Question for the Ladies, Men Can Answer as well if they want to

[MehGuy]

why does sperm equal male and the shorter eggs equal female?

Is this conversation destined to go on for eternity?

 

[Sammy-San]

Is this conversation destined to go on for eternity?

I posted the wierd joke because I wanna use the computer less and the easiest way without getting rid of it is banning myself.

 

[MehGuy]

I posted the wierd joke because I wanna use the computer less and the easiest way without getting rid of it is banning myself.

I know it is possible to request a self ban. Admittedly I am not entirely sure how it works. For example I believe you can request to be banned for 30 days and once the request is put in you cannot do anything to rescind it.

I've had those feelings before. Yet could never really muster up the willpower. For optics I never wanted to have my name appeared banned even if requested. I do think Christianforums is one of the better forums out there. There have been times I've been tempted to join reddit, yet the cesspool would change me for the worst. The more family friendly presence here helps keep things relatively civil. I do want to start a Youtube channel soon and that will open up a can of worms, but I've learned from content creators like The Amazing Atheist how to handle more troublesome members of the audience.

 

[Sammy-San]

I know it is possible to request a self ban. Admittedly I am not entirely sure how it works. For example I believe you can request to be banned for 30 days and once the request is put in you cannot do anything to rescind it.

I've had those feelings before. Yet could never really muster up the willpower. For optics I never wanted to have my name appeared banned even if requested. I do think Christianforums is one of the better forums out there. There have been times I've been tempted to join reddit, yet the cesspool would change me for the worst. The more family friendly presence here helps keep things relatively civil. I do want to start a Youtube channel soon and that will open up a can of worms, but I've learned from content creators like The Amazing Atheist how to handle more troublesome members of the audience.

Heres why I think animals dont have gender. They arent made in Gods image.
Is it wrong for men to be effeminate or for women to be masculine? | GotQuestions.org

Is it wrong for men to be effeminate or for women to be masculine?

Question: "Is it wrong for men to be effeminate or for women to be masculine?"

Answer: In order to answer this question, we need to define some terms. People are different. We are not cookie-cutter clones divided only by gender. A slightly built man with a naturally soft voice may be considered effeminate by some, but he may be just as joyfully accepting of his gender as a muscle-bound caricature of manliness. A man’s build and natural attributes are gifts from God and are not to be points of ridicule. The same is true for women. Some women are more stereotypically feminine than others. Their desires and interests correspond with the accepted ideal of what it means to be a woman. But a tomboy can be as honoring to God as a girly-girl if she embraces His design for her and glorifies Him with her gifts.

So for the purposes of this article, we will define effeminate (for men) and masculine (for women) as lifestyle choices in defiance of a person’s God-given gender. In the Old Testament, the word translated as “effeminate” is also used for male prostitutes (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 22:46). In the New Testament, the Greek word translated “effeminate” means “soft and delicate.” In First Corinthians 6:9, this word is listed separately from homosexuality, indicating that they are not synonymous. An “effeminate” man in this verse is one who has rejected his masculinity and identifies as a female. He may or may not be sexually active, but he has chosen to live intentionally as a “soft and delicate” person, rather than embrace His God-given identity as a man. He takes on the characteristics of a female and relates to other males much like women do.

When God designed male and female (Genesis 5:2), He created more than mere physical differences. Men and women were created to fulfill differing roles in creation and in our relationship with the Lord. Rejecting those God-assigned roles is a symptom of rebellion against our Creator. When people defy God and decide they can live any way they choose, God allows them to follow their perverted lusts to their natural consequences. Romans 1:26–27 says, “That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved” (NLT).

Perversion escalates when women and men abandon their God-ordained identities and try to adopt the characteristics of the opposite gender. Men become like women, and women become like men. The sin lies in our choices, not our natural differences. We must be careful not to assign certain traits to each gender based upon our own cultural norms. In some cultures, men holding hands or kissing on the cheek is a sign of friendship, not an indication of femininity or homosexuality. In Jesus’ day, men wore robes and reclined at the table, lying upon each other’s chests (John 21:20). But these cultural differences in no way indicate a rejection of masculinity.

The phenomenon of gender reversals is escalating in our day with sex-change surgeries and demands that the “transgendered” be accommodated. People are abandoning their natural identities and mentally identifying as any gender they choose. Society is indulging this craziness, which leads to even more confusion. For those struggling with gender confusion, the answer lies not in altering their physical bodies, but in allowing the Holy Spirit to change their hearts (1 Peter 4:2). When we submit ourselves fully to the lordship of Jesus, we desire to follow His design for us, rather than choose our own design (Galatians 2:20).

