passages.
There are many denominations as well as Reform Judaism which have shoved aside Paul’s edicts about women leaders within the church and temple and have elected to ordain women. Why is it permissible for this to happen, yet Paul’s outdated and inaccurate opinion on sexuality is so strictly adhered to?
Phos’ post #159 regarding the ban on “cross-dressing” also had to be taken into its context.
As we all know, the society back then was rigidly structured as a patriarchy. It was perfectly fine for a Roman soldier to rape a defeated enemy, or for a male to be in the superior position, for they were acting in the male position. The society looked down at women and those who took the female position in the sexual act, ie Paul’s letter in 1Cor 6:9 castigating the pagan rituals where male prostitutes embodied the fertility deities.
So in that context, Phos… it was seen that if a woman wore male clothing — especially in the temple — she was violating the social structure by elevating herself to a male, and vice versa, a male lowering himself to the status of a woman by wearing clothing meant for them.
Let’s not forget that this was an era that believed the Earth was flat and had no knowledge of psychology, physiology, medicine, astronomy to a large extent, and many other advances we take for granted.
Why hasn’t there been a call by the conservative elements of Christianity for the elimination of masturbation and divorce, both of which are fully condemned in the bible?
It always amazes me to read about the continued focus of the religious reicht solely on so-called “homosexuality” in the bible, yet refuse to eliminate other evils such as hunger, homelessness, and the like?
Report comment to moderator
We’re the ones calling it an analogy; Scripture doesn’t call it that. So to downgrade it because of what we label it is erroneous.
I recommend a course in Biblical Exegesis. not just watching someone else do it, but learning to do it yourself.
Furthermore, it’s absurd to say that anything that is “less important” than salvation is somehow therefore trivial.
I didn’t use the word trivial – you did.
This seem to becoming to point, where all we can do is pray, that God will somehow reach her / him before it is too late.
Feel free. And while you are about it, asked him why he didn’t do so during the 20-30 years I spent begging him to. You ask as if i have had no intimate relationship with him, or have never given any study or prayer to this subject.
I venture to say that I’ve given more prayer and consideration to god’s view of transsexualism in any given week of my life than you have given to the subject in your ENTIRE life, and that doubled and squared.
Report comment to moderator
Let me attempt to summarize your last dozen posts or so:
a) The Bible is not clear on sexuality or marriage or homosexuality.
b) Even if the Bible is clear, people have historically read the Bible wrong. Therefore if we don’t like something the Bible says, let us assume we are also reading it wrong.
c) Most people do not follow the Bible perfectly, therefore it is OK to not do what it says.
d) The Bible treats certain subjects as more important than others, so we shouldn’t get worked up about unimportant things. And so on …
wow. 0 for 4. Wel, that’s unkind, you get in the general neighborhood a few times.
A. The Bible is unclear – that is, is vague enough that varying interpretations by people of good faith and scholarship are possible – on virtually every subject beyond the existence of God and Jesus.
B. The current field of theology AND the historical record are replete with two major themes: 1. that Christians of good faith and scholarship ALWAYS disagree on major theological points; and 2. that in many many many cases the majority view has been demonstrated at length to have been the incorrect one.
C. It is never “ok to not do what it says” but it is acceptable to have a different point of view about what it says. Also, many people obey it imperfectly because the sinful nature of humanity leads us to prioritize the failings of others over our own. That is, “I have a perfectly valid reason to be divorced, but my gay neighbor is a heinous pervert” – it undermines one’s credibility to minimize their own failing while maximizing that of others and therefore creates the impression that the persons interpretation of what the bible actually says might be likewise faulty.
D. The Bible indeed indicates some things are more important to properly understand, as does logic and reasoning. for one example – if you get salvation wrong, but tithing right – you will still not see God. if you get tithing wrong but salvation right, you will. this does not mean the lesser things lack importance, but it does imply that a perfect God will logically leave less margin for error in the more foundational doctrines than in the secondary ones.
The point is that you have found many ways to rationalize your own sin. I do it. We all do it. But the difference is that most of us continue to admit that sin is sin and we have fallen short, but homosexuals will always rationalize that their own sins are good.
Are you under the impression that I consider myself sinless? What good would it do to rationalize away one sin while fully admitting to many others? ANY sin separates us from God but for his grace. Why do you phrase it “homosexuals will always rationalize”
Heterosexuals have no difficulty in this area?
The important question is, “What is true?” The entire LBGT agenda is built on a house of cards. The science is essentially non-existent, the testimonies are flimsy and the end result is horrific sexual abuse and mutilation followed by a life of living a lie.
And here you default to the basic boiler-plate mythology routinely disseminated by anti-gay people with nothing but opinion to back it up. I’m not about to get baited into trying to tear down that whole nonsensical edifice. if that’s what you think is true then someone else will have to argue with you – I know a lost cause when I see one.
Report comment to moderator
It is not enough to change biology, the soul must change too. That was God’s answer to why He did not heal me supernaturally in response to my pitiful pleas.
So why don’t yall just speak bluntly: go ahead and call me a liar when I tell you I spent my whole life seeking god’s healing for these feelings, considering them an unwanted curse.
it’s funny how my fellow Christians are quick to believe any testimony that confirms their pre-existing assumptions, and call a lie any testimony they don’t like.
You posed this question for Joni Eareckson Tada
Actually, in both cases, it was me.
She wouldn’t trade her wheelchair without the healing of her mind either, because the wheelchair was the means God used to change her, as she shares in her book,
And you ignore the reality that for the transsexual, the problem with the body IS what afflicts the mind. Thousands can testify that there mental distress has healed by their physical surgery.
But they don’t know anything. YOU know. Not sure how, but you are confident that you do.
The same is true of her, by the way. she can say “glad” all she wants to because that’s how she makes peace with the impossibility of the healing. Anyone who believes that if a surgeon, or God from heaven himself, offered her the opportunity to walk again she would turn them down is far too gullible for me to even understand. I am happy for her that she made peace with what could not be fixed. 100 years ago that’s all any transsexual could have done, made peace or killed themselves.
But making peace with a situation that CAN’T be changed is not the same thing as spurring the opportunity when it can.
This disorder completely cripples her life. She cannot bear for anyone to look at her, she has severe social phobia, and she wears ugly shapeless clothing to hide the beautiful body God gave her. She weeps and is suicidal sometimes, wondering why God made her such a freak. It is piteous to hear her weeping sometimes, and what compassionate person would deny her deepest wish and free her from her misery, which is to have liposuction of what she really believes is ugly cellulite? Or perhaps it is just her brain that slows down her metabolism when she tries to diet, and all she needs is some hormone therapy for her thyroid to speed up, and she will be the weight she was really meant to be.
By all means, explain to me how my having gender surgery is as medically unhealthy as a person reducing themselves to 50 pounds underweight. An analogy only works if the things compared are similar.
let me adjust it a bit for you. if your friend could have a surgery, or take a medication , which reconciled her view of herself with her actual condition, would you suggest she take it – or would you tell her to suck it up and change her soul?
Report comment to moderator
TammyBeth,
I went back to the original comment, #137, and (my bad!) although the discussion originated in a discussion with Nikkideane, it was you who picked up on my remarks, and asked that question about whether or not I’d have a surgery to fix my anxiety. Sorry about the confusion.
What do you think about my answer, and my new question, that should have been posed to you?
Report comment to moderator
Society looked down at women – Which society? First the Mosaic law which I quoted is mentioned and then an example is given about Roman soldiers raping women – there’s a couple thousand years between Moses and Rome; and Rome was a pagan society.
As for Israel, just because women couldn’t enter the inner tabernacle or temple due to the blood of their menstrual periods (Leviticus 15:31, 17:10-14)), doesn’t mean they weren’t valued. The daughers of Zelophehad were property owners (Numbers 27:1-11), Deborah ruled as a judge (Judges 4&5), Huldah was an important prophetess (II Kings 22:14-20). Even a woman captured in war had to be treated with consideration (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). The cultural explanation of Deuteronomy 22:5 is inaccurate, because such a culture never existed. [BTW - Medieval society didn't believe the world was flat either]
The sexual immoralities condemned by God’s Law were found in pagan rituals, but how does that justify them now? Are they somehow sanctified by modern culture? Romans 1:18-32 explains the connection between immorality and paganism in history, and makes it abundantly clear that in whatever context the immorality is found, it is still sin in God’s eyes.
‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness…
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient…
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.’
As for the law being outdated, Christ would not have agreed:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19
Report comment to moderator
#210 Tammy Beth “The current field of theology AND the historical record are replete with two major themes: 1. that Christians of good faith and scholarship ALWAYS disagree on major theological points;”
That is not possible, since it is agreement on the major theological points which makes someone a Christian.
“and 2. that in many many many cases the majority view has been demonstrated at length to have been the incorrect one.”
Can you provide even a single example to back that up?
“Why do you phrase it “homosexuals will always rationalize”
Because homosexuality is the only sin that I have ever heard declared to be not a sin, but good and right. Individuals will rationalize their own sins, but they will still acknowledge those actions to be sin, esp. if done by others.
“And here you default to the basic boiler-plate mythology routinely disseminated by anti-gay people with nothing but opinion to back it up.”
You cannot prove it to be mythology, since the statements were true. It is not my opinion. It is an appeal to truth.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy Beth, I graduated from Bible college and have had more than one course in exegesis. But thanks for the suggestion.
Marlene, post 208, your post is so riddled with errors about Scripture and Christians that there’s no point in touching it. (And BTW, conservative Christians are against the ordination of women and divorce.)
Report comment to moderator
I see no reason to answer the theological challenges of others when every single question I’ve asked has been pretty much completely ignored.
I suspect this is because people are trained in rote answer (sorta like a Jehovah’s Witness) and anything that gets off script has to be ignored.
In any case, I spend all my time giving direct specific replies to other people points and they spend their time breezing over mine with, at best, generalities.
That’s bad form.
I think I’ve provided a pretty good helping of basic information and it’s not my responsibility if people ignore it.
On the other hand, EVERY SINGLE argument made here from a religious and Biblical perspective I not only already knew about, but I often made the same arguments myself – I WANTED them to be true because if they were then that meant there was hope for me to be delivered from this curse. I have been studying and meditating on and praying over those very passages for DECADES.
PLEASE do not insult my intelligence by presuming you are going to offer up a proof text, or frame a theological argument on this subject that I have not spent huge portions of my life already giving consideration to.
Do not presume yourself so clever that you will produce one I haven’t already known about for 20 years.
There’s not one of you opponents here who’s spent 5 collective hours in their entire life studying this subject, either in the Scriptures or the science. I’ve had hundreds of days in my life when I spent that much time per day. I’ve spent more time with god in prayer on this subject that you’ve spent praying for your mama.
You’d do well not to assume you are dealing with some refugee from a drum circle here.
Report comment to moderator
That is not possible, since it is agreement on the major theological points which makes someone a Christian.
The Baptist, the Church of Christ, and the Catholics (to name just a few) all disagree on specific points about how one achieves (and keeps) salvation. do you deny this?
Can you provide even a single example to back that up?
1. Salvation at the point of a sword is proper
2. the Church and the state should be one
3. Heretics should be put to death
4. Slavery is approved in the Bible
5. Interracial relationships are unbiblical
6. War in the name of Christ is proper
7. the religion of the king is the religion of the people
That’s just the easy ones.
Also, just for fun: in our current day one church will tell you that a woman must always wear skirts or it is sin, another does not agree. Upon what basis do we decide which is wrong when both believe that they are accurately applying the word of God? MANY other examples of this situation exist.
<b.You cannot prove it to be mythology, since the statements were true. It is not my opinion. It is an appeal to truth.
Every word of it is patent nonsense, offered as a defensive bullwark against the possibility that what you believe might turn out to be untrue, and worse, that you might have spent your life alienating people from God that he wanted to reach.
All of us have a strong desire to avoid facing the reality that we are in error – many people go to fantastic lengths to do so.
I’ve already crossed that bridge. I know far more peace with God now, absent all that BS you posted, than I ever knew when I believed it to be true.
Report comment to moderator
more busted code. Sigh. Maybe you can see where the bold should stop and start.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy Beth, I graduated from Bible college and have had more than one course in exegesis. But thanks for the suggestion.
I’m glad, now let me offer one more – apply it without a pre-assumed bias. lay aside all the stuff you’ve been indoctrinated with and check those verses according to the rules of exegesis. The don’t always say what you think.
By the way, I’ll fully admit that some of the verses from Paul are pretty difficult. A surface reading tends to confirm biases. but a SURFACE reading tells you that you should keep quite in the church (funny how I’ve brought that one up 3 or 4 times in this thread and no one has yet explained why women no longer have to follow it, or claim that they should).
it takes more than a surface reading to understand.
Report comment to moderator
So, Tammy Beth, you know all the answers on this subject, but we should still take time to answer all your questions. Why, exactly? The fact that you have studied it and your mind is made up is exactly why I for one haven’t bothered. (That and the fact that this is an extraordinarily busy week for me!)
Report comment to moderator
it’s funny how my fellow Christians are quick to believe any testimony that confirms their pre-existing assumptions, and call a lie any testimony they don’t like.
TammyBeth, I am not calling you a liar. I am saying you are not the norm for post-operative transsexuals, which a Swedish study corroborates:
And really the opposite is true — any Trans who regrets their operation is often called a liar, as journalist David Batty of the Guardian reports, after his controversial article “Sex Changes are Not Effective, Say Researchers.”
And you ignore the reality that for the transsexual, the problem with the body IS what afflicts the mind. Thousands can testify that there mental distress has healed by their physical surgery.
No, I do not. I fully acknowledge that the Dysmorphia in the short term is fixed. Transexuals who enjoyed cross dressing before the surgery continue to get satisfaction from it, as Dr. Paul McHugh writes in First Things:
Anyone who believes that if a surgeon, or God from heaven himself, offered her the opportunity to walk again she would turn them down is far too gullible for me to even understand.
I didn’t say that. I said a body change without a mind change would be turned down, which is the point I keep trying to make here. The Body Dysphoria may indeed change, but the underlying “stinking thinking’ that makes their lives miserable does not — that is the case with most trans, you indeed may be an exception, but that is by no means making a rule.
By all means, explain to me how my having gender surgery is as medically unhealthy as a person reducing themselves to 50 pounds underweight. An analogy only works if the things compared are similar.
You are a human guinea pig, so we can only make conjectures here, and if the pattern remains true with Big Pharma in these studies, every study unfavorable to long term health risks for Transgenders will be suppressed or spinned, and remain murky. But the research for post-menopausal women on long term HRT is very scary, and I am sure you are very familiar with it. Increased risk of clotting, heart attacks strokes and invasive cancers with results so marked the studies had to be discontinued because women were considered to be at great risk to stay on the HRT. And I’ve already cited the studies showing increased risk of suicide and morbidity for post-op Trans.
And I maintain the analogy is still a good one. My friend was 87 pounds at her goal weight and although emaciated, she was energetic and happy. She lived a much fuller life –she worked a steady job, had a social life, and still looks with nostalgia on those years as the happiest of her life.
if your friend could have a surgery, or take a medication , which reconciled her view of herself with her actual condition, would you suggest she take it – or would you tell her to suck it up and change her soul?
I asked you that question, and I note you have not answered it. Is it because you realy would– you really would do that, perform liposuction on this desperately soul-sick sister?
But she knows in her heart of hearts that her condition is spiritual, not physical. She just hasn’t come to the end of looking for quick fixes, yet. But I would never tell her to “just suck it up.” I intercede for her when she calls on me in her desperation, and I massage that hated body of hers because it provides her the only relief from it she can find, and I try to help her find the resources that will get her out of the pit. I try always to point her to Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
So, Tammy Beth, you know all the answers on this subject, but we should still take time to answer all your questions. Why, exactly? The fact that you have studied it and your mind is made up is exactly why I for one haven’t bothered.
out of a similar respect that I show your comments – which also seem to be VERY certain of their correctness?
if i can read your “I am certain I’m right” posts and respond anyway (and not just you but all the folks I’ve replied to) why does no one show me the same respect?
Report comment to moderator
You are a human guinea pig, so we can only make conjectures here, and if the pattern remains true with Big Pharma in these studies, every study unfavorable to long term health risks for Transgenders will be suppressed or spinned, and remain murky.
what stake does big pharma have in my lousey $4 a month estrace pill?
There are just as many medical risks, and those treated with MUCH more profitable medications, in post-menopausal women eschewing HRT.
I won’t quote the sources you cite bit-by-bit but I can tell you that everything you have mentioned has been thoroughly debunked – particularly Dr. McHugh who openly lets his Catholic faith dictate his “scientific” opinion. I know, you will call that spin. but that’s the nature of all this kind of evidence, both you and I will always say that the study which supports our view is credible and the one which opposes it is bunk.
There’s never going to be a definitive debate winner like that. That’s not to say there are no sound studies – there are. it’s just that even those will be rejected by the person who’s agenda they undermine.
What I’m speaking to you from is from living within both the Christian community and the trans community. I know what I see with my own eyes and learn from my friends.