For a man to despise his gender and identify as a woman, or for a woman to abandon her gender and present herself as a man, is wrong. It is a defiance of God’s design when He created male and female. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” This command was not as much about clothing as it was about guarding the sanctity of what it means to be a man or a woman. Romans 1 shows that gender confusion is merely a symptom of a bigger problem. When people reject God’s authority and set themselves up as their own gods, chaos results. Verses 21 and 22 illustrate the problem: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”

Thinking that we know better than God is the doorway to becoming a fool. When a man defies his masculinity or a woman rejects her femininity, it is a symptom of grosser sin: rejection of God’s ultimate authority. The closer we grow to God, the more we can embrace our gender identity. Both genders display certain aspects of God’s character in a unique way. When we pervert His choice for us, we limit the opportunities He gives us to demonstrate the glory of being created in His image (Genesis 1:27).

 

[MehGuy]

Heres why I think animals dont have gender. They arent made in Gods image.

Well I've already aired my thoughts on this subject. Great apes probably have a somewhat defined concept of gender like us humans. Other animals do too, but to a more limited extent. Some things have been brewing for a while in an evolutionary sense even before there were any modern humans.

Some animals are different, where the female is naturally in charge. I believe that is the case with hyenas. I believe that in some species it is the males who are actually more neotenous than the females, although why that would be is hard for me to believe. Humans are rare in that it is the men who are more concerned with the physical appearance of the woman than the other way around. This does not mean women do not care about physical appearances though. The big change being with humans I believe is that growth of our intelligence and use of tools which freed up women to be less concerned with physical attractiveness overall and focus more on things on the inside like the mind. When I mean mind I do not mean something in a non-shallow sense. But a mind that is intelligent and able to use brain power to gather more resources. While for men, liking neotenous cues lead to the morphology of bigger globular skulls and brain to body mass ratio. There is a psychological element too. Human extended childhoods help the brain be less rigid and more malleable for creative thought.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well I've already aired my thoughts on this subject. Great apes probably have a somewhat defined concept of gender like us humans. Other animals do too, but to a more limited extent. Some things have been brewing for a while in an evolutionary sense even before there were any modern humans.

Some animals are different, where the female is naturally in charge. I believe that is the case with hyenas. I believe that in some species it is the males who are actually more neotenous than the females, although why that would be is hard for me to believe. Humans are rare in that it is the men who are more concerned with the physical appearance of the woman than the other way around. This does not mean women do not care about physical appearances though. The big change being with humans I believe is that growth of our intelligence and use of tools which freed up women to be less concerned with physical attractiveness overall and focus more on things on the inside like the mind. When I mean mind I do not mean something in a non-shallow sense. But a mind that is intelligent and able to use brain power to gather more resources. While for men, liking neotenous cues lead to the morphology of bigger globular brains and brain to body mass ratio. There is a psychological element too. Human extended childhoods help the brain be less rigid and more malleable for creative thought.

Do you mean limited sense the way I said it? what you said about physical appearance agrees with what I said in my last post. What do you disagree about?

i think what you said about royalty and what i learned about ancient egyptians and makeup in history class supports what I said earlier from gotquestions.org.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well I've already aired my thoughts on this subject. Great apes probably have a somewhat defined concept of gender like us humans. Other animals do too, but to a more limited extent. Some things have been brewing for a while in an evolutionary sense even before there were any modern humans.

Some animals are different, where the female is naturally in charge. I believe that is the case with hyenas. I believe that in some species it is the males who are actually more neotenous than the females, although why that would be is hard for me to believe. Humans are rare in that it is the men who are more concerned with the physical appearance of the woman than the other way around. This does not mean women do not care about physical appearances though. The big change being with humans I believe is that growth of our intelligence and use of tools which freed up women to be less concerned with physical attractiveness overall and focus more on things on the inside like the mind. When I mean mind I do not mean something in a non-shallow sense. But a mind that is intelligent and able to use brain power to gather more resources. While for men, liking neotenous cues lead to the morphology of bigger globular skulls and brain to body mass ratio. There is a psychological element too. Human extended childhoods help the brain be less rigid and more malleable for creative thought.

I agree with what you said but I think theres more to it than that.