When I’m discussing religion with my largely skeptical left-wing trans friends, they have just as many misconceptions and biases against your faith as you have against them, and THEY think i’m a bit of a religious nut because I’m a Christian and not a basher.
So there ya go.
The very fact that your first comment above is “we can only make conjecture here” is the foundational one – because your faith tells you this is wrong, you MUST, somehow, someway, come up with SOME conjuncture which allows you intellectual self-respect while opposing our treatment out of what is, in reality, a religious bias.
And I maintain the analogy is still a good one. My friend was 87 pounds at her goal weight and although emaciated, she was energetic and happy. She lived a much fuller life –she worked a steady job, had a social life, and still looks with nostalgia on those years as the happiest of her life.
Was she medically healthy, or ill? For your analogy to hold, either she was healthy, as I am (apart from being overweight) or i must be unhealthy as you assert her to be – which i am not.
But she knows in her heart of hearts that her condition is spiritual, not physical.
therefore it’s obvious mine is too? you don’t think that ever crossed my mind?
Laying aside all the disagreements, let me pose this question to you:
I am healthy, I’ve more inner peace and a better relationship with god than I’ve ever had, I am not hurting anyone on earth by having transitioned (the pain that was caused was caused by intolerance, not my by act), I have not ask you to compromise anything or contribute anything on my behalf – by what right and upon who’s authority do you have the liberty to meddle with that?
We live in a free country and people do things every second of every day that you surely consider unwise (often in the name of faith) – thing I disagree with too. I don’t take it upon myself to “fix ” people – why do you?
We started this thread with a legitimate question, concerning the treatment of this child. And while the initial responses were riddled with bad assumptions and false information, it IS a legitimate question how that situation is best handled in the case of a child.
But the more we drift into debates about what the bible says and the more we start challenging respondents (i.e. me and the other transwomen here) on THERE lives the further we get from the point.
The original question still stands, whether or not this is a medically appropriate course of action for this child. whether or not it’s a spiritually appropriate course of action is irrelevant because we do not charge our government with the job of being sure every child has a theologically sound childhood.
Whether or not anyone here views my choices or Zoe’s or whoever as wise, appropriate for a believer, or anything else is (a) off topic; and (b) frankly none of your business.
I give account of myself to God, not to man.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl — If conservative Christians are *so* against divorce, why aren’t they in the battle of banning it? Opps! I forgot… the *highest* rate of divorce is among fundamentalist Christians in the South!
If conservative Christians are *so* against the ordination of women, why haven’t they invaded the other seminaries like what’s happened with the Southern Baptists and force out all of the women ministers from their ranks? Could it be that those seminaries which *do* ordain women faced the fact that these women heard the call and and don’t question it?
If even the most conservative Christian accepts scientific facts regarding astronomy, medicine, virology, etcetera, why do they continue to put their head in the sand to reject the *fact* that there are different genders, gender identities, and sexual orientations?
Report comment to moderator
@ Karen Butler: Sorry for the delay in reply to your question. Frankly, I lost interest in this blog to be honest since it seems like the non-Trans folks were so close minded and judgemental that debate was futile.
Anyway, let me respond to your analogy of your friend with the Eating Disorder and Body Dysmorphic Disorder. First of all I will preface this with the statement that I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but I can give you my lay man’s take on the subject.
Eating Disorders appear to be an acquired psychological disorder due to self esteem issues resulting from environmental factors such as family issues, trauma, abuse etc.
Gender Identity Disorder and Sexual Orientation are traits that are inborn and occur during fetal development. I will agree that environmental factors may have an effect especially in the case of Bisexuality but generally we are talking about conditions that are biologically acquired and therefore not “cured” by psychological treatment. Psychological therapy may help a Trans or Gay person to learn to accept themselves and treat the self esteem issues resulting from being “different” and social disaPPROVAL BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO ALTER their basic core personality. Eating Disorders can be treated with proper psychological counselling since it is a learned and reactive behavior to stress, trauma, and poor self esteem.
In a sense you are comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same things, although, I can understand the similarity and the reason for your question.
Report comment to moderator
#217 Tammy Beth “Can you provide even a single example to back that up?
1. Salvation at the point of a sword is proper
2. the Church and the state should be one
3. Heretics should be put to death
4. Slavery is approved in the Bible
5. Interracial relationships are unbiblical
6. War in the name of Christ is proper
7. the religion of the king is the religion of the people
That’s just the easy ones.”
Except that none of those are major theological points. Most aren’t even Christian doctrine.
So here is the problem. You say you have much more experience, research and theological knowledge than anyone here and that those of us who disagree are closed minded, bigoted, judgmental and spouting patent nonsense. Yet you cannot produce a shred of actual evidence either from science or Christian doctrine to back up your position.
I am not here to argue about your decisions. It is your life. If you want to hack off your own body parts and tell everyone how happy you are, then go for it. But if you want to justify it by Christian doctrine you will have to cite actual scripture. If you want to justify it by hard science, then you’ll have to produce real evidence, not testimonials. And when you start going after children, that is where we will need to draw the line.
Report comment to moderator
When someone is so trapped in false teaching. The only answer is prayer.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
It goes back to the idea, that she has a desire to live right in the eyes of God but do not want to surrender to the Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
Marlene, you seem to assume it is the Christian’s place to “ban” things we disagree with. How on earth can I affect whether a different denomination ordains women? And what say do I have on the legality of divorce?
I can marry with a 100% lifetime commitment, as I am doing. I cannot change laws; I can’t even change hearts. Only God can change hearts.
Meanwhile I got about two hours of sleep last night and I am still insanely busy, so that’s all I’m going to say.
Report comment to moderator
Except that none of those are major theological points. Most aren’t even Christian doctrine.
Not any more. But they were at given points in history the official position of the church, supposedly based on their understanding of Scripture, and accepted by the vast majority of believers.
not that I’m surprised you’d evade the point instead of simply admitting the errors of the past.
Yet you cannot produce a shred of actual evidence either from science or Christian doctrine to back up your position.
I certainly can – but your reaction her demonstrates why I’d be wasting my time to do so. “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still” as they say.
But if you want to justify it by Christian doctrine you will have to cite actual scripture.
right. no one has answered any of my challenges or questions but I’m supposed to pony up more than I already have. in point of fact, any reasonably intelligent person knows that you cannot post “Scriptural justification” in an area where Scripture is silent. I can’t provide Scriptural justification for driving a car either.
If you want to justify it by hard science, then you’ll have to produce real evidence,
So opponents can trot out and reject it as having been “spun”? I know how that game works too my friend. I played it for many years. Again yall seem to think you are dealing with a patsy.
Oh, and by the way, no one is “going after” kids, despite the paranoid delusions fed to you by those who’d like to control your minds and votes.
Report comment to moderator
An the dog keeps chasing his tail. Never catching it, never understanding why.
Report comment to moderator
1 Corinthians 2:12-14
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Report comment to moderator
1 Corinthians 3:18-20
New King James Version (NKJV)
Avoid Worldly Wisdom
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”
Report comment to moderator
so, ya want some science? Try this:
AMA Journal of Ethics:
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2010/08/jdsc1-1008.html
[quote]
In the prepubertal population, there is an additional treatment possibility: the suppression of puberty using continuous gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, which have the effect of blocking the release of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) from the pituitary gland. This, in turn, prevents the secretion of endogenous sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) from the gonads, halting the progression of puberty, including the development of secondary sex characteristics. During this time, patients are medically monitored and receive regular psychotherapy. Giordano says that the fundamental benefit of this treatment strategy is that “children gain time to reflect over their gender identity, without becoming trapped in a body that is experienced as alien” [5]. The bulk of this reflective process occurs with the help of a psychotherapist, who oftentimes asks the child to have a real-life experience living as the other gender (i.e., in dress and behavior) to help determine whether or not he or she desires the transition [6].
The importance of preventing development of secondary sex characteristics during this period cannot be overstated. Once these children, who are already experiencing considerable distress over their gender incongruence, undergo the pubertal development of the “wrong” sex, their psychological well-being deteriorates significantly, and many develop depression and suicidal ideation [7]. They can experience alienation and harassment at school if they are unable to participate in cross-gender activities or use cross-sex restrooms. They can be bullied and abused. Such circumstances can lead these youths to drop out of school [8] and develop significant psychiatric morbidity [9]. Because these risks can be so great, the need for medical and psychological intervention is paramount. Suppressing puberty and allowing children the opportunity to explore their true gender identities decreases their risk for suicide [10].
A child who decides to change his or her sex then starts cross-sex hormones. Because puberty was arrested before development of secondary sex characteristics, the child will achieve a “more normal and satisfactory appearance” after the transition [5] than if he or she had waited until adulthood, in which case many irreversible features (e.g., height) or solely surgically reversible features (e.g., breast and genital development) would have formed. Giordano also believes children who have been treated before puberty have better psychosocial outcomes, such as greater comfort with their physical selves, better social adjustment, and fewer psychiatric complications. Should they decide not to change sex, “puberty suppressant drugs can be withheld and development restarts as normal” [5].
Giordano then turns to concerns about the safety of what is still an experimental treatment. First, are we putting children at risk for short- or long-term adverse events? It is worthwhile to note that exogenous continuous GnRH administration is the standard of care for the treatment of precocious puberty, and its safety and efficacy have been extensively studied [11]. Children with GID can be said to have another type of incorrect puberty and therefore qualify for GnRH agonist treatment. Research has shown that suppression of puberty is safe, causing minimal side effects [6]. If parents become concerned about this treatment, they can safely and easily stop treatment and allow development to restart normally in the biological sex. Though, as one prominent British physician points out, the fact of having given a child GnRH agonists is not reversible (i.e., we cannot make it “un-happen”); nonetheless, the effects of the treatment are both “temporary and reversible” [12].
Nevertheless, GnRH agonists are an experimental treatment for pediatric GID, and children cannot be forced into receiving experimental treatment without their consent. Given this situation, are these prepubescent children able to provide consent for the treatment? Giordano says that they can, so long as the clinician discusses all potential risks and benefits, as he or she must do with any experimental drug. Because this is the only therapy available for children with GID, it might be considered unethical to deny this treatment option.
Another concern in suppressing puberty comes from the idea that arresting an otherwise normally developing body interrupts a development that might further elucidate a patient’s true gender identity. It is possible that discovery of one’s gender identity occurs during a specific or predetermined developmental stage, which is actually halted when puberty is suppressed. Some ask, is there an age at which we can be reasonably sure someone has a sufficiently clear understanding of his or her gender identity to make a decision of this kind? Finding a generalized answer to this question would certainly simplify the GID treatment process, but, of course, chronologic age does not correspond to a specific level of physical or psychological maturity or guarantee that a child has had particular experiences. Hence, the individual nature of readiness for a decision of this kind makes the psychotherapeutic element of the treatment all the more important.
It is currently recommended that treatment be initiated when the patient is in the Tanner II or III stage of puberty, when it is felt that “the child has had some experience of his/her biological gender” [10]. Data indicate that children who continue to experience gender dysphoria into early adolescence will maintain a transgender identity [13], so it is prudent to wait until this time to initiate treatment—but not much longer. If treatment is postponed too long, children may experience significant distress over the incongruities between their physical and psychological selves, and pubertal changes that are irreversible or only reversible by surgical means may occur, causing greater medical difficulties. It is currently recommended that children continue with GnRH agonist treatment until the age of 16, at which point administration of cross-sex hormones can begin [5]. Giordano underscores the importance of frank discussions of potential risks and benefits—both of treatment and no treatment—throughout this process.
Giordano concludes that “if allowing puberty to progress appears likely to harm the child, puberty should be suspended” [14]. It would be unethical to allow a patient to suffer through the distress of pubertal development when we have a way of preventing the distress it causes. Children and adolescents who suffer from gender identity disorder face significant physical, psychological, and social challenges, and receiving an inconsistent standard of medical care adds to those challenges. Unfortunately, many clinicians are uncomfortable with the option of puberty suppression for these children, which inhibits their access to care; it is imperative that health care professionals become familiar with this treatment option. As health care professionals, we have an obligation to alleviate suffering—and for our pediatric patients with GID, who are undoubtedly suffering, suppression of puberty is a safe and easy way to begin to do so. Furthermore, if legitimate medical treatment is not available, those with GID will seek it through other channels, which are much more likely to be unsafe and will certainly not involve an appropriate level of monitoring or adjustment to manage complications [10]. This makes it all the more clear that we are professionally duty-bound to provide this treatment to those in need of it.
Howzat?
Report comment to moderator
I think this passages it
“18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”
Report comment to moderator
AMA Journal of Ethics are know as a far left group now. That behavior and views are questionabily views
Report comment to moderator
“far left” = “does not support my predetermined position”
The EXACT same rhetorical dodge the left uses when someone cites a source they disagree with.
Which is PRECISELY why I hadn’t quoted any source up to this point.
And you can toss of verses all you want, I’m not impressed until my simple questions are addressed.
Report comment to moderator
And you can toss of verses all you want, I’m not impressed until my simple questions are addressed.
—
I am not tryig to impress you. The fact is God’s Word has adress man’s wisdom or the world widsom, which you have been promoting.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”
Report comment to moderator
“far left” = “does not support my predetermined position”
—
Yes it does, because that is what you have being promoting far left positions.
Report comment to moderator
The EXACT same rhetorical dodge the left uses when someone cites a source they disagree with.
—
The group you citied from is know as being on the far left when it comes to the ideas being promoted by the GLBT Community.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl — What I’m trying to get at is that if certain denominations are trying to ban marriage equality and civil rights for TLBG folk based on less than ten passages in a Bronze Age book, why aren’t those *same* people demanding that divorce be banned because Jesus condemned it, and why aren’t those *same* Christians demanding that ALL seminaries remove ALL women from *every* church because of Paul’s edict?
You know, that same Paul certain Christians use to shove in TLBG people’s faces as justification for their hate and bigotry?
As to Roy’s rant, I love how ministers can pick and choose scripture to back up their feeble assertions.
“The bible is 100% accurate because the bible says so!” is what you’re saying Roy… but that’s just circular reasoning, of course.
I have logic and reason… that same kind of reason, thanks to the Enlightenment, kept this country from going the same route of Europe with their endless religious wars, thanks to the Establishment Clause, forced the state to keeps its hands ourt of religion and vice versa.
Report comment to moderator
first problem Establishment Clause forced the state to keeps its hands ourt of religion, it does not stop the Church from being involved in Government Issues.
Second I did ot pick and choose scripture to back up any thing.
Third since based on your comment you are not a Christian. So what does it matter to you what we believe. If you do not like the fact we are standing up against the GLBT Cumminty, fine stop forcig on to society. If you stop forcing then we will stop speaking out aginst it.
Report comment to moderator
You know, that same Paul certain Christians use to shove in TLBG people’s faces as justification for their hate and bigotry?
—-
The only hate and bigotry I see is coming from the GBT Community and their support. Who are working hard to silence the Christian from speaken out against the GLBT Community.
Report comment to moderator
In any case, I spend all my time giving direct specific replies to other people points and they spend their time breezing over mine with, at best, generalities.
That’s bad form.
I agree entirely, and I am equally frustrated with you for ducking the question I keep asking you. You keep insisting my friend’s Body Dysmorphia is an unhealthy behavior. I keep patiently explaining she is now at a healthy weight, she eats a calorie restricted diet of superfoods –grains, greens, soy, all the good stuff. She exercises diligently as well, and such calorie restricted diet that is not malnourishment has been demonstrated to lengthen the life of rats– twice as long as expected–and “the calorie-restricted mice also maintained youthful appearances and activity levels longer and showed delays in age-related diseases.” This is of great interest to scientist and a Nobel laureate at UCSF is studying the psychological and physiology of CR practitioners. So drop the red herring, the analogy is very good, and it stands.
She is certainly healthier than you, plumped artificially full of hormones proven to induce heart attack stroke and invasive cancers, and living in a state of permanent menopause. Psychologically and physically, the outcomes for most transsexuals are not promising, as the serious studies I cited in my earlier comment have proven. And as the stories and solid research of this former transwoman who returned to living as a man, and embraced Orthodox Christianity describes in his very helpful book, “Paper Genders” and blog “Sex Change Regret .
So the question I pose to you is, why don’t the helpful psychiatrists at JAMA take up this poor woman’s case? Why aren’t the compassionate plastic surgeons rushing to her aid? Oh forget altruism, there’s lots of money to be made, in endless resculpting, after all. So she can be remade to conform to her idolatrous image.
All she wants is the womanly curves surgically excised, surgery on her face, chin and neck–to create the hollows she believes she should have. And after that, hormones to speed up her metabolism, and maintain the look she believes is truly HER. She is miserable and suicidal at times, and sincerely believes this is the only way she can possibly live a happy and fullfilled life.
Tammybeth, stop ducking the question! Why should your conventions and prejudice against extremely thin people keep her from her heart’s desire? Why are you so intolerant?
Can you not bring yourself to answer because you cannot begin to admit to yourself that her delusion is no different from your delusion, after all? It is very hard to see it for what it is,isn’t it?
I am not judging you. I know, as one who was caught up in lies for so many years, the best thing that ever happened to me was believing the truth about myself. And about what Jesus said about me too. It set me free! I pray the same for you.
Report comment to moderator
I forgot the Wikilink to Calorie Restricted Diets.
Blessings to you, Tammybeth.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, I don’t understand about your friend. (I have a friend–not a close friend–with anorexia, and would like to understand it better.) Does she know intellectually that being her current weight is healthier, so she’s maintaining it though her emotions don’t follow along? Or how can she be a healthy weight and yet resisting it?
Report comment to moderator
This is a classic example of why lesbians/gays should not be allowed to have or adopt children. This is child abuse and stealing a little boys sexual identity to suit the so called parents/mommies. A 7 yr old child does not have the capacity to determine whether or not they have a sexual identity crisis. And what would be expected of a little boy being raised by two mommies? He is being exposed to only the female side of identity. And the experts who have diagnosed and condone this procedure in a small child are also sick or lesbian/gay themselves. Small children can not be diagnosed with an identity crisis. Most of them present traits of both sexes at times depending on their environment. My daughter played equally with Barbie Dolls as she did with race cars and Tonka Trucks. She climbed trees and enjoyed fishing. She also like to wear makeup etc. A 7 year old child has not matured enough or gone though puberty to maturity of male or female. This is a warped idea of the mommie parents and their likewise supportive professionals. Nature/God whatever – Male is male and Female is female – you are what you were intended to be. It is the warped values of some humans that is the real problem. Humans have a superior brain to other creatures on this planet and should be able to make logical decisions. But the two women deciding to change their adopted little boy into a girl is child abuse and stealing the child’s natural identity.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what will happen when this little boy converted to a girl will do when they get older and find out what their two lesbian mommies did to them? Homicide enters my mind as one possibility. The environment that a child is raised in and is exposed to has a great affect on the behavior and character of that child. The problem is that lesbians/gays/and their supporters have worked their way into the legal system, the medical system, and the education system where they are promoting their homosexual agenda and condemning anyone who speaks out against them. If a Christian who does not condone homosexual behavior is called a bigot; what do you call two lesbians who whack off a little boys penis to make him a girl? Who are the sick individuals in that scenario?
Report comment to moderator
sorry missspelled words
first problem, THE Establishment Clause forced the state to keeps its hands ouT of religion, it does not stop the Church from being involved in Government Issues.
Second, I did Not pick and choose scripture to back up any thing.
Third, since based on your comment you are not a Christian. So what does it matter to you, what we believe. If you do not like the fact we are standing up against the GLBT Cumminty, fine stop forciNg on to society. If you stop forcing it on to society, then we will stop speaking out aginst it.
Report comment to moderator
As Chrsitian’s we believe God’s Word sets the standard for the Christian to live by. An God’s Word is clear marriage is between one man and one woman. Any sexual relationship out side of that relationship is called a sexual sin and Christian’s can not support nor permote those type of relationship.
God made men to be men,women to be women. He did not make a man trapped in a womens body or a woman trapped in a man body. That is the ideas coming from society.
Gad made man to be drawn to a woman and a woman to be drawn to a man.
Report comment to moderator
#226 Tammy Beth – You keep saying we aren’t answering your questions. Which ones? I don’t see any we haven’t answered.
“Except that none of those are major theological points. Most aren’t even Christian doctrine. Not any more. But they were at given points in history the official position of the church, supposedly based on their understanding of Scripture, and accepted by the vast majority of believers. not that I’m surprised you’d evade the point instead of simply admitting the errors of the past.
As I said, none of that was Christian doctrine. I readily admit the errors of the church. God’s erroneous people never fail to fail. However, Christianity is defined by Christ and his words in the Bible, not by the actions of those who fail to follow him. If you want to quote actual Christian doctrine to us, then you are going to have to cite actual verses from the Bible.
#234 “so, ya want some science? Try this: AMA Journal of Ethics…”
That’s ethics not science. An article on suppressing puberty in children does not prove that these children are mentally one sex, but physically another. It does not provide any evidence that anything is wrong with them or that their sexuality should be altered.
The human mind is a powerful thing and mankind knows very little about it. Until just a few years ago, psychology held that men and women were the same. Now that they claim that gender is ambiguous. They really have no idea. As Noam Chomsky says, Science is the study of very simple things. The human mind is not simple.
As a teenager, I joined a cult and disappeared from society. I lived with the homeless and believed all sorts of things about the physical and spiritual worlds. My view of myself and others changed dramatically. I learned a lot about how powerful the human mind is and how easily it is altered to believe things which are not true.
It is not difficult to convince children of all sorts of things which are not true. It is no surprise that a child living with sexually confused parents would also be sexually confused. The good news is that children are very resilient. The bad news is that sexual alterations are permanent.
Report comment to moderator
#250 “As Christians we believe God’s Word sets the standard for the Christian to live by.”
That’s true. The Bible is objective. Science is objective. However, everything the LGBT community has told us in the last 250 posts has been subjective. The LGBT agenda is based wholly on feelings and emotions and politics. Their only evidence is subjective testimony. The world is falling for the lie and children are being harmed as a result. This is child abuse. It is evil.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
The no-go zone for anorexics is any question about eating or weight or motivations for doing what they do. What I know is what she lets slip in her distress, and so I will be making conjectures.
I think her maintenance of a healthy weight is the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in her life, and the power of the Gospel applied to the choices she makes moment by moment–but she is still deeply conflicted about it. Hence the deep grief about her body. She is the “double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” This is an area of idolatry and self-will that still must be repented of. But it is a powerful delusion, and she is in a great spiritual battle.
I greatly covet prayer on her behalf, that she would get the counseling she needs, that she could find a counselor she could trust– after repeated forced institutionalizations, she is deeply distrustful of the mental health industry. It was she who educated me about psychiatrists and Big Pharma. She collected articles so that she could refuse their ‘treatments’. I thought it was a paranoid delusion of hers, I understand she really has been victimized by that system. Her medications only made her gain weight, and gave her tardive dyskinesia that fortunately has waned now that she is free of the meds.
Do you have any books that you have read that have been helpful? You seem to have read everything. From a Christian, gospel-preaching standpoint –she is sick of psychobabble. She tears those kind up!
But there is so much hope for her! I see so much growth in humility, and godliness —and wisdom! She gives me as great counsel as much as I help her. She will be an amazing trophy of grace when she is out of this refining fire.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, no, I haven’t read any books on the subject. I have a friend with whom I’m not actively in touch who seemed to have won the battle, but then later admitted to having gone through another hard year, so I don’t know how it’s going.
Report comment to moderator
that same kind of reason, thanks to the Enlightenment, kept this country from going the same route of Europe with their endless religious wars
Don’t be silly, Marlene! How can their be religious wars when the Bible is very clear what God approves and condemns? Surely you have been misinformed!!
(and know, my Christian Brother’s and sisters, i’m not mocking the content of the Bible, I’m mocking human arrogance that presumes to have all the answers)
why aren’t those *same* people demanding that divorce be banned because Jesus condemned it, and why aren’t those *same* Christians demanding that ALL seminaries remove ALL women from *every* church because of Paul’s edict?
Valid question – never gets a straight answer. if the Religious right were consistent, they would demand that the legal justification for divorce reflect the Biblical justification for divorce (though gosh knows how they would handle custody and property settlement since the Bible is silent on that bit).
There’s not a single rational justification for demanding a Biblical definition be written into law in regards to gender but not in any other aspect. There may or may not be a good argument against gay marriage otherwise, but “’cause God said it!” doesn’t pass the smell test even if God condemns homosexuality.
first problem Establishment Clause forced the state to keeps its hands ourt of religion, it does not stop the Church from being involved in Government Issues.
Correct. And when the government proceeds to write a theological definition of marriage into law, based on pressure from those who hold that theology and thus imposing that theology on those who don’t, then the government is in fact putting its hands directly in religion.
Third since based on your comment you are not a Christian. So what does it matter to you what we believe. If you do not like the fact we are standing up against the GLBT Cumminty, fine stop forcig on to society. If you stop forcing then we will stop speaking out aginst it.
You answer your own question. You seek to limit the rights of others based on no argument except your theological beliefs, that imposes on the freedoms of every single person, gay or not, who does not share your theology. In a free country that is unacceptable.
Simple, direct, reason logic and American History for you: ANY position which you seek to have the power of government enforce which is based ONLY on a theological belief is BY DEFINITION the opposite of liberty and antithetical to the founding principles of this country.
The only hate and bigotry I see is coming from the GBT Community and their support. Who are working hard to silence the Christian from speaken out against the GLBT Community.
You should pay more attention. I could give you links (which you’d not bother to follow) for days to accounts of those claiming the mantle of Christ saying vile and hateful things about LGB/T people.
Here’s one account – there are videos about of these events on her site somewhere, and on youtube:
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/2011/street-preachersscreechers-pride-charlotte/
I agree entirely, and I am equally frustrated with you for ducking the question I keep asking you. You keep insisting my friend’s Body Dysmorphia is an unhealthy behavior. I keep patiently explaining she is now at a healthy weight, she eats a calorie restricted diet of superfoods –grains, greens, soy, all the good stuff. She exercises diligently as well, and such calorie restricted diet that is not malnourishment has been demonstrated to lengthen the life of rats– twice as long as expected–and “the calorie-restricted mice also maintained youthful appearances and activity levels longer and showed delays in age-related diseases.” This is of great interest to scientist and a Nobel laureate at UCSF is studying the psychological and physiology of CR practitioners. So drop the red herring, the analogy is very good, and it stands.
I answered your question – I will do so again: If the diet is healthy, and the person is not malnourished, then other people’s perception of whether or not she is underweight is irrelevant. if she is not a danger to herself at 87 pounds, then she has ever right to be 87 pounds.
If that was the good analogy then fine, but if your analogy was intended to imply that my condition was likewise a danger to myself, then it fails.
Psychologically and physically, the outcomes for most transsexuals are not promising, as the serious studies I cited in my earlier comment have proven.
Were you the one who quoted the Swedish study? You are aware that it’s an outlier and no other reputable study has replicated those results, right?
And as the stories and solid research of this former transwoman who returned to living as a man, and embraced Orthodox Christianity describes in his very helpful book, “Paper Genders” and blog “Sex Change Regret .
I’m aware of that srory. I’m also aware that upwards of 98% of all post transition transsexuals report being completely satisfied with the results and that any thinking person does not dismiss any procedure or activity based on the complaints of the tiny minority.
there are more women who regret giving birth than there are transsexuals who regret transitioning and I don’t think you are prepared to reject the act of motherhood In fact, there are not a few health risks associated with pregnancy. Many more women suffer adverse physical impact from pregnancy than from GRS – oh, and also, the pill. I have a very good friend who is on kidney dialysis and will likely die before 50 because of an adverse reaction to birth control pills.
Shall we discontinue their use for ALL people because of her case?
And frankly, if I WERE going to take the testimonial of an “ex-trans” person, I most certainly would not chose that one who was brow-beaten and guilt-tripped by over-zealous Christian medliers into further screwing up her life.
I’m aware of much “cleaner” cases where the post-transition person admits of their own free will they made a mistake. That’s fine. in any human activity there will be the exceptional cases. but spare me the brainwashed ones.
So the question I pose to you is, why don’t the helpful psychiatrists at JAMA take up this poor woman’s case? Why aren’t the compassionate plastic surgeons rushing to her aid? Oh forget altruism, there’s lots of money to be made, in endless resculpting, after all. So she can be remade to conform to her idolatrous image.
Which one? The one in florida? s/he had reparitive plastic surgery except on the genitals which was available but s/he declined as it’s ineffective in restoring full function.
Looking at your link, I notice a story that’s blurbed “after only three weeks” – that makes me VERY suspicious as it’s a well known medical fact that people often suffer depression after major surgery where full sedation was needed. Depression and “regret” at a mere 3 weeks post -op is to be expected and any surgeon worth a flip will tell you to be prepared for it.
I’ll look into it in more depth after i finish catching up.
Tammybeth, stop ducking the question! Why should your conventions and prejudice against extremely thin people keep her from her heart’s desire? Why are you so intolerant?
Pardon? I have no such conventions and prejudices. Your creative attempt to trap me won’t work. See my reply above.
Can you not bring yourself to answer because you cannot begin to admit to yourself that her delusion is no different from your delusion, after all? It is very hard to see it for what it is,isn’t it?
it’s cute how you think you’ve scored a point. Maybe even a win.
I am not judging you. I know, as one who was caught up in lies for so many years, the best thing that ever happened to me was believing the truth about myself. And about what Jesus said about me too. It set me free! I pray the same for you.
Accepting the reality of my condition and rejecting the false doctrines of men so that I could find renewed peace with my Savior set me free too. Why is your testimony better than mine?
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what will happen when this little boy converted to a girl will do when they get older and find out what their two lesbian mommies did to them?
I won’d dignify your massive ignorance (which would be easily rectified if you’d simply read this thread) with explanations except to restate this point: There have been attepmts in the past to tread a child as a blank slate and raise a male as a female with the assumption he would be a perfectly content female.
it has never worked, not even while they were still children. if this boy is a boy at heart, not 2 lesbians or 2 thousand can make him think he’s a girl.
As Chrsitian’s we believe God’s Word sets the standard for the Christian to live by. An God’s Word is clear marriage is between one man and one woman. Any sexual relationship out side of that relationship is called a sexual sin and Christian’s can not support nor permote those type of relationship.
Support? the vast majority of Christians I’ve ever known PARTICIPATED in sexual relationships outside of marriage. I see NONE of them advocating that the government make it a criminal offense to have sex before marriage or be unfaithful to your spouse.
Secondly, the act of two gays getting married does not require your support. No one is asking for it. there’s a wide difference in “not supporting” and “doing everything i can to make sure it never happens”
A couple of minor ones – just examples really – and a major one:
1. Paul, often quoted here as being a source against homosexuality, said “let your women keep silent in the church” – do you require this of your wife? does your church require it of all women in attendance? If not, why not? Same goes for the requirement that women keep their head covered.
2. in the Levitical law, in the same areas where verses are cited against homosexuality, there are many other instructions which are not specifically voided by New Testament passages which are nevertheless not enforced by the modern church, why?
3. the most essential and foundational doctrines in the Bible are those related to the nature of how we are reconciled to god – what is the proper means of salvation? Is salvation secure or can you lose it? what is the proper mode of prayer? how does one keep the sacraments properly?
These are the things which, if god is going to be clear about ANY subject he would be most clear here because all other obedience flows from getting this right. therefore the question arises: IF god has so communicated his will to us that it is impossible to misunderstand it, why is Christianity filled with hundreds of different denominations which disagree on these very crucial and foundational points?
Further, IF men, for whatever reason (and the reason is our own sinfulness, but fill in whatever reason you like) cannot in sincere faith and respectable scholarship agree on these very very vital doctrines, how then can we have ANY confidence that we have the absolute indisputable clear cut understanding of any other doctrine?
Particularly those not fundamental to salvation itself?
in short, if Christians cannot agree on how you get saved, how can the possibly claim to have the absolute truth on who you are supposed to sleep with?
Report comment to moderator
God’s erroneous people never fail to fail.
And yet you are absolutely confident they have not failed on THIS point, despite the record of history? what justifies such a high level of confidence? how many souls of people who feel themselves to be homosexual or transsexuals are permanently alienated from God because of this teaching? what is the price, in souls, if you are wrong?
Conversely – if you are right and yet you exercise caution and DON’T openly condemn homosexuality – is God’s arm short that HE cannot correct this sin without your help? His Holy spirit is unable to convict the heart of these people, by guiding them to the appropriate Scriptures? He can’t do it without you?
it seems to me the potential cost of erring is far greater is we judge where he has not than the reverse.
That’s ethics not science. An article on suppressing puberty in children does not prove that these children are mentally one sex, but physically another. It does not provide any evidence that anything is wrong with them or that their sexuality should be altered.
that science is out there too but you and I both know this forum is not conducive to long academic articles. if you really want to know go find the info yourself. More to the point, you also know full well that the AMA does not publish an advisory approving the ethics of administering a treatment for a condition it considers illegitimate. The existence of that piece is direct evidence that the AMA finds the science credible (and they are in a far better position to decide than you or I)
It is not difficult to convince children of all sorts of things which are not true.
The record shows that it’s basically impossible to convince a normal male child that he is female or vice versa – even in cases where surgery has been done to create the illusion. Gender is hard-wired.
The good news is that children are very resilient. The bad news is that sexual alterations are permanent.
since there are no sexual alterations so far in this child’s life, you can relax.
Report comment to moderator
That’s true. The Bible is objective. Science is objective.
How men chose to interpret and apply either is, however, subjective. I refer you to my question about the various subjective interpretations about what it means to be saved.
Their only evidence is subjective testimony.
subjective testimony like the sort you offered about your background in the cult? subjective testimony like that of the person referenced a few posts above who regrets their transition? THAT kind of subjective testimony? The sort found on both sides?
This is an area of idolatry and self-will that still must be repented of. But it is a powerful delusion, and she is in a great spiritual battle.