12. Men and Women in the Image of God | Bible.org

I agree with C. K. Barrett18 that “in this context Paul values the term image only as leading to the term glory.” The reference to image is incidental to Paul’s purpose, and therefore not mentioned with respect to woman; but it notifies his readers of the Old Testament basis for saying that man is the glory of God, “glory” and “image” being roughly, but not entirely, synonymous.

“Glory” in this context is the honor that one person brings to another. Man, Paul says, was made to honor God. Of course, woman was also made to honor God; but in addition, she is also made for a second purpose: to honor man. God made her specifically to be a helper for Adam (19 Man honors or glorifies God by uncovering his head, for covering the head connoted subservience to another creature.20 Such subservience to men is especially inappropriate for a male prophet, whose whole function is to speak for God, or for one leading in public prayer, whose whole function is to lead the people to God’s own throne. Woman, however, even when prophesying or praying in public, must not only honor God, but also honor man. Indeed, she honors God when she honors the specific task of “helper” for which God made her. Unlike the man, then, she honors God best by displaying a symbol by which she honors her fellow-creature.

Does such subordination itself detract from her capacity to image God? That is an important question for us to ask at this point. But the answer must surely be negative: (a) Men too are always placed in relations of subordination to other people (21but that does not prejudice their being the image of God.

(b) Jesus Himself became subordinate to His Father, even subordinate to human authority structures, in order to redeem us. Human authority, therefore, imaging Jesus, is to be a servant-authority (22

(c) It is often by submitting to others that we best display the ethical components of the divine image. How better to demonstrate God’s love, His patience, His gentleness, His self-control, than by submitting to others?

• 
  3. IS SEXUAL DIFFERENCE ITSELF THE IMAGE OF GOD?

Karl Barth’s famous discussion says that it is.23 24 He argues that the reference to “male and female” in 25There is some truth in this idea (see F below), but: (i) Though social differentiation is an aspect of the image, it is not the essence or definition of the image (see below). (ii) This move increases the exegetical implausibility of Barth’s proposal. If it is unlikely that the writer of Genesis identified the image with sexual difference, it is even less likely that he was using that sexual difference as a kind of stand-in for social differentiation in general. Nothing else in Scripture suggests such an idea.26

• 
  4. IS SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION AN ASPECT OF THE IMAGE?

Yes, for everything we are images God. The point is not that God is male, female, or both. To say that our eyes image God, remember, is not to say that God has eyes; it is rather to say that our eyes picture something divine. Similarly, our sexuality pictures God’s attributes and capacities:

(a) It mirrors God’s creativity, by which He brings forth sons and daughters (27 Since in the Biblical view women are subject to male authority in the home and the church,28 there is some awkwardness in speaking of God in female terms. Our need today, in my opinion, is for a far greater appreciation of the Lordship of God and of Christ.29 Therefore, in my view, the movement to use unisex or female language in referring to God is fundamentally wrongheaded from a Biblical perspective.

(d) Nevertheless, the very submission of the woman also images God. See E(2) above. God the Lord is not too proud to be our “helper.” Christ the Lord is not unwilling to be a servant. Godly women stand as models, often as rebukes, to all who would be leaders (30

• 
  F. SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION

As we saw earlier, Barth regards the “sexual image” as a kind of stand-in for a “social image.” We image God, he thinks, in social relationships.31 For reasons noted, I reject the identification of the image with such relationships. Individuals, not just corporate groups, are in the image of God. On the other hand, there is a social aspect of the image, for the image contains everything human. In the Old Testament, God speaks as a plurality (32 The New Testament reveals God Himself as a Trinity, a society of Father, Son and Spirit. The task associated with the image (33

Does a group image God better than an individual? Well, groups do resemble God in ways that individuals cannot by themselves, e.g., in taking counsel together or in displaying love for one another. Even the unity of God is imaged by the corporate body: note how in John 17 the unity of believers pictures the oneness of God the Father and God the Son. However, individuals in Scripture often image God precisely as they stand against the group, the crowd. Individuals, as we have seen, do bear the image of God (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10; James 3:9). There is not much value, I think, in such comparisons. God is one and many and is properly imaged both by groups and by individuals.

Animals dont have masculine voices.

The reason I believe transgender behavior is a sin and people either take a sensitive approach to it on an individual case or are apalled by entertainment like david bowie and other androgynous singers is because God is not the author of confusion, not so much that it draws undue attention to gender or is indirectly inappropriate or anything like that. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Thank you very much.