My how willing you are to diagnose the spiritual failings of your friend. how perceptive you must be to look into the heart of another and parse their standing with God. It literally takes my breath away that someone could display such overwhelming arrogance and call it loving concern.
Report comment to moderator
#255 Tammy Beth “my Christian Brother’s and sisters, i’m not mocking the content of the Bible, I’m mocking human arrogance that presumes to have all the answers”
Don’t you presume to have all the answers?
“And yet you are absolutely confident they have not failed on THIS point, despite the record of history?”
Who are THEY? The Bible is self-sufficient. Grab one and read for yourself. You seem to think that because people have different opinions about the Bible, that it is unknowable, yet you are perfectly confident that your subjective testimony is a statement of fact. If someone disagrees you say, “I won’t dignify your massive ignorance …” and so on.
When the Bible says “Love your neighbor”, people might differ on the meaning of love and who their neighbor is, but no one would say it means the opposite. Likewise, when the Bible calls homosexuality a sin (Romans 1:27) there isn’t much leeway to call it anything else, much less the opposite, that it is actually good.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t you presume to have all the answers?
Nope, why would I phrase my position as “WHAT IF we are judging where God has not?” if I was asserting certitude?
Grab one and read for yourself.
I have, dozens of times, with particular attention to the passages which might be argued to indicate being trans is sinful. I’ve taught and preached the Bible for over two decades.
As I’ve said before in this thread, you are not dealing with an illiterate rube or an anti-faith zealot.
You seem to think that because people have different opinions about the Bible, that it is unknowable
Not my argument at all. If you can’t understand my words it’s no wonder you might misunderstand something like the Bible. My argument is not that it is unknowable, but that it is CLEARLY open to differing interpretations by people of good will and sound scholarship. And in light of that blindingly obvious reality, more humility is called for and less arrogant know-it-all finger pointing.
yet you are perfectly confident that your subjective testimony is a statement of fact
My testimony is no more or less a statement of fact than that of the person who claims they used to be gay and God healed them of it or they were involved in some other thing they gave up by God’s deliverance. personal testimony is equally subjective no matter who’s it is.
It is a fact as it describes my experience, and in that regard it stands as a data point in part of the larger argument that this condition is a physical condition and not a willful sin.
Likewise, when the Bible calls homosexuality a sin (Romans 1:27) there isn’t much leeway to call it anything else, much less the opposite, that it is actually good.
I don’t think anyone – save the skeptic who doesn’t take the bible seriously in the first place – claims that the Bible calls it “good”
The argument is that the condition itself is neither good nor bad, any more than heterosexuality is – rather it is how your sexuality is practiced that is good or bad.
Consistently in the Bible homosexuality is only brought up in the context of practices common to pagan worship. and at times in the context of abusive behavior (i.e. Paul condemns drunkenness, but not the consumption of alcohol). Furthermore, the words used by Paul can be credibly translated as something other than homosexuality altogether – one word is apparently a word he himself coined, rather than using the common Greek word for homosexuality.
Just because your good old King James is clear doesn’t mean the Greek is.
Finally, there are other direct and specific instructions in Paul’s writings that modern Christians understand they are not bound to follow because wise scholars understand that they are to be understood within the context of his immediate, first century, audience. yet the same people far too often fail to apply such wisdom to other passages, including those having tho do with sexuality.
Report comment to moderator
By the way – let me just note that you ask me what my questions were, having expressed skepticism they were not getting answer – and then proceeded to reply by, you guessed it, completely ignoring my questions.
I rest my case (on that point).
Report comment to moderator
Having looked over the front page of the “regret” blog, I see a list with eight items:
One is a reference to suicides, misleading implying it refers to post operative suicide when in fact it refers to all transgender people;
One references an outlier study from Sweden that has no other support in the literature;
One is a note from a crossdresser who hasn’t had any surgery;
Only four of them refer to actual people, three of who are anonymous reports that could easily be made up out of whole cloth (I could write a dozen variations on them and submit them tonight and that blogger would eagerly post them) and 3 of the four are pretty clearly circumstantial – post-op depressions….I found no one respected me….I feel guilty my kid “lost” his dad. Very little of the testimonies offer say “i regret being a woman” so much as “I found out life was still hard.”
Boo-f’n-hoo. You have unrealistic expectations and you get disappointed, imagine that. It’s about as significant as a person who accepts a new job and finds out it wasn’t all that was promised, or a young couple that gets married too soon only to find out having a good marriage is hard. It’s called LIFE ladies. get over it.
Beyond that, dude says “there are thousands like me” – really? then why do you not have even ONE testimonial on your page which has a name attached to it which can be verified?
There ARE legitimate regret cases, and most all of them have a significant backstory which explains why they are not representative of the norm. Charles Kane bought his way around the normal screening procedures, a guy in Florida who was guilt-tripped by a fundamentalist church into reversing his choices, and so forth.
But there are not thousands, there are not even dozens. And there are tens of thousands of us who are quite happy with the outcome.
IF you are going to offer up testimonials as evidence, then you are stuck with acknowledgement that 98% of the testimonials are positive.
It’s literally hilarious when the blogger takes a dig at ABC for saying the Florida guy was “one of the only transsexuals in the world to go back” with this comment:
“Nonsense. The only thing rare is anyone following transsexuals over the long-term to determine how many, like the ones shown here, go through the surgery and back again.
The following examples are real people.”
He then proceeds to mention TWO examples. And one of those two is – the blogger himself!!!
Way to go proving your claim pal.
He mentions Mike Penner/Christine Daniels as evidence for the suicide claims, but Mike committed suicide AFTER re-transitioning back to male and if I’m not mistaken, BEFORE having gender re-assignment surgery. More importantly, the ONLY regret Mike had was losing a wife he loved desperately. By all accountts he was wildly happier and more at peace as Christine EXCEPT for that one thing.
Which reinforces what those of us who are transseuxual already know – the VAST majority of the difficulties of transition are rooted specifically in the intolerance and sometimes outright antagonism of the rest of yall.
if you were not so deeply indoctrinated in the idea that we are all some sort of perverts – that we were as equally entitle to your compassion and respect as any other person with an unfortunate medical condition, then the suicide rate and the mental illness rate would plummet to near the same level as the general population.
But it turns out to be incredibly hard to be viewed by the “normal” people as a “freak” and/or a “pervert” and still live a happy life. Who knew, right?
Maybe ultimately it’s not us who has issues but you. It costs you NOTHING to treat people like me with basic human kindness and respect. that so many of you refuse to says far more about you than it does about us.
Report comment to moderator
#260 Tammy Beth ” I’ve taught and preached the Bible for over two decades.”
Where have you done this? The reason I ask is because you seemed unclear what Christian doctrine is. Your “interpretation” is only loosely related to the Bible, if that. Normal interpretation involves comparing scripture to scripture. Your method of interpretation is to simply “make stuff up” and declare it to be as legitimate as any other interpretation because Christians disagree on some things. I’ll provide some examples.
“I don’t think anyone – save the skeptic who doesn’t take the bible seriously in the first place – claims that the Bible calls it “good”. The argument is that the condition itself is neither good nor bad, any more than heterosexuality is – rather it is how your sexuality is practiced that is good or bad.
First you say that no one calls it good, but then you say it isn’t bad either. Based on which scripture exactly do you make this assertion? You need to back up your “interpretation” with scripture.
Consistently in the Bible homosexuality is only brought up in the context of practices common to pagan worship.
Says who? You just made that up. And even if the practice were common to pagan worship, are all pagan practices OK as long as you don’t actually bow to a golden calf?
“and at times in the context of abusive behavior (i.e. Paul condemns drunkenness, but not the consumption of alcohol).”
What does that have to do with homosexuality? You seem to have extracted a principle here, but would you apply that same principle to murder? It would be like saying, “Paul condemns murder, but not torture”.
“Furthermore, the words used by Paul can be credibly translated as something other than homosexuality altogether – one word is apparently a word he himself coined, rather than using the common Greek word for homosexuality. Just because your good old King James is clear doesn’t mean the Greek is.”
This is not about a single word. Can you please explain how the following verse can mean anything other than what it says,
From this and surrounding verses we see that men having lust for other men (whether sex is involved or not) is: dishonorable, shameless, vile, erroneous, impure, unrighteous and of a debased mind.
If you have taught the Bible for two decades, focusing especially on these passages, please provide a scriptural interpretation of what Paul is saying, i.e. referencing actual scripture and backing it up with scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Report comment to moderator
TammyBeth
First – There are no passages in God’s Word support the GLBT Community. When ever the issue is address it is in relationship to sexual sin.
Second – “Furthermore, the words used by Paul can be credibly translated as something other than homosexuality altogether – one word is apparently a word he himself coined, rather than using the common Greek word for homosexuality.” That view is based on a group of false Christian teachers and theologians, trying to find ways to say God is ok with the Gay Life Style. It is not Biblical Based.
Report comment to moderator
Paul is warning the Roman Christian’s about people who are serving God and what behaviors are wrong and that these people are going to face God’s Wrath.
“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” – A case could be made that today’s Educators’ and may people in power fall into this group of people. Based on the way the promote wackiness in today’s society.
19-23 is about people who surrender God in order to promote other items above him, false gods – yes, evolution – yes, killing of babies – yes, promote one’s desires above God’s standards – yes.
24-25 – deals with God turning people over to “uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves” Again like the 19-23 false gods -yes but when you are looking at the idea of “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” That means anything that cause someone of reject the truth of God. (Which is found in God’s Word and marriage being between one man and one woman is one of those truths)
Report comment to moderator
26-27 – the key words are “gave them up to vile passions” It does not say God turn them in being gay or made them gay. The vile passions for sexual desire is the result of the lust of the hearts desire. God say since you reject Me and My standards for live, I will not stop you from embracing your sexual desires. The results of those sexual desires produces a responds from God “the penalty of their error which was due.” Which I am sorry to say is a separation from God, unless you repent and turn from those sexual desires.
28-32 the key passage again is “28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” When you read the rest of those passage Paul gives us a list of behaviors that reveals someone is in deep trouble.
The ended part of this group gets over looked many times – 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. – This passage covers not only those who are doing the action but those who support them. This death Paul is talking about is not a physical death but a “SPIRITUAL DEATH”
Report comment to moderator
I have, dozens of times, with particular attention to the passages which might be argued to indicate being trans is sinful. I’ve taught and preached the Bible for over two decades.
As I’ve said before in this thread, you are not dealing with an illiterate rube or an anti-faith zealot.
—-
Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Report comment to moderator
If you reject God’s Standards of marriage to promote and encourage a pervert standard of marriage. I would encourage you to take a step back. You may find your self in a very dangerous position.
Report comment to moderator
first problem Establishment Clause forced the state to keeps its hands ourt of religion, it does not stop the Church from being involved in Government Issues.
Correct. And when the government proceeds to write a theological definition of marriage into law, based on pressure from those who hold that theology and thus imposing that theology on those who don’t, then the government is in fact putting its hands directly in religion.
—
Society has a right to demand what marriage should look like for society. The fact is many people who voted for marraige being between one man and one woman were not Christian
Report comment to moderator
First to Xion and Roy — This is the opinion of ONE man, Paul. He made the assumption based on his knowledge of the time. Do we believe that an illness or disease was caused by a curse, spell or god’s disfavor? Certainly NOT, so why should the opinion of a Bronze Age cleric hold sway in 2011, *especially when comes to sexuality?
You *do* know that the American Indians, Polynesians, and other Asian societies *long* before the invention of Christianity recognized that some members of their community had both male and female sides?
Roy #265 — So who in the heck made YOU the almighty expert in translating ancient text? Which translation is the most accurate? KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV or one of the other myriad other translations? Better yet, which is more in line with your god, Roy — the Catholic or the Protestant Bible?
Roy #269 — Do I *have* to remind you that the bible has been *repeatedly* used as justification to deny women and racial minorities *their* equal rights in the US? What makes the equal rights of TLBG Americans under our *secular* Constitution such a threat to you?
You *do* know, darling that your church won’t be forced to hire or marry anyone who’s TLBG, right? You *do* know that it’s not contagious, right?
You remind Me of those people who used to say “I don’t care if blacks get the same rights as I do as long as they don’t live next door.”, or “I don’t mind blacks as long as my sister(brother) doesn’t marry one.”
I’m *so* sorry that not every Christian is as dogmatic and closed-minded as you, Roy. I’m *so* sorry that some denominations have rejected a lot of the historical baggage associated with the bible and have done the proper thing by taking the scripture in its historical, cultural, and sociological context.
I’m *so* sorry that the law has evolved far beyond its 18th century beginnings and has embraced the diversity of this country, rather than limit “equal rights” only to white, Protestant, male land owners.
I’m *so* sorry I and many other minorities make you uncomfortable in demanding our *equal* rights in this country under our *secular* Constitution. There’s no asterisk in the Fourteenth Amendment with the disclaimer saying “Excluding Jews, lesbians, gays, transsexuals, Hispanics, Asians, and others the majority objects to.”
#270 — Roy, the rights of the minority are *never* to be voted on by the majority! That violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The granting or denial of the rights of *anyone* is the purview of the *courts*, NOT the whims of the mob!
Report comment to moderator
#270 — Roy, the rights of the minority are *never* to be voted on by the majority! That violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The granting or denial of the rights of *anyone* is the purview of the *courts*, NOT the whims of the mob!
—
They are not voting of rights, they are voting on what marriage is going to look like in the Nation. They are voitng on whose standard of marriage is right for the Nation, those who support marriage between one man and one woman or those who believe marriage is between one man and one man and one woman and one woman.
Report comment to moderator
I’m *so* sorry I and many other minorities make you uncomfortable in demanding our *equal* rights in this country under our *secular* Constitution. There’s no asterisk in the Fourteenth Amendment with the disclaimer saying “Excluding Jews, lesbians, gays, transsexuals, Hispanics, Asians, and others the majority objects to.”
—
Civil Rights and Constitutional rights are not and never should be based on someone sexual behavior.
Report comment to moderator
I’m *so* sorry that not every Christian is as dogmatic and closed-minded as you, Roy. I’m *so* sorry that some denominations have rejected a lot of the historical baggage associated with the bible and have done the proper thing by taking the scripture in its historical, cultural, and sociological context.
—
Those people also have reject God’s Word and are no longer part of the Christian Community.
Report comment to moderator
You *do* know, darling that your church won’t be forced to hire or marry anyone who’s TLBG, right? You *do* know that it’s not contagious, right?
—
wrong, there have been laws to force those views on Christian Day Cares, Christian School’s and yes even Christian CHurches. So far they have been defeated
Report comment to moderator
Roy #265 — So who in the heck made YOU the almighty expert in translating ancient text? Which translation is the most accurate? KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV or one of the other myriad other translations? Better yet, which is more in line with your god, Roy — the Catholic or the Protestant Bible?
—
The Word of God has not changed… There are no passage in God’s WOrd to support the GLBT Community, when the Gay Life Stlye is mention it is in relationship to sexual sins and judgement
Report comment to moderator
Marlene – sorry but God’s Word does not change because of society diffent views have changed. What is sin is still sin. Marriage per God’s Word is between one man and one woman. Any other type is call sexual sins…. No matter what you or society want to believe.
Report comment to moderator
#271 Marlene “This is the opinion of ONE man, Paul.
To say that the Bible is merely a collection of human opinions is contrary to what the Bible actually says.
Therefore the Bible is either truly what it says it is, i.e. the Word of God, or not. If not, then it is worthless as Paul also explains in 1 Cor 15:14,15. Perhaps that is your point, but then you cannot be a Christian.
“He made the assumption based on his knowledge of the time.
How do you know that?
Do we believe that an illness or disease was caused by a curse, spell or god’s disfavor? Certainly NOT, …
Not necessarily, but read Duet 28.
…so why should the opinion of a Bronze Age cleric hold sway in 2011, *especially when comes to sexuality?
The Bronze Age was before Paul’s time. If the Word of God is actually the Word of God, i.e. the Creator, then it is possible he might have an opinion or two on humans which carries some weight.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – The intertesting thing in all of this debate not one of them could provide any passages from God’s Word showing that God is ok with the GLBT Community Life Stlye.
All they could do is take passages out of context and used bad greek to try and change the meaning of words.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – We have provide passages to show why it is wrong, where marriage is between one man and one woman etc.. an they can not provide any proof why those passages are wrong
Report comment to moderator
Where have you done this? The reason I ask is because you seemed unclear what Christian doctrine is.
Ummm…right. Translation: you don’t agree with my interpretation so you can’t have any credibility. I”ll give you this much: I was licensed to the gospel ministry in 1988 (having done some SS teaching before that) and over the next 20 years preacher or taught in a couple of dozen churches or more, though never as a full time pastor. I also have a degree from a well respected SBC college.
more than that you don’t need to know since you clearly don’t take even that seriously.
Based on which scripture exactly do you make this assertion? You need to back up your “interpretation” with scripture.
no more so that you do. the only difference between us is you take plain surface readings and I look for context and language difficulties. Besides, you STILL have not addressed my questions despite specifically asking for them so I don’t need to explain anything to you.
This is not about a single word. Can you please explain how the following verse can mean anything other than what it says,
You answer mine – I answer yours. I’m not your puppet.
First – There are no passages in God’s Word support the GLBT Community. When ever the issue is address it is in relationship to sexual sin.
Try again, go slower, and use grammar so I know what you are trying to say.
That view is based on a group of false Christian teachers and theologians, trying to find ways to say God is ok with the Gay Life Style. It is not Biblical Based.
and again you play your trump card: “Any scholarship that disagrees with my point of view is by definition biased liberal scholarship that I may feel free to ignore.”
Have fun with that.
Society has a right to demand what marriage should look like for society.
society? Yes.
The church? No.
Report comment to moderator
You two and your mutual congratulation club are real cute.
The reality remains though, that neither of you have even attempted direct answers to my direct questions, yet you continue to display a sense of entitlement that you get to set the terms of the discussion and you get to demand evidence.
Given that both of you are obviously displaying bad faith in this discussion, I shall ignore any further posts from you and hope for better contributions from others.
Report comment to moderator
#282 Tammy Beth “Given that both of you are obviously displaying bad faith in this discussion, I shall ignore any further posts from you and hope for better contributions from others.”
That’s the kind of thing people say when they lose an argument. I think we’ve effectively dismantled everything you have said and so you have nothing more to say.
Regarding your questions, I’ve asked you multiple times to tell us which questions you are referring to, but you prefer to accuse us of bad faith rather than point them out.
Looking through all 282 posts, if I were to guess about which questions you mean it is probably related to your line of reasoning which says that since genetic defects are possible, then cannot transgenderism also be possible?
Sure, it is possible to perhaps find one or two in the whole history of man. Even so, a sex change is not the best course of action since being male or female is not a disorder. If your body is functioning perfectly well, then why ruin it?
Who you are in your mind is who you are. If you removed all of your limbs, you would still be the same person. There is no advantage to having the body of a female or male. Changing your body to make your mind feel more complete is ridiculous. Instead of destroying your body parts for some emotional benefit, a person should be thankful for their health.
Changing anyone’s sex is a horrible mistake. Doing this to a child should be a crime.
Report comment to moderator
That’s the kind of thing people say when they lose an argument. I think we’ve effectively dismantled everything you have said
You’re my hero. /sarcasm
Self congratulations does not equal “winning”
Have fun with it though!
Regarding your questions, I’ve asked you multiple times to tell us which questions you are referring to, but you prefer to accuse us of bad faith rather than point them out.
Ha! You’re too cute!
Take a look at #256 for the most recent example. Seems to me you can’t be bothered to even read my posts, let alone give any thought to them.
if I were to guess about which questions you mean it is probably related to your line of reasoning which says that since genetic defects are possible, then cannot transgenderism also be possible?
Shockingly poor guessing talent you got there.
Still, that is a good question too. Still, your answer is of course an utter failure on several points so I can see why answering questions wouldn’t be your first choice.
Report comment to moderator
#284 Tammy Beth Really? The questions in #256 are the ones you want answered? Well, these are all quite simple.
“1. Paul, often quoted here as being a source against homosexuality, said “let your women keep silent in the church” – do you require this of your wife? does your church require it of all women in attendance? If not, why not? Same goes for the requirement that women keep their head covered.”
Generally speaking, everyone is silent in church while the pastor is preaching. And women aren’t to preach. This is only controversial for those who don’t follow the Bible.
“2. in the Levitical law, in the same areas where verses are cited against homosexuality, there are many other instructions which are not specifically voided by New Testament passages which are nevertheless not enforced by the modern church, why?”
I am not sure which “instructions are not specifically voided” since all of the Mosaic law was abolished at the cross (Eph 2:15). Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17). When he said, “It is finished” and the curtain covering the Holy of Holies was torn, the law was over.
Paul spent much of Romans, Hebrews and all of Galatians on this subject. The law was imperfect, temporary (Gal 3:19). It was a teaching tool (Gal 3:24,25), an object lesson to teach God’s people about Christ. Once Christ came, the law was no longer necessary. However it is still a teaching tool which can teach us about sin and what Christ has done for us.
“3. the most essential and foundational doctrines in the Bible are those related to the nature of how we are reconciled to god – what is the proper means of salvation?”
Well, the Bible is not really about us. The Bible is about Christ and what he has done for us. And salvation is the most important thing.
“Is salvation secure or can you lose it? what is the proper mode of prayer? how does one keep the sacraments properly?
These are the things which, if god is going to be clear about ANY subject he would be most clear here because all other obedience flows from getting this right.”
I believe the Bible is quite clear on all of these things. You can’t blame God for not being clear because imperfect theologians like to bicker about subtleties.
“Therefore the question arises: IF god has so communicated his will to us that it is impossible to misunderstand it, why is Christianity filled with hundreds of different denominations which disagree on these very crucial and foundational points?”
Several reasons. First, salvation is the work of God. He saves us. We are unable to save ourselves. The tiniest faith is sufficient, “smaller than a mustard seed”. Second, God is infinite and we are finite. So our understanding of him will always be imperfect. Third, I believe God has written his word in such a way that causes us to continually search for him. Like a cow that chews the cud, we can chew on the Word for our entire life and never get bored.
“Further, IF men, for whatever reason (and the reason is our own sinfulness, but fill in whatever reason you like) cannot in sincere faith and respectable scholarship agree on these very very vital doctrines, how then can we have ANY confidence that we have the absolute indisputable clear cut understanding of any other doctrine?”
By that logic, perhaps the holocaust never happened because a few people who deny it. You can find plenty of people who call themselves Christian who deny much of what the Bible says. However, that does not mean the Bible doesn’t say it or that the language is unclear.
“Particularly those not fundamental to salvation itself?
in short, if Christians cannot agree on how you get saved, how can the possibly claim to have the absolute truth on who you are supposed to sleep with?”
Anyone who denies that salvation is by faith is not a Christian (Eph 2:8,9), since that is what the Bible says. It is as simple as that.
The purpose of your line of reasoning is not to try and understand what God has said. You know what he has said and you don’t like it. And so you are trying to rationalize ways to disregard it. But there is no dispute about the fact that the Bible says it.
In #263 I quoted a verse which you could not deny or reinterpret, since there is no other way to read it. So your tactic then switched to trying to discredit Paul and to say that since Christians disagree about some things, then nothing the Bible says can be clear. If that were true, then why will you not give us another way to interpret Romans 1:26,27?
I admire the fact that you call yourself a Christian. I will gladly call you a brother or sister no matter what you have done to yourself. However, we need to speak the truth and understand the truth. And the truth is that the entire LBGT agenda is a grand lie from bottom to top and children are being injured as a result.
Report comment to moderator
Generally speaking, everyone is silent in church
SERIOUSLY? THAT is your simple answer? He goes on to say if they have questions they should ask their husband at home. the CLEAR implication is that it’s not talking about preaching and he’s not giving a restriction to men. I thought you two were big on the “plain meaning” and not trying to reason out what he meant by thing?
When he said, “It is finished” and the curtain covering the Holy of Holies was torn, the law was over.
So you agree whenever anyone quotes “a man shall not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman, it is an abomination” that they either err or device -right?
Once Christ came, the law was no longer necessary. However it is still a teaching tool which can teach us about sin and what Christ has done for us.
Indeed, well said.
I believe the Bible is quite clear on all of these things. You can’t blame God for not being clear because imperfect theologians like to bicker about subtleties.
YES!!! So if imperfect humans reach imperfect conclusions about Scripture on the most crucial doctrines, how can we trust them to reach perfect conclusions on far less important matters?
First, salvation is the work of God. He saves us. We are unable to save ourselves. The tiniest faith is sufficient, “smaller than a mustard seed”. Second, God is infinite and we are finite. So our understanding of him will always be imperfect. Third, I believe God has written his word in such a way that causes us to continually search for him. Like a cow that chews the cud, we can chew on the Word for our entire life and never get bored.
another excellent answer. None of which is consistent with the phenomena of Christians placing an overweening importance on suppressing homosexuals.
By that logic, perhaps the holocaust never happened because a few people who deny it.
that makes absolutely no sense, even as an analogy.
Anyone who denies that salvation is by faith is not a Christian (Eph 2:8,9), since that is what the Bible says. It is as simple as that.
You realized you just ruled hundreds of thousands – if not million – of professing Christians right out of the church, right? Not that I disagree with your definition of salvation – but all THOSE people say it’s YOU (and me) who are out.
The purpose of your line of reasoning is not to try and understand what God has said.
I decline to take a back seat to you on seeking what God has said – I’ve spent my life digging for it, not running from it. in fact i spent my life running from the very thing you seem to think I eagerly embraced.
In #263 I quoted a verse which you could not deny or reinterpret
On the contrary, I simply expect my questions to be respected if I’m supposed to respect yours. that’s what makes for a civil discussion.
Romans 1:26,27 does not stand alone or in isolation from the surrounding chapters and the book as a whole. And considering that context, while vital to understanding, is a lot more complex than most people want. You could do a whole Bible series on all the ways that the entire cultural context of the NT affects any given passage.
For instance, Paul describes the conduct he refers to in Romans 1 as “against nature” but he also says something very similar about men having long hair. Pail also, in a reflection of his culture, did not outright condemn slavery – none of us would agree that means slavery is Biblical. If Paul’s view of slavery was bound by his cultural views, who wouldn’t his view of sexuality be likewise encumbered? You can’t simply default to “it’s the inspired word of God and God wouldn’t let him make a mistake” unless you want to say God’s cool with slavery (and some other uncomfortable points).
The reason I ask earlier about women keeping silent in the church is because the correct answer to that is that Paul was cautioning Christian women in those days against behaving as women in the pagan worship services behaved, so as not to bring slander upon the church. To the orthodox Jew, a woman speaking in a service would have been shocking and it was because of that paul gave that instruction.
Culture. original audience. It DOES matter. Even the most conservative Bible Scholar will tell you that.
Narrowing down a bit from noting the broad realities of New Testament exegesis, Paul was writing to Gentile Christians who remained in Rome after the Jewish Christians had been expelled from the city. these are not only the epitome of “babes in Christ” but they are surrounded by a culture saturated in every kind of pagan idolatry we can imagine and more that we can’t.
they had no idea how to understand Christian worship because it was completely unlike all the religion they’d ever know (whereas the Jews had at least some framework of dealing with the same God). It’s obvious after some years without wise leadership from Judea, these people would be pretty messed up in terms of proper worship practices.
The first 17 verse of Romans 1 are, of course, his address and greeting – he doesn’t begin touching on instruction until 18.
18-23 is the “intro” if you will, setting the context that he is clearly speaking of pagan worship – you can’t read this:
23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
As anything else.
24-25 continue making the point that he is addressing false worship, and any competent historian will tell you that THE major component of pagan worship – was sex. the pagan temples actually had house prostitutes of both genders who’s purpose was to give you a “vessel” to worship the God of your choice.
It is not a twisting or a stretch of reason to suggest that the sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. is in fact a reference to precisely that act: sex in the context of pagan worship.
Verse 26 says this:
God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
SO – given the many things said in the bible about god’s view of marriage (and repeatedly affirmed here by the way) how is it unreasonable to suggest that the “natural/unnatural” distinction is the one between a godly marriage and a pagan act of prostitution? In point of fact, this verse does not even specifically say anything about women with women – just that the act was “unnatural” (and by the way, the church has for 2,000 years understood oral and anal sex to also be unnatural. there’s no way to tell from this verse if Paul refers here to homosexuality, or oral sex).
Verse 27:
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men,/i>
now, clearly this one – as opposed to the other one – refers to a homosexual act – but does it refer to ANY homosexual act or doe it reflect the context of the chapter to this point – those acts performed during pagan worship? By what logic do we assume he’s set up this whole little discourse on pagan worship only to divert and say something that applies to ALL acts of the same physical nature?
To be clear, I do not argue it is IMPOSSIBLE he means all homosexuality here – maybe he does. I’m simply pointing out that in context, there’s room for a differing understanding without doing violence to the Scripture.
Now remember, there’s also the possibility that, per v.20-21, these were people who’d at least had some basic familiarality with the claims of Christ. Given the lack of leadership, possibly they gave in to the cultural pressure and their own inexpressive and lack of learning and went back to the temples. We know from the whole context of Scripture, particularly in the OT, that god hates nothing more on Earth than worship of false Gods. If there is anything that would make god “give them up” it would have to be that.
But the “desire” he gave them up to was not the physical one (at least arguably) but the spiritual one – the desire to chase after false gods.
Some other lesser points here – the word sometimes translated “vile” or “shameful” is “atimai” and means “indignity” or “dishonor” or “shame” – it’s a subjective term and relates to the culture within which it’s refereed to. In the context of an orthodox Jew writing to a pagan-filled city, it would be impossible to not see his choice of that word as reflecting his own cultural view of what was shameful (just like the long-haired man passage, by the way)
“Natural use” is “phusikos chr?sis“, an instinctive use and in this case, an instinctive sexual use. Further, it means what is consistent, expected, ordinary and usual. When someone behaves in a “natural” way, they are being consistent with what you, or in this case, the writer, would expect. Does that mean behaving in “unnatural” way is then wrong, immoral or sinful? We can get more clarity by going deeper into verse 26 to the words “against nature”. “Against nature” is “para phusis” or contrary to the usual, natural, expected way. Men with long hair in the times of Paul were not only “unnatural” / “para phusis“, but vile/” atimia ” as well.
The obvious “duh: statement still needs to be said: You don’t get to say long hair is okay and unnatural use of a body is not okay. You may be more comfortable with people with long hair than GLBT people, but that becomes a cultural thing for you.
Are you thinking to argue that “against nature” is by definition sin and so therefore the claim that Romans 1 proves homosexuality is sin because it’s against nature?
Try Romans 11:24-
After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature (para phusis) were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
So unless you are wiling to charge God with sin…
Finally, on the sub-points, Paul had already used the strong Greek words for sin asebiaand adikia in verse 18 and he used adikia again in v.29 as translated “wickedness”
Why did he not uses these words in reference to the sexual acts he mentioned?
Now, picking up the context thread again – v.28:
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
Does it say “just because they had Gay sex god gave them over”? No. This is rather obviously a passage about having known god and turned from him to pagan worship (pop-quiz: what does Jesus say is the unforgivable sin? it ain’t “being gay” – it’s turning from God having known him which is perfectly aligned with what’s been said here)
v. 32 again confirms the context – those who KNOW God’s decree and do it anyway.
In short, the immediate context of Romans 1 is pagan temple worship, and the next rung of context is those who engaged in such worship having known the claims of Christ. ANY interpretation of Romans 1 which does not recognize the pagan worship aspect of this passage is simply too superficial to take seriously.
But wait – there’s more!
After having concluded Chapter 1 with a long list of bad behavior which results from turning back from God, he begins Chapter 2 (all the same context, all the same work) by saying basically “who are you to judge when YOU do all these things (note, homosexuality wasn’t on that list). As we read on we see that Romans 2-3 was ACTUALLY Paul’s point. Romans 1:18-32 was a set piece, a rhetorical device designed to “set up the reader so he could hit them with what comes next.
Any good preacher knows how to do this. “look at these folks? Aren’t the bad? Can you believe it? God is full of anger about these (other) people! how wicked! how shameful!” – and the audience is shouting amen and “you tell em preacher!!” because he’s talking about someone ELSES sin.
THEN he turns the fire hose on THEM. In Chapter 2 he basically “rips them a new one” and he’s not here talking about the pagan worship. He’s talking about what anyone is given to when they grow distant from God, he’s leading up to the main message of the whole Book of Romans which is salvation by grace alone.
This does not nullify what he was condemning in Chapter 1, pagan worship and particularly such worship by those who’d claimed Christ, but it does establish that Chapter 1 is the “opening” of a three point message. Not the message itself.
More to the point, nothing in Romans 1 establishes conclusively that ANY homosexual act is sinful – there’s FAR too much complex context to be sure of that.
Report comment to moderator
On your previous point:
Sure, it is possible to perhaps find one or two in the whole history of man. Even so, a sex change is not the best course of action since being male or female is not a disorder. If your body is functioning perfectly well, then why ruin it?
Who you are in your mind is who you are. If you removed all of your limbs, you would still be the same person. There is no advantage to having the body of a female or male. Changing your body to make your mind feel more complete is ridiculous. Instead of destroying your body parts for some emotional benefit, a person should be thankful for their health.
You misunderstand and/or misstate much here.
1. One or two? Seriously? if you concede that it is possible, by what logic do you suggest it is that rare? is any other divergent human mutation that rare? Take Siamese Twins, or albinos – are they “one or two in history”?
2. Being physically male or female is not the disorder in question. Having a mis-gendered brain is the disorder. if there were a procedure to fix my brain gender I would have gladly taken it a thousand times over rather than GRS.
3. My body includes my brain. The body does not “function well” unless the brain does. As difficult as it is for you to understand or relate to, the misfunction of my brain is severe enoug hthat I’d rather not be alive at all as to endure the gender-clash between my brain and my body. If you were to pass a law today which required that I go back to living as a male on pain of death, I’d be executed with my chin held high, i will never live that way again.