And you're right, there are more pressing things to worry about. I was just trying to see things from a woman's perspective. Thank you for your input. It was quite informative actually.

I don't find it disrespectful... but then, I've nothing against women being viewed as the weaker sex; I'm no feminist. In many ways we are weaker biologically and that's our power over men...lol

Too bad that feminists are missing out... but you can't teach those who believe they know everything.. lol

 

[MehGuy]

Do you mean limited sense the way I said it? what you said about physical appearance agrees with what I said in my last post. What do you disagree about?

i think what you said about royalty and what i learned about ancient egyptians and makeup in history class supports what I said earlier from gotquestions.org.

From the article I read it seems to give a vague description of masculinity and chalks up differences to just changes in culture. While my thoughts about royalty and just more valuable men have a biological competent.

 

[MehGuy]

Animals dont have masculine voices.

I'm not sure about that. Even if they don't I do not see why it matters. Women have more child like voices yet that whole system is much different than more primitive animal vocalization.

Also remember I am an atheist, this supernatural stuff doesn't mean anything to me. It's fine if it means something to you, but at least respect my point of view. I do find it somewhat ironic that conservative Christians could benefit the most from evolutionary psychology and biology yet many discard it. Especially if you want more coherent explaining power. Something that article didn't seem to give.

The reason I believe transgender behavior is a sin and people either take a sensitive approach to it on an individual case or are apalled by entertainment like david bowie and other androgynous singers is because God is not the author of confusion, not so much that it draws undue attention to gender or is indirectly inappropriate or anything like that. Do you agree or disagree?

I don't really comment on that. You may be thinking of trans people a lot in this thread but I am not.

 

[Sammy-San]

I'm not sure about that. Even if they don't I do not see why it matters. Women have more child like voices yet that whole system is much different than more primitive animal vocalization.

Also remember I am an atheist, this supernatural stuff doesn't mean anything to me. It's fine if it means something to you, but at least respect my point of view. I do find it somewhat ironic that conservative Christians could benefit the most from evolutionary psychology and biology yet many discard it. Especially if you want more coherent explaining power. Something that article didn't seem to give.



I don't really comment on that. You may be thinking of trans people a lot in this thread but I am not.

It relates to our discussion about gender differences.

 

[Sammy-San]

From the article I read it seems to give a vague description of masculinity and chalks up differences to just changes in culture. While my thoughts about royalty and just more valuable men have a biological competent.

Do you disagree with what I said because you are an atheist?

 

[MehGuy]

It relates to our discussion about gender differences.

Sorry, but I did not find the article very informative. It is fine if you believe God created gender differences but simply stating that does not really explain anything. All you really do is turn people off. You need to give people something of substance to at least chew on and contemplate.

 

[MehGuy]

Do you disagree with what I said because you are an atheist?

What do you think I am disagreeing with?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I do find it somewhat ironic that conservative Christians could benefit the most from evolutionary psychology and biology yet many discard it.

I don't know, I think most people as a whole understand cultural differences in how men and women are, and how that impacts various civilizations.

Take Danes for instance; historically Danish men were the more effeminate and their women more masculine in appearance making it more difficult in our modern day to easily recognize the corpse of the females versus those of the males.

Regular bathing and the peacockery (I believe was the wording) of Danish men led to them being well regarded by women in countries being conquered - they weren't the grotesque heathens in the eyes of women as modern cinema would have you believe... which led to a lot of wayward women if ancient writings be believed.

In modern times, the women of the same land have become the more effeminate, and the difference in skeletons far more recognizably female and male. What a difference a millennia makes!

Evolution is changing humans still, and what is feminine and what is masculine will change with it... a fact everyone easily recognizes, conservative or not.

The amount of work each sex needs to engage in to survive will change, and with it our body structures... culture will also change with it as well... slowly and adaptively.

As others have already noted however, that doesn't seem to be the point of discussion, but rather, what goes beyond evolutionary changes and into simply bucking what is at least for now socially accepted male and female behavior, in favor of something different.

 

[Sammy-San]

Sorry, but I did not find the article very informative. It is fine if you believe God created gender differences but simply stating that does not really explain anything. All you really do is turn people off. You need to give people something of substance to at least chew on and contemplate.

Even if you dont believe in God the article explains that gender differences go beyond sperm and eggs, which makes sense.