4. “Who you are in your mind is who you are” – YES!!! A thousand times YES!!! That’s exactly the point we want you skeptics to comprehend. If you take your mind, as it is right now, and place it overnight into a female body, you will not just shrug and say “oh wel, I know I’m a guy so it’s all good” – it’s not all good. your brain knows what your body should be on a hard-wired level.
Which, by the way, is why the idea that these parents are “brainwashing” this kid is nonsense – it doesn’t work. The mind knows, always.
4. “there is no advantage…” – and I seek none. I seek peace.
5. “changing your body …is ridiculous” – I wonder if you say the same about bodybuilders? or tattoos? or nose jobs? you might see them as vanity, but sin?
6. “instead of destroying…” what do you presume is destroyed? True a F2M usually has a hysterectomy and a mastectomy – but women who have these procedures for other reasons and we understand it’s for their health – mental health is as important as mental health
(by the way, if a woman has a mastectomy for cancer and has an implant to achieve the former appearance, is this improper altering of her body?)
The body of a post-op transsexual woman is every bit as healthy and functional as that of a post-menopausal woman. it is not “destroyed” or unhealthy in any discernible way. How is that “ruined” (beyond the fact that every non-trans male loses his mind at any concept of any man losing his penis – try to think outside that box)?
7. “for some emotional benefit” – again, what’s wrong with emotional benefits or, more accurately, mental health and sanity? it costs you nothing, it costs me nothing physically that I want (to me, replacing a penis is pretty much exactly the same as having liposuction to get rid of 20 pounds of ugly fat, except way way more important) and leaves me perfectly healthy – why should you care?
In fact, if treated early, there’s an astonishingly high likelihood you, the non-trans public, will NEVER EVEN KNOW the girl who just walked by you on the street was born with a penis – unless you are told. It’s true for older transitioners like me it’s much harder to pull that off (though far from impossible) but the principle would still apply. What they did not only costs you nothing but doesn’t even provide fodder for your “discomfort”
How is it you have a “dog in the hunt”?
8. I see no inherent conflict between changing that which medicine provides a remedy for and at the same time thanking god for your health.
Report comment to moderator
We need to not lose sight of the fact that we’re discussing the society, rules and mores of the *Bronze Age*!
Trying to impose those rules in a society which has evolved beyond enforced slavery and indentured servitude, the subjugation of women, the use of child brides and arranged marriages, dowries, and such is as futile as stopping the earth from revolving on its axis.
Do we blame witches, spells and curses for illnesses and diseases? Do we execute by stoning anyone who defies a laws imposed by the cleric class like what happens in Iran? Do we have laws that treats women as chattel and can be sold off to anyone with the dowry? The answers, of course is a resounding NO!
So why is it that a supposedly intelligent set of human beings will suspend reality and immediately put their intellect into neutral the nanosecond they join certain Christian denominations?
They’re like at a buffet — pick and choose which people to condemn and deny their civil rights, yet in the same breath claim other laws and traditions aren’t valid because of times change.
If fundamentalists are going to condemn us TLBGs, then they need to start attacking the rights of adulterers, call for the banning divorce, reinstating slavery, arranged marriages and dowries like it was back when the books of the bible were written.
Report comment to moderator
#288 Marlene “We need to not lose sight of the fact that we’re discussing the society, rules and mores of the *Bronze Age*!”
You are wrong on several levels. First, the Bronze Age had been over for at least 600 years before Christ. Second, the Bible may mention, but does not mandate the cultural mores of a society. Third, the Bible is not the words of men, but God who is omnipotent and omniscient and not bound by time. The Creator’s knowledge of his creatures is timeless.
“Trying to impose those rules in a society which has evolved beyond enforced slavery and indentured servitude, the subjugation of women, the use of child brides and arranged marriages, dowries, and such is as futile as stopping the earth from revolving on its axis.”
The Bible imposes none of those things. As a matter of fact, the gospel of Jesus Christ imposes nothing on you, since salvation is a free gift and has nothing to do with what you do or do not do. Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save it.
I don’t condemn you either. If you want to hack off your body parts, then that is your prerogative. However, this discussion is about what is true and the truth is that homosexuality is contrary to God’s design and what you have done to yourself was entirely unnecessary. And trying to impose your false world view on children is criminal.
Report comment to moderator
#286 “SERIOUSLY? THAT is your simple answer? He goes on to say if they have questions they should ask their husband at home. the CLEAR implication is that it’s not talking about preaching and he’s not giving a restriction to men.”
Except that the verses in question specifically mention preaching. There is a reason for this and every one knows it, but it is politically incorrect to say so. All you need to do is go into a room full of women and the answer will become obvious.
I find it odd that psychology taught that men and women were the same when it was politically correct to say so, yet now they say that maleness and femaleness is so distinct that surgery may be required to correct it. Obviously it is politics that drives psychology and not science.
“YES!!! So if imperfect humans reach imperfect conclusions about Scripture on the most crucial doctrines, how can we trust them to reach perfect conclusions on far less important matters?”
I don’t rely on the conclusions of theologians. The Bible is plain enough to understand for anyone who cares to do so. For example, I am hiring contractors to work on my house. It is clear that some are more knowledgeable than others. But just because they disagree I don’t conclude that it is impossible to build a house and to do it well. Some theologians are better than others, but that does not mean the Bible isn’t clear.
“The reason I ask earlier about women keeping silent in the church is because the correct answer to that is that Paul was cautioning Christian women in those days against behaving as women in the pagan worship services behaved, so as not to bring slander upon the church. To the orthodox Jew, a woman speaking in a service would have been shocking and it was because of that paul gave that instruction.”
You just made that up. The Bible doesn’t say that. Women weren’t allowed to sit with men in Jewish services, so already we see how the Bible transcends culture. Culture doesn’t define the Bible, the Bible is valid regardless of the culture.
Paul addresses women speaking in two ways: First, women are not to teach and he explains why. It is because EVE and therefore women in general are more easily deceived. Second, women tend to talk more and as in the Corinthian church it was causing a ruckus.
“Culture. original audience. It DOES matter. Even the most conservative Bible Scholar will tell you that.”
No, it does not. The words of a transcendent God are not bound by time and culture. Christianity is just as legitimate in all cultures. It imposes no cultural mores on anyone. As a matter of fact, Christianity imposes nothing on anyone. Christianity is about what Christ has done, not what we do.
However, we are not to remain idle, we are to go on and do good works and sin is something which hinders us. So we are to lay aside our sins, not to earn God’s favor (since it cannot be earned, but is given freely by grace), but so that we can fulfill his purpose in our lives.
The rest of your text goes on about pagan worship, but you have it backwards. Romans 1 is not saying that all of the sins mentioned are perfectly OK as long as you aren’t participating in pagan worship. It is describing the root of all sin, one of which is pagan worship.
Sin begins in the mind. God has manifest himself to us through creation, but man tends to become vain in his imagination and begins to worship the creation more than the Creator. This leads to paganism, but also to all sins, many of which Paul lists.
Modern man worships mankind and nature just like men have always done. People worship their own intellects, thinking they are smarter than God. And before you know it they’re imagining all sorts of vain things like they are women trapped in men’s bodies and other such nonsense.
They don’t stop there, but go on to advocate that children should have their genitals hacked off if they feel inadequate in their own bodies. Just when we think modern man could not be more sinful or grotesque, he’ll step it up a notch.
Report comment to moderator
Trying to impose those rules in a society which has evolved beyond enforced slavery and indentured servitude, the subjugation of women, the use of child brides and arranged marriages, dowries, and such is as futile as stopping the earth from revolving on its axis.
there a lot you say I agree with, in terms of understanding cultural context – but I’ve assumed a “for the sake of argument” position here. I’m strongly aware of the futility of trying to change a conservative Christian’s view by challenging the authority of Scripture.
So I chose to work within the framework of what I know they believe.
Report comment to moderator
Except that the verses in question specifically mention preaching. There is a reason for this and every one knows it, but it is politically incorrect to say so. All you need to do is go into a room full of women and the answer will become obvious.
This verse?
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
It does no such thing. “Speak” is not a direct word which only applies to preaching here. in fact, earlier in the preceding verse he mentions several other forms of speaking which would not be considered preaching as we understand it.
In the context of this verse, a woman could not – for instance, offer a testimony in the congregation.
the next verse reads:
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is [n]improper for a woman to speak in church.
what part of preaching involves asking for information?
So I move the previous question – if a woman offers a testimony (for example) in the church, or teaches a lesson to other women or children – has she violated this Scripture? If not, why not?
I don’t rely on the conclusions of theologians. The Bible is plain enough to understand for anyone who cares to do so.
So ultimately YOUR understanding is the one we should all accept as correct?
As a matter of fact, Christianity imposes nothing on anyone. Christianity is about what Christ has done, not what we do.
I agree – so why have we wasted so much effort discussing a subject that Christianity makes no imposition on. and more to the point, why does the church at large spend so much time doing so much imposing?
However, we are not to remain idle, we are to go on and do good works and sin is something which hinders us. So we are to lay aside our sins, not to earn God’s favor (since it cannot be earned, but is given freely by grace), but so that we can fulfill his purpose in our lives.
Is it not then wise to leave the conviction of sin in other people’s lives to His Holy Spirit, rather than exert pressure ourselves?
They don’t stop there, but go on to advocate that children should have their genitals hacked off if they feel inadequate in their own bodies.
And so we come full circle – misrepresenting the content of the OP.
With all due respect, at the end of the day I have to trust my own relationship and interaction with Christ and his word more than your opinion. If I have peace with God – and I do – I don’t need peace with you. what I do need is for those who share your view to stop trying to rig the legal system to make my life harder because I and people like me give you the willies.
If you think being gay is a sin, or that being trans is some sort of delusion – then be a clear minded straight person and live your own life according to your faith. You right to do that doesn’t extend to the legislature or the courthouse so you can enforce it on others (and by you, I mean the whole religious right complex, not you specifically)
Report comment to moderator
#292 Tammy Beth “if a woman offers a testimony (for example) in the church, or teaches a lesson to other women or children – has she violated this Scripture? If not, why not?”
I already answered this. I Cor 14:34 is about prophesying out loud in the Corinthian church which created a ruckus. The chapter ends with “Let all things be done decently and in order.” The two things women shouldn’t do is disrupt the service by prophesying out loud and they shouldn’t preach to men.
“So ultimately YOUR understanding is the one we should all accept as correct?”
No. Let’s rely on yours. You yourself have interpreted Romans 1:26,27 the same way everyone does. In the last 292 posts, not a single person disagreed with the interpretation that homosexuality is a sin, including you.
Therefore we can conclude that the Bible is clear on the matter. But since you don’t like what it says you have concocted various rationalizations which you think means you can ignore it.
I interpret the Bible objectively, meaning I am not free to pick and choose what I like or not. For you, the Bible is essentially meaningless, unless you happen to agree with something you like.
“I agree – so why have we wasted so much effort discussing a subject that Christianity makes no imposition on. and more to the point, why does the church at large spend so much time doing so much imposing?”
I don’t know why the church treats some sins differently than others. I’ve been asking that question for years. You’ll get no imposition from me. I am merely debating this on the grounds of what is true and what is false.
I do need is for those who share your view to stop trying to rig the legal system to make my life harder because I and people like me give you the willies.
I don’t know who you mean. My wife’s nephew (now niece) is a trans and he comes over for Thanksgiving. I treat him/her as I would anyone else. I don’t even bring up the matter unless he asks me first. I only discuss it with you, since that is the purpose of this forum.
“If you think being gay is a sin, or that being trans is some sort of delusion”
It doesn’t matter what I think. Truth is the only thing that matters. And you yourself have acknowledged that homosexuality is sin at least in the context of pagan worship. Since Romans 1 is not about pagan worship, but the root of all sin, one of which is pagan worship, then it is clear that homosexuality is sin.
Your right to do that doesn’t extend to the legislature or the courthouse so you can enforce it on others (and by you, I mean the whole religious right complex, not you specifically)
Well, when you start deceiving and mutilating children then the courts should step in.
“there a lot you say I agree with, in terms of understanding cultural context – but I’ve assumed a “for the sake of argument” position here. I’m strongly aware of the futility of trying to change a conservative Christian’s view by challenging the authority of Scripture. So I chose to work within the framework of what I know they believe.”
Talk about bad faith!
The Bible imposes no rules on society, since America is a secular country. Moreover, Christianity does not seek to do a single thing Marlene listed. Yet you agree with those false statements and carry on a charade, pretending to care about scripture. In other words, even you admit that you’ve been lying this whole time.
And that really is my point. Your words are part of a grand lie. I am glad to finally see you admit it. I guess that means we’re done. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
The chapter ends with “Let all things be done decently and in order.” The two things women shouldn’t do is disrupt the service by prophesying out loud and they shouldn’t preach to men.
Just to note for the record – what you just did was interpret the clear meaning into something that made sense to you, just like everyone else does.
not a single person disagreed with the interpretation that homosexuality is a sin, including you.
This is an incorrect statement of my expressed view.
My wife’s nephew (now niece) is a trans and he comes over for Thanksgiving. I treat him/her as I would anyone else.
Would you agree that he should not, for instance, be thrown out of an apartment or a job he does well because he’s trans (possibly I should be saying “she” but I’m following you on this for now). Whom should this person be able to legally marry?
And you yourself have acknowledged that homosexuality is sin at least in the context of pagan worship.
EVERY thing is a sin in the context of pagan worship. it’s the false religion that makes it sin, not the biology of it.
Well, when you start deceiving and mutilating children then the courts should step in.
What child has been mutilated? The SOC require surgery occur after the age of 18. As for deception, do you think your nephew was actively deceived by someone into his current mindset? Or I? Why is it so hard for you to believe the child actually does think he’s female?
Talk about bad faith!
How so? I’ve said I’m a believer, and I am. Though I do not agree with the orthodoxy of any given denomination and obviously I don’t hold the mainstream religious right positions on some points. But, as an example, if you believed that Genesis 1 was to be understood literally, and I believed it to be understood rhetorically (say, as a teaching myth which communicated truth but was not actual history) I would nevertheless not try to change your view on some other point by assailing your view of Genesis 1. I try to be wise enough to recognize when certain lines of argument are obviously futile from the beginning.
. In other words, even you admit that you’ve been lying this whole time.
Not remotely – don’t jump to the conclusion that makes you look better. If I HAD been “lying this whole time” you ought at least give me credit for not being so stupid as to say so in the very thread. Rather, you ought to appreciate the transparency – that I admit to my “tactic” is a demonstration I’m not trying to “play” you. I simply acknowledge there’s no point in wasting both our time. which, with all due respect to Marlene, is what she’s doing.
I’ve seen atheists of my acquaintance on other boars attacking believers (including me) with the whole “bronze age deity invented by goat-herders” riff before. In my experience, they might as well just have said “agree to disagree” because they have no common frame of reference.
You and I do have a common frame of reference, just not completely parallel views.
The Bible imposes no rules on society
Indeed. You might want to tell that to AFA, NOM, FotF, and the rest of the right wing political machine (oh, and the Mormon and Catholic churches too)
Report comment to moderator
My how willing you are to diagnose the spiritual failings of your friend. how perceptive you must be to look into the heart of another and parse their standing with God.
Tammybeth,
I can “diagnose” this because she recognizes this to be true on her better days, and longs to be trusting more in her Savior, and resting fully in her love for Him. And we have prayed for it. On her bad days, as recently there have been many, she is highly resistant, is angry and blames God. We have been in this battle together for ten years. I am very familiar with the issues where she pushes back–one of the ways I expressed my anxiety was with an eating disorder.
But about transexual regret, I read this poignant excerpt on a transexual support website, “Changelings“, that spoke of one man’s experience with the surgery
It is heartbreaking to read, especially after the clinic that performed his surgery was shut down, after investigations revealed that serious malpractice was discovered: “A second review in 2006 found half of all patients had significant psychiatric conditions, such as borderline personality disorder and psychotic depression, but many were still operated on. There was no evidence that patients’ underlying mental problems were treated or their risk of suicide monitored.”
But you say this to such a person, perhaps one of the many who committed suicide following their transsexual surgery:
Boo-f’n-hoo. You have unrealistic expectations and you get disappointed, imagine that. It’s about as significant as a person who accepts a new job and finds out it wasn’t all that was promised, or a young couple that gets married too soon only to find out having a good marriage is hard. It’s called LIFE ladies. get over it.
I hope you, the spokesman for this issue who has all the answers, aren’t the on-call person at any support group for troubled Trans, because, “It literally takes my breath away that someone could display such overwhelming arrogance and call it loving concern.”
Report comment to moderator
Sin is sin no matter how TammyBeth wants to spin it. The Word of God is true and it is clear marriage is between one man and one woman…. For a Christian there is not debate over it. The Word of God the gay life stlye is called a sinful life stlye and Christian’s can not be involved in it or support it. For a Christian there is not debate over it.
TammyBeth, you call yourself a Christian, As a Minster of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am left question if your are, based on your comments. I am also left wondering If you are a Christian what type of Christian, are you,. Since many of your views are in Conflict with God’s Word, Christian History and the Christian Community. I also wonder who has failed to teach you God’s Word, why you feel so comfortable presetting non-christian based on society views not what God’s Words states. An that trouble me.
Report comment to moderator
You claim to be preaching the Word of God for 20 years but the basic Christian Doctrine on marriage being between one man and one woman. You are against. The basic Christian Doctrine on what is call a sexual sin, you seem to reject an have embrace the sexual sin and promote it. I am left again wondering who has failed you, and how other then prayer can someone like you be reached and delivered from such false teaching.
That is just my views, I am just a simple Pentecostal Preach, with B.S. Degree in Pastoral Ministry and a Minor in Bible and Theology and Christian’s Education, that have been teaching and preaching the Word of God since 1990. In many different enviorments
Report comment to moderator
The Bible imposes no rules on society
Indeed. You might want to tell that to AFA, NOM, FotF, and the rest of the right wing political machine (oh, and the Mormon and Catholic churches too)
—
So Christian’s are not permitted to stand up for Marriage? Since the standard for marriage in this nation has been between one man and one woman. Why would the Christian Community not stand up against any thing that would change it.
The real question is why do you have such a deep hate towards the Christian Community since FotF,Catholic churches are part of the Christian Community (I do not know who AFA, NOM)
S
Report comment to moderator
Since the Mormon Church was a support of marriage being between one man and one woman shows that non-christian also support marriage of one man and one woman.
Report comment to moderator
Xion — That’s just plain semantics. Whether it was the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age… the traditions of the time were still set: women were treated as property to be sold off or traded off at the father’s whim. Slavery was perfectly permissible, and they didn’t have a clue about the modern sciences we know today.
The Romans had a strict patriarchal social structure. If you were on top in a sexual relation, that was the man’s position, and if you were on the bottom, it was the woman’s position. Thusly, if a man was on the bottom, he was seen as lowering his status to a females (the same with wearing a woman’s garment), and if the woman was on top, or wore a man’s garment, it was seen as elevating herself, and equally taboo.
This is what I mean about looking at the book from its historical and sociological context. You can’t just read the passages without knowing the background of the author and the times it was written in.
When Paul was writing about “natural passions” he was assuming that ALL men were attracted to women and vice versa we know that’s not the case. Same with the letter to the Corinthians — he was attacking a pagan ritual. If any of those fertility temples begin to rise again *then* that passage pertains to *them*, and NOT the TLBG community as a whole. Sorry, Xion… that’s the context of that letter!
As to your assertion that the bible imposes no rules on society, that as wrong as Pluto is from the sun!
Ever since the discovery of the hemisphere by the Europeans, there have been conquerors imposing their interpretation of the bible on the native inhabitants. The Thirteen Colonies had only one true non-theocracy, Rhode Island, although Pennsylvania, though officially a Quaker state, had full religious freedom.
Trying to impose a Bronze/Iron Age set of mores on a world which has evolved way beyond that is illogical, immoral, and just plain stupid.
We *know* TLBG people have existed long before Christianity was invented. We *know* that despite the best laid plans of Christian oppressors, slavery, segregation and subjugation have been eliminated in this country.
A faith, their agents (ministers, rabbis, pastors, et al), and their buildings have the *perfect* right to impose their rules on those withing the sect. They do NOT, however, have the right to impose those ancient mores on a country run by a set of *secular* laws.
If you want to argue semantics, Xion… what makes the Methodists or the Presbyterians any less of a Christian denomination because they have women in the ministry and as leaders of synods? What makes certain Baptist sects believe they’re superior to any othyer denomination?
Report comment to moderator
We *know* that despite the best laid plans of Christian oppressors, slavery, segregation and subjugation have been eliminated in this country.
–
The Christian CHurch was a driven force to remove slavery, segregation and subjugation. Which you seem not to understand. But I expect that from some who supports the GLBT Community.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, my dear boy… do you remember *why* the Baptist faith split back in the 1800s into it’s Southern Baptist branch? Because the Southern Baptists used the bible as justification to continue slavery!
When Christopher Columbus made his additional trips to the New World (financed by Catholic Spain!), one of his reports said that the inhabitants would make excellent slaves!
One of the reasons Roger Williams fled Massachusetts to establish Rhode Island was the fact he was up on charges of heresy filed by the Puritan theocrats. Why? Because he said that the natives had souls and thus could *not* be enslaved by the whites!
So don’t give me this song and dance routine, Roy… yes, there were many thousands of devout Christians who were committed to abolition. But Christianity as a whole has a long and sordid history of justifying the ownership of human beings by using the bible.
Report comment to moderator
But Christianity as a whole has a long and sordid history of justifying the ownership of human beings by using the bible.
—-
Marlene – Please take your deep hate and dislike for the Christian’s Faith and go play some where else. The left has a history of trying their best to change history to demonize the Christian Faith.
Now with that said has evil sinful men use God’s Word to promote evil yes… The WOrd of God shows the Devil Himself twist the Word of God to trap people into sin. Just like what we see today with the promoting the idea that God is ok with the GLBT Community life.
Report comment to moderator
Roy…. my dear boy, I do NOT hate Christians or Christianity. I was raised United Methodist. I left the church when it couldn’t answer my questions about my gender and my sexuality.
What I hate are Christians who are under the serious delusion that they’re the sole embodiment of god’s word, believing that they and *only* they are the sole arbiter of morality, and think they have the holy right to impose their and *only* their interpretation of the bible on the country as a whole.
Our Constitution is a *secular* document. The religious beliefs of someone is not valid in a court of law, nor is it an excuse to violate or restrict the rights on *anyone* in this country.
Report comment to moderator
304 sounds like hate to me… An you problem is with the Amerincan People who time and time again votes for marriage between one man and one woman.
Oh, by the way, no rights are bing violate or restrict other then the Christian who are speaking out aginst the GLBT Community.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, with respect, you are conflating two separate issues (if not more) – not every form of mental distress is the same, or requires the same treatment, or had the same origins.
let me see if I can parse out a response to your post without quoting the whole thing.
The article on the “Changlings” link begins with this sentence:
Why as a transsexual was I never made aware of the possible effects that HRT would have on me? I was put onto the hormone regime with no explanation of the side effects/symptoms that I am now encountering.
Such an event, if indeed it happened, is not a reflection of the Standards of Care which have been in place for the treatment of GID for over 40 years.
I suggest that you can find accounts of sloppy doctors doing sloppy treatment in EVERY field of medicine, particularly among GPS. If this person got poor medical service, the takeaway is “some people get poor medical service” not “all trans people get poor medical service.”
From your quote:
I had SRS in November 2001 and am extremely happy with my new self, but must admit to the odd occasion recently of wishing to end it all because of all the symptoms and effects they are having on me.
How exactly does such a deceleration reflect a “tragic” outcome? Having a hormone influence mental difficulty is very common among post-menopausal women (and is associated with puberty) – how naive would this person have to be to NOT anticipate there would be such potential difficulties?
Obviously what is going on here is NOT “I regret my choice, I miss my penis, I’m really a guy” is it?
Continuing:
With us it seems all in one, no wonder we tend to flip out.
A comment not based in fact. People who “flip out” focus on the whole phenomena of “flipping out” and are eventually aware that it has happened to others. but we don’t “tend to.” And it’s not at all an argument against the transsexual process that these women – shockingly – experience the same emotional difficulties that many natural born women experience.
What, exactly, do you expect when you become a woman – that you WON’T experience some of the difficulties women do? Again, unreasonable expectations always lead to disappointment.
And I must repeat – if you are unaware that adjusting hormones creates emotional side effects then you really ought to get out more. You won’t find many teenagers that don’t know that.
Continuing:
Because of the lack of understanding on my part and the lack of Documentation, Research and Education on the part of the professionals…
there is no lack of research, education, and resources on the part of the medical professional community. if this person failed to avail themselves of it, or if they used an incompetent professional who churned out a prescription without at least informed consent, then, again, the lesson is “choose your doctor better” – it’s not “no info exists.”
Such a claim is ludicrous. There’s more medical info on line of all sorts than a person can possibly consume, and the net is flooded with trans related facts on everything from hormones to surgery. And that was every bit as true in 2000 as now. Anyone who takes a drug without looking up the potential effects needs to look in the mirror for the villain because it’s inexcusably naive. Laying that failure off on the medical community is weak sauce by any measure. Even if she did have an incompetent doctor.
I have been on the brink several times recently, with no access to Professional help available when required. I have to wait 1 or 2 months, could be dead by then. As far as I know there are no counsellors for my problems, I find this appalling and quite unacceptable!
Is it possible this problem has, for instance, too little money to avail themselves of professional services? Yes. It is possible that some other circumstance like distance intervenes? Yes.
The claim that there is no counselling for her situation is every bit as out-of-touch with reality as all the previous claims. If this person doesn’t know, then they need to pick up the phone because there’s more out there than she can pick between.
Yes, it is true that specifically specialized gender therapists, who make that their only profession, are hard to find in rural areas – but that’s not what she needs now. she’s not claiming gender confusion here.
It is heartbreaking to read
Not really. not unless you find gross ignorance heartbreaking. I sympathize with deep depression, I’ve experienced it. I do NOT mean to demean her pain. but that doesn’t mean her claims are not patent nonsense. if she took HRT without learning about the potential effects, that responsibility is AT LEAST equally hers and the doctors. in this day and age of information, it’s inexcusable not to do your homework. This isn’t the 1960’s when you simply had to take the doctors word for it (and even then you can get a second opinion).
especially after the clinic that performed his surgery was shut down, after investigations revealed that serious malpractice was discovered:
I’m not seeing the connection between the person you quoted and that troubled clinic but here’s what I did – what thinking people do – I looked up Monash Medical Centre and I found this description:
The Mental Health Program of Southern Health is one of the largest mental health services in Victoria providing comprehensive mental health services for all age groups for the people living in the South eastern region of Melbourne. Mental health program works in close collaboration with Monash University School of Psychiatry, Psychology and Psychological Medicine. The Mental Health Program provides 100 acute adult inpatient beds in three hospitals, 20 bed intensive secure and extended care beds, 40 beds community rehabilitation services beds, 8 Mother and Baby and Eating Disorder beds, Crisis Assessment and Treatment Teams (CATT) based at Clayton, Dandenong and Berwick, Community mental health services (CCT, MSTT), Emergency Psychiatric services based at the major hospitals, primary care psychiatry, specialist gender dysphoria services, Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services and extensive Consultation & liaison psychiatry services.
It’s pretty difficult to read that and imagine this person has any credibility when they say they couldn’t find access to any mental health care, before during or after.
According to that description, the campus is literally crawling with psychiatrists. Did she expect them to chase her down? how can there be THAT much mental health care on the same campus as where you received your treatment and you couldn’t find your way to any of them? And that’s there fault?
But you say this to such a person, perhaps one of the many who committed suicide following their transsexual surgery:
Actually, no, I said that to the person who wrote on the blog about having trouble being accepted, or being disappointed about not being pretty enough, or other such similar shallow reasons. I didn’t say anything to the person you just not brought up. My comment to those people who think that getting GRS suddenly makes them a supermodel or homecoming queen stands. My comment to those people who think their brother who disowned them will suddenly love them, or any other similarly unrealistic expectation is perfectly appropriate.
My comment to the person you quoted goes more like this:
Help is out there, and it has always been out there. if you don’t go get some, the responsibility is at least partly yours. Perhaps you did get poorly served by a bad clinic, but you can wallow in that or you can get help. You say that you are very happy with your physical transformation so clearly you are not one of the people the newspaper article describes as being unhappy that you had the operation. You simply have been under-served in regard to post-op depression and hormonally induced emotional difficulties.
Thousands of genetic women go through menopause and suffer the exact same difficulties and far too many of those attempt to “suck it up” rather than get help too – often with deadly results. The fault here is not the profession – it’s not their job to follow you around in case you need help. Rather it’s on you to go and seek out help. Quit finger pointing at poor treatment in your past and step up and seek professional treatment now. Laying blame is every bit as much a symptom of your depression as suicidal thoughts are. It stands between you and the help you need.
As for this:
I hope you, the spokesman for this issue who has all the answers, aren’t the on-call person at any support group for troubled Trans, because, “It literally takes my breath away that someone could display such overwhelming arrogance and call it loving concern.”
It is pretty devious of you, or sloppy, to take my remarks directed at other people, who clearly stated shallow and superficial reasons for their dissatisfaction and did claim to regret their surgery, as remarks which would be directed at a person suffering from legitimate emotional and mental health difficulties but still did not regret their surgery.
I refuse to accept your harsh judgement when you can’t even get that most basic fact right.
People who know me know my heart – you don’t.
Report comment to moderator
I am just a simple Pentecostal Preach(er)
Interesting. If I may ask, are you of that brand of Pentecostalism that asserts a woman is not to wear pants, or makeup, nor a man long hair or facial hair?
Report comment to moderator
So Christian’s are not permitted to stand up for Marriage
By all means. As private citizens on a private basis. what you are not allowed to do in a free country is shanghai the force of law to impose a religious doctrine on those who do not share a belief in that doctrine.
What if, for instance, the mainstream evangelical church pressured the government to outlaw speaking in tongues – would that be cool with you? what if it required you confess your sins to a catholic priest and do pennence? All good right? And if you were required to tithe to the Baptist church only?
whatever one’s view of the Bible’s standard on homosexuality, it is crystal clear that opposition to it arises from a religious doctrine and unless you live in a theocracy, you need something other than doctrine to justify your legal actions.
Since the standard for marriage in this nation has been between one man and one woman.
For 194 years, the standard in this country was that the races should not intermarry. You yourself have conceded that race is not a valid obstacle to legal marriage and ought never have been, but it’s a certainty your granddaddy didn’t share that view and would have had exactly the same objections, were he asked about it, that you do. And would have credited his views to the Bible too.
The reality is that “we’ve always done it that way” is no more an excuse to do a legal thing – particularly impose upon liberty – than saying “God said so” is.
what YOU do is between you and god, what the government does is a whole other thing.
The real question is why do you have such a deep hate towards the Christian Community since FotF,Catholic churches are part of the Christian Community (I do not know who AFA, NOM)
Because obviously disagreement regarding public policy equals hatred, yes? does that mean you hate me – since we obviously disagree?
Report comment to moderator
Since the Mormon Church was a support of marriage being between one man and one woman shows that non-christian also support marriage of one man and one woman.
Your sentence is missing a “some”
I’ll help you out here – the Ayatollah ain’t big on it either.
Report comment to moderator
The Christian CHurch was a driven force to remove slavery, segregation and subjugation.
you keep dropping your “some”
SOME Christians were indeed in the front row of those movements. Many others were clucking and calling them apostate and “not real Christians” because of that action too. Drop yourself into a Pentecostal (or Baptist et al) white church in Mississippi in 1960 and ask them what they thought about the REVEREND Dr. King?
I promise you “fine Christian man” won’t pass anyone’s lips.
There are documented sermons, preached from the pulpit and published in print before the Civil War – and not just in the south – defending the legitimacy of slavery even while other, dare I say it, more “progressive” Christians were working to end it.
in point of fact, while I’m a libertarian with strong conservative leanings – the reality is that every one of those Christians you refer to, out there fighting for freedom for oppressed people? ALL of them were derided as “liberals” who didn”t know how to read their Bible or outright rejected it.
In other words, they were described exactly as you have described me in this thread. Fine company you are keeping.
You must be so proud.
Report comment to moderator
We are dealing with people who are trapped in a sexual sin that is separating them from God. The only hope these people have in order not to face God’s judgment that is coming . Is not found in the Mental Health Groups (which can help deal with life) or bullying programs (no one should be bully), it is found in God’s Word that point the people to Jesus Christ.
But you and other seem to not want to point this out to the GLBT Community. They can not per God’s Word entry heavens gates living in sexual sins. They must repent of their sins (which includes their sexual sins) and come to the saving knowledge of Christ. They can not do this as long as people are teaching them the false teaching that God is ok with the way they are living and God is ok with same sex marriage.
I am sorry but that view goes against the Word of God. You can quote all the polls you want and all the Mental Health writers you want, you can provided all the bullying programs you want and try to change all society views and laws you want.
It will not provide freedom from their sexual sins, they will not draw them closers to God. Only at the cross of Jesus Christ can they find freedom from their sexual sins and open the door for them to draw closer to God.
Sexual Sins are not easy to over come, but with Christ help they can and will be set free.
Report comment to moderator
They can not per God’s Word entry heavens gates living in sexual sins. They must repent of their sins (which includes their sexual sins) and come to the saving knowledge of Christ. They can not do this as long as people are teaching them the false teaching that God is ok with the way they are living and God is ok with same sex marriage.
I suggest God’s arm is not so short as you seem to believe.
Report comment to moderator
I would suggest reading Matthew 5:17-20, Ephesians 5:3-5 and 1 John. Also everyone should remember Romans 3.