God created animals male and female in the reproductive sense, but animals arent male and female the way that people are. You dont agree because you have an evolutionary worldview. God didnt create people male and female the way animals are, because Adam was created before God thought it wasnt good for Adam to be alone.

Schools trying to figure out if kids are transgender or not is wierd isnt just because it draws undue attention to gender but gender is something personal. That behavior is almost like gossip in the sense of "why do u care". Thats why people being androgynous draws undue attention to gender. Nobody needs to know you feel masculine or feminine thats the persons buisness, cisgender or transgender. Thats why transgender behavior leaves an impression on people and people either take a sensitive approach to it, or are apalled by it in the context of people making entertainment out of it.

 

[Sammy-San]

What do you think I am disagreeing with?

That gender is more than anatomy its also about appearence, and there are male and female faces in people, and animals dont have the gendor dimorphism we have (which RD kirk agrees with), and that gender differences and hormones exist and have functions that go far beyond reproduction, in people.

Do you agree with me saying femaleness and certain aspects of maleness exist because God knows we are but flesh (meaning his perfect will is not marriage because he is a jealous God). Do you think if you are wrong about atheism what im saying about God knows we are but flesh in correlation to gender realities that exist, is probably true?

 

[MehGuy]

I don't know, I think most people as a whole understand cultural differences in how men and women are, and how that impacts various civilizations.

Yet I am talking about conservative Christians who want to defend aspects that go deeper than just culture.

Take Danes for instance; historically Danish men were the more effeminate and their women more masculine in appearance making it more difficult in our modern day to easily recognize the corpse of the females versus those of the males.

Regular bathing and the peacockery (I believe was the wording) of Danish men led to them being well regarded by women in countries being conquered - they weren't the grotesque heathens in the eyes of women as modern cinema would have you believe... which led to a lot of wayward women if ancient writings be believed.

In modern times, the women of the same land have become the more effeminate, and the difference in skeletons far more recognizably female and male. What a difference a millennia makes!

What do you mean differences in skeletons? Humans don't change that quickly.

Evolution is changing humans still, and what is feminine and what is masculine will change with it... a fact everyone easily recognizes, conservative or not.

As others have already noted however, that doesn't seem to be the point of discussion, but rather, what goes beyond evolutionary changes and into simply bucking what is at least for now socially accepted male and female behavior, in favor of something different.

Yes I've gone into detail that gender is not a black and white issue and subject to change, and that even cultural differences might in fact still have biological roots. Wouldn't also surprise me if different races on average perceive certain things about males and females differently.

 

[MehGuy]

That gender is more than anatomy its also about appearence, and there are male and female faces in people, and animals dont have the gendor dimorphism we have (which RD kirk agrees with), and that gender differences and hormones exist and have functions that go far beyond reproduction, in people.

If by "appearance" you mean "gender expression", I think they have biological roots too. Although it is more shaky foundation to put forth arguments with. I am not sure what you mean by animals not having the gender dimorphism we have. They do but for different reasons and to what extent is probably partly debatable even within the scientific community.

Do you agree with me saying femaleness and certain aspects of maleness exist because God knows we are but flesh (meaning his perfect will is not marriage because he is a jealous God). Do you think if you are wrong about atheism what im saying about God knows we are but flesh in correlation to gender realities that exist, is probably true?

Not sure how wrong I can be about atheism. I'm just an agnostic atheist. If I became a Christian I don't know what I'd believe. If I'd take a more liberal or a conservative stance.

 

[MehGuy]

Even if you dont believe in God the article explains that gender differences go beyond sperm and eggs, which makes sense.

God created animals male and female in the reproductive sense, but animals arent male and female the way that people are. You dont agree because you have an evolutionary worldview. God didnt create people male and female the way animals are, because Adam was created before God thought it wasnt good for Adam to be alone.

Uh huh. Animals still have reproduction differences to deal with. I don't see why it wouldn't morph their mindsets to a certain extent.

Schools trying to figure out if kids are transgender or not is wierd isnt just because it draws undue attention to gender but gender is something personal. That behavior is almost like gossip in the sense of "why do u care". Thats why people being androgynous draws undue attention to gender. Nobody needs to know you feel masculine or feminine thats the persons buisness, cisgender or transgender. Thats why transgender behavior leaves an impression on people and people either take a sensitive approach to it, or are apalled by it in the context of people making entertainment out of it.

I do not really care to discuss transgenderism. If this were another forum I'd be open but not so much here.