Report comment to moderator
TammyBeth – You need to go back to God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Roy #305 — I assure you, son that had the elimination of Jim Crow and the lifting of the bans on interracial marriage were put up to a vote, you can be assured that there would *still* be states in the south who would have these perverted laws on the books!
The rights of a minority should *NEVER, EVER* be put to the vote by the mob! That’s why we have a judicial branch, my dear boy — as a limit on the mob to deny civil rights.
I’d like to remind you, love that when the Loving v Virginia case was being argued in the courts, the approval rating for interracial marriage in the country was FOUR PERCENT! Today, the approval rating for same-sex marriage is *53%*, higher yet for younger folks and those with a higher education.
Just to remind you, son… the original judge in the Loving case quoted scripture as the justification for the miscegenation laws. It’s no different than those using scripture as justification to deny “same-sex” couples marriage equality.
Right now, there are six states and the District of Columbia which has marriage equality, which includes transsexuals and intersexuals. Is a male-to-female transsexual in a “same-sex” marriage if she marries a female? Is a female-to-male transsexual in a “same-sex” marriage if he weds a male?
Once again, I remind you Roy, that we’re talking about a collection of books which was written nearly 1,500+ years ago by a people who had no knowledge of medicine, psychology, astrology, cosmology, etcetera. Put a person from today’s world back in that time and if they performed CPR on someone they’d be considered a god or an angel sent by god.
Just as most of the Christian denominations no longer regard or follow the bans on women wearing men’s clothing in church, and women in the ministry and in higher office within the church, not to mention denouncing the various passages promoting slavery, and *especially* divorce! — it’s time the faith as a whole give up on six little passages regarding pagan fertility rituals, Roman social structure taboos, among other outdated mores.
Report comment to moderator
Marlene, as you say just because the majority says so doesn’t make it right. The same applies to “most of the Christian denominations.” Just because may Christians let things slide doesn’t make said things right.
Report comment to moderator
“Just because many Christians…”
Report comment to moderator
Marlene – since you are not a Christian, I do not expect you to want to live for God and understand His Word. Enjoy your sinful life…..
Report comment to moderator
The American People should decide what should be the standard of Marriage for the Nation. Not little judges playing like they are kings and queens.. nor a very small group of people who desire to have their moral values, views and ideas the standard for this Nation.
Report comment to moderator
Right now, there are six states and the District of Columbia which has marriage equality
—
How many were approved by the people and how many had it force upon them by judges acting like kings and queens or polictal people paid to vote a certain way.
Report comment to moderator
Today, the approval rating for same-sex marriage is *53%*, higher yet for younger folks and those with a higher education.
–
But you still lose when the American People get to decide what is the Standard of marriage for this nation. Why is that?
Report comment to moderator
Loving v Virginia – did not change marriage it reafirmed marriage being between one man and one woman… You problem is you want to change marriage to your standard. An when the American People have voted on it they have said no we want marriage to stay between one man and one woman…. It is only by judges and paid polictal people, acting like kings and queens have you won.
Report comment to moderator
reading material, written by an aged conservative Baptist minister – in several parts:
I Corinthians 6:9
King James Version:
9 . . .Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.
New International Version:
9 . . .Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves…will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revised Standard Version – 1952 edition: 9…Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homo-sexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revised Standard Version – 1971 edition: 9 . . . Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.
A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators instead of translations (as in the NIV in the Sodom story above). In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The KJV translates the first “effeminate,” a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first “male prostitutes” and the second, “homosexual offenders.” The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, “homosexuals.” In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation “homosexuals” is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as “sexual perverts”; obviously the translators had concluded that the earlier translation could not be justified.
Malakoi literally means “soft” and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, “morally weak.” There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it “homosexuals.”
Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means “pederast,” a man using boys for sex, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn’t he use one of the common words?
Report comment to moderator
Romans 1:21, 26, 27
Revised Standard Version
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him . . . 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men . . .
The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.
Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only Bible passage that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in these heterosexuals’ being “consumed with passion” and in such lust practicing same-gender sex. All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living, homosexual or heterosexual, stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God. Gays and lesbians coming to our churches professing Christ as Savior and Lord and wanting to work and worship with us do not fall in this category; Romans 1 is not talking about them.
Clearly the passage is talking about people for whom sex with the opposite gender is “natural.” We call them “heterosexual.” There is nothing in this passage that relates to homosexual people.
Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, “No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible.”73
Report comment to moderator
I Timothy 1:10
King James Version:
9 . . . the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, . . . 10 . . . for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai) . . .
Revised Standard Version – both 1952 and 1971 editions:
9 . . . the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for . . . 10 . . . immoral persons, sodomites (arsenokoitai), . .
New International Version:
9 . . . the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful . . . 10 . . . for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai)
Here only the RSV specifically refers to same-gender sex, using the term “sodomites,” which is the translation given in both the Old Testament and New Testament to Hebrew and Greek words for male temple prostitutes. The KJV probably has the same thought. The NIV does not necessarily refer to same-gender sex. Again Paul has used the Greek word arsenokoitai, the word in I Cor. 6:9. As discussed above, this word would have no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex.
So like the other two New Testament passages, I Tim. 1:10 says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals and nothing about same-gender sex unless that of temple prostitutes or possibly the keeping of young boys for sex by heterosexuals.
(my note – again the question must be ask – if he meant same-gender sex, why didn’t he use any of the five words available to him that clearly convey that meaning? Was Paul, and God-via-Paul intentionally unclear?)
Report comment to moderator
Genesis 18:20 to 19:29 – The story of Sodom
These verses tell us that God decided to destroy the city of Sodom because of its sins, but they do not say what the sins were. God-fearing Lot had settled in Sodom, and the evening before the destruction, two angels, disguised as men, came to the city to save Lot by leading him and his family out the next day. Hospitable Lot took them to his home. That evening a mob gathered at his house demanding that Lot bring out the two men so they (the mob) could “know” (KJV and RSV) them. NIV says, “have sex with them.” Lot refused, and when the mob was about to break down his door, the angels struck them all blind and the mob dispersed. The next day Lot and his family were led out of the city, which was then destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven
Homophobics (including some Bible translators) maintain that the mob lusted for homosexual sex with the strangers and that such sex was the reason that God destroyed the city, evidence, they say, that God condemns homosexual sex. (We might note that God did not destroy Sodom for what the mob wanted to do that night; he had already decided to destroy it.)
If this story were about sex, the most obvious thing would be that the intention of the mob was criminal, gang rape, utterly condemnable. The same condemnation would apply to heterosexual gang rape, but we would make no application of it to loving heterosexual sex. If this story were about homosexual gang rape, it could not be compared with the love between gay and lesbian partners.
Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, “The notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah – often cited in connection with homosexuality – is actually irrelevant to the topic.”69
Nothing else needs to be said. Nevertheless, I want to point out why many scholars believe “know” did not mean sex. Their reasons seem irrefutable.
The Hebrew word here, yadha, “to know,” is used 943 times in the OT; in only ten uses does it clearly mean “to have sex,” always clearly to mean heterosexual sex. The Hebrew shakhabh means “to have same-gender sex”; the writer surely would have used it if that had been what he meant. The people of Sodom had reason for wanting to know, i.e., to find out, who these men were and what they wanted. Each walled city was suspicious of every other. Lot was an outsider and now he is entertaining two other outsiders. Who are they and what do they want? Evidence points to yadha’s meaning “know,” not “have sex.”
Further evidence for these scholars is in the fact that outside of Genesis Sodom is mentioned 28 times in the Bible as an example of great sin; not once is same-gender sex suggested. Ezekiel 16:49 does describe the sins of Sodom, the only verse in the Bible that does; and sex is not listed as one of them. Jesus speaks of Sodom’s evil in the context of inhospitality. (In Old Testament times inhospitality could result in death for a traveler left to the mercy of wild animals.)
Some scholars believe that in that time in history, if the “know” meant sex, it would not have been the sex of lust. Same-gender sex was ritualistically practiced in heathen worship. It was also widely practiced by men who wanted to degrade or humiliate another man by making him take the place of a (virtually worthless) woman. It was practiced by conquering armies on their captives. Scholars say it so degraded a man that it was almost like murder. The Bible says “all the men of Sodom to the last man” came to Lot’s door. Since we can believe some 95% of all the men of Sodom were heterosexual, if current percentages prevailed then, if it was sex the mob wanted, it was this kind of sex, dominance, degradation, humiliation.
For these reasons many scholars find it impossible to find any lustful, homosexual sex in the story of Sodom.
Source for all:
http://christiangays.com/articles/louise.shtml
Don’t let the name fool you, the Gay Christian site is simply re-posting a pre-existing document.
Do you dare risk reading the scholarship of one who holds a differing view? Or will you scream “LIBERALS!!! EEEEE!!!” and run screaming into the night?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Roy just showed he’s not very knowledgeable about the Constitution. But then bigots usually aren’t very intelligent in any event.
Pastor Roy #318 — Marlene – since you are not a Christian, I do not expect you to want to live for God and understand His Word. Enjoy your sinful life…
First, I was raised United Methodist. Last time I know it was a Christian sect. Second, I understand the bible *very* well, my dear boy… all too well. Third, I’ll put *my* life and *my* morals up against yours and anyone else’s, sweetie!
Pastor Roy #319 — The American People should decide what should be the standard of Marriage for the Nation. Not little judges playing like they are kings and queens.. nor a very small group of people who desire to have their moral values, views and ideas the standard for this Nation.
Oh? So the rights of every minority should be up to the vote of the mob? If that’s the case my clueless and ignorant friend, there would STILL be places in the south who would not only deny blacks the right to vote, but to ban interracial marriage and still impose Jim Crow segregation! More comments on this below…
Pastor Roy #320 — How many were approved by the people and how many had it force upon them by judges acting like kings and queens or polictal people paid to vote a certain way.
My darling boy — you should go back to middle school and take a remedial class in civics and the Constitution, because you obviously failed it the first time around!
First, the judiciary’s job is to rule on violations of the Constitution! Denying someone their civil rights IS a serious violation, and it’s the duty of the judicial branch to remove laws that do so!
Did you know your fellow bigots from 40+ years ago said the same nonsense when they struck down all the laws denying discrimination based on race? Some even called for the impeachment of the Supreme Court when the voted 9-0 to strike the ban on interracial marriage?
Pastor Roy #321 — But you still lose when the American People get to decide what is the Standard of marriage for this nation. Why is that?
Gee could it be that the people fall for the lies, the deception and the fact not very many people don’t know a lesbian or gay couple might be living next door or attend their church or see them at the market?
As I said, sweetums… the approval rating is now 53% — way up from a 39% approval not too many years ago!
Do I have to remind you that the Gallup Poll approval rating for interracial marriage was 4% while the Loving case went htrough the courts, and didn’t cross the 50% barrier until the 1998 survey? Currently the approval rate is now 86%… and it’s sad to still see 14% of people still close-minded and bigoted.
So just because 95% of the people disapproved of interracial marriage in 1964 meant that the US Supreme Court shouldn’t have been allowed to rule on the Constitutionality of those bans?
Pastor Roy #322 — Loving v Virginia did not change marriage it reafirmed marriage being between one man and one woman… You problem is you want to change marriage to your standard. An when the American People have voted on it they have said no we want marriage to stay between one man and one woman…. It is only by judges and paid polictal people, acting like kings and queens have you won.
Guess what, my dear boy…. the judiciary do NOT act like kings and queens! They apply the law as decreed by the Constitution.
Our Constitution demands something called a “compelling interest” before being able to legally deny a minority their equal access to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which includes marriage, and all other non-discrimination laws and ordinances.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Loving that either religious beliefs nor an ambiguous thing called “tradition” is a compelling reason to deny the equal recognition of ALL marriages in all 50 states. It’s a violation of the ban on laws considered “separate but equal”, ie a man and a woman can marry — as long as they’re the same race”.
DOMA and its bastard children in the states flagrantly violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Furthermore, the direct voting on the rights of Americans flagrantly violates the Constitution’s guarantee of Due Process. It’s obvious you don’t know neither the Constitution nor the fact our country was based on secular law and not the whims of the people.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, I guess actual exegesis scared Roy and the rest of the choir off. Maybe they had to go and do some actual bible study to puzzle it out. Here’s hoping.
Report comment to moderator
Either that Tammy, or Roy and Xion are afraid now because they can’t intimidate us with their empty threats and refute our knowledge of a book they claim to know intimately we know alot more then they!
Report comment to moderator
More likely you just booooored them to death. ;–)
Be well anyway.
Report comment to moderator
the reason so many Christians are so willing to be led about by the nose by their teachers (often into error) is because they find actual study to understand the word too boring.
Report comment to moderator
I too will be leaving the conversation. It is taking the turn to where snide remarks about each other is obscuring respectful conversation.
Be assured that I have studied the Bible thoroughly and disagree with most of the conclusions you have drawn. You will likely accuse me of unwillingness to engage in studying the Biblical text with you. I simply sense that your minds are made up and this forum is not the place for effective conversation.
In conclusion I want to say two things.
One, I hope that you can admit and appreciate that a conservative Christian has treated you with respect. There are far more of us who do so than you realize. We have homosexual friends and family members whom we love and care for sincerely. We love you at the same time we are deeply saddened by what we believe it has done, is doing, and will do to your relationships with God.
Two, Majority opinion matters little to me. (Other than the natural human desire to have my views seen as right by lots of other people) My desire is to know God’s opinion and to be on His side. The fact that anti-Biblical opinions and behaviors gain majority status simply means that the community is turning its back on God, which, by the way, Sodom and Gomorrah evidently did and received their just consequences. (I do believe that their sin was undoubtedly more than just homosexual behaviors)
The consequences of believing the Bible condemns homosexual behavior seem much less harsh than the consequences of believing (and acting out) that homosexual behavior is not condemned in the Bible.
May God rescue us each from ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
Neil: Be assured that I have studied the Bible thoroughly and disagree with most of the conclusions you have drawn.
Why is that, though?
They make good arguments, especially on the translations. I have also studied this issue and I know that they’re right … it is true that the two words in question do not refer specifically to same-sex acts, and it is also true that there are several Greek words that would have been far more specific about it, if that was Paul’s true intention.
So you disagree with it on what basis? Because of the facts, or because you just don’t want to have to question the position you’ve already made up your mind about?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I agree that there are a variety of ways that words can be translated and that legitimate disagreements can and do occur. My disagreements are not with the possible interpretations of words but with the contexts they have applied to arrive at their choice of word interpretations.
Romans was written to faithful Christians of both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds (Rom 1) it was not written to people immersed in the pagan rituals of the day. Paul wrote to define God’s philosophy of salvation which begins with the clear alienation of man from God and proceeds through grace to trust and obedience.
All sin in the Bible is described in somewhat general ways. God did not seek to describe every nuance of sin. It is common of all of us to see our own sins as different from what the Bible describes. “My looking wasn’t lusting, my parents didn’t deserve to be obeyed, it was only a little lie… and on and on.” “The Bible only condemns pagan temple homosexuality” is in the same arena.
We are not bound for Hell because of individual sins but because our nature is unrighteous and unfit to live in the presence of God. If a homosexual goes to Hell it is not because of their homosexual behavior any more than someone would be separated from God because of their adultery or even murder.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I agree that there are a variety of ways that words can be translated and that legitimate disagreements can and do occur. My disagreements are not with the possible interpretations of words but with the contexts they have applied to arrive at their choice of word interpretations.
Romans was written to faithful Christians of both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds (Rom 1) it was not written to people immersed in the pagan rituals of the day. Paul wrote to define God’s philosophy of salvation which begins with the clear alienation of man from God and proceeds through grace to trust and obedience.
All sin in the Bible is described in somewhat general ways. God did not seek to describe every nuance of sin. It is common of all of us to see our own sins as different from what the Bible describes. “My looking wasn’t lusting, my parents didn’t deserve to be obeyed, it was only a little lie… and on and on.” “The Bible only condemns pagan temple homosexuality” is in the same arena.
Even more fundamentally, we are not separated from God because of our individual sexual sins or any other sins. We are separated because of our unrighteous nature which naturally shakes its fist in God’s face and says: “I have a better way.” Trying to find excuses for our sin is a prime part of that nature. And, I am not going to heaven because I am not a homosexual or because I have avoided any other sin. I am made fit for fellowship with God by the righteous sacrifice of Jesus, the same way any other sinner can be.
I do not have the time to address each issue that has been brought up. Neither do I sense there are homosexuals involved in the conversation who would read my comments with open minds.
Report comment to moderator
opps… Only need to read #335.
Report comment to moderator
Neil: Even though Christians aren’t saved by good behavior, they are encouraged to avoid sin and behave well.
In the case of sexual attraction, avoiding sin means the person is being asked to live without intimate human love or else try to be content with a heterosexual relationship that will feel just as false to them as a same-sex one would to you.
If you’re going to ask people to do something that profoundly life-altering, you have an obligation to be darn sure you’re right about the need to. So what the Greek words really mean is important. What the context is is important.
Your response starts with the assumption that homosexuality is sin in all contexts. What if that wasn’t God’s intention? If it wasn’t, then you’re asking people to make a momentous sacrifice for nothing, based on a mistranslation.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!