Transgenderism Is A Real Threat To Christians

[AlexB23]

Actually 95% of diabetics are T2. But I get the whole insulin thing. I had a brother and sister who were both diabetic since age 8. It was just that at 24 years old you'd likely be a T1. Glad to hear that you're neither.

Oops, human biology is one of my weak points. What I meant was that T2 diabetics should have the right to cheap insulin, as it is unfair how people had to pay big money for a disease that is hard to remove. Yep, I am neither. Hopefully your bro and sis are doing well.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, there will be sorrow and pain in heaven? There will be the remembrance of sin? And there will be a desire that exists to pull souls out of hell, and bring them into heaven to be reunified?

...That last sentence has almost a Luciferian kind of rebellious feel to it, but would be inevitable if that knowledge were to exist in such a setting.

We now have no idea of what our soul wil or will not experience

 

[Landon Caeli]

We now have no idea of what our soul wil or will not experience

Of course you're right, but we're curious by nature.

"The natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.91.2)

 

[partinobodycular]

"The natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.91.2)

I like this, but it leads me to think that "natural law" is simply God manifested in the form of physical reality, and misinterpreted by us humans as merely 'natural' laws, when they are in fact an insight into the 'divine' itself.

However I'm fairly certain that mainstream Christianity would take a dim view of the idea that physical reality is in any sense a 'manifestation' of God. Sounds too pantheistic. Creation of God... yes. Manifestation of God... no. However, if it is in fact a manifestation of God's will, then in what sense isn't it a manifestation of God Himself? Are 'God' and 'God's will' really two different things?

Gonna need some serious apologetics to straighten me out on this one.

 

[stevevw]

I think that's what this issue has caused in me the most, a complete assessment (a first time assessment for me as a Christian) of what the Christian stance on medicine even should be. I've been thinking a lot about it the last couple years, specifically because transgendering children takes it so far off the cliff you have to step back and just assess where we are even supposed to be with our own medical care.

It's a weighty topic for real.

Yes the medical aspect is key to the different ideological outlooks on this. As the new Ideology assumes there is no innate order to human sex and gender it logically follows that diagnosis and treatment will follow this idea that subjective identity is the measure of ones sex and gender and basically everything in life.

Hense we seen an increase in the ideology pushed into State education which had already been simmering away in academia for years. It spread throughout the community and as a result a massive increase in gender dysphoria.

Any sign of a child behaving as the opposite sex even toy choices was deemed to be potential trans. So of course there would be many misdiagnosis.

Part of the change in health treatment is that any treatment that is deemed to discourage affirmation of the opposite sex is classed as Conversion Therapy. So this makes it hard to justify traditional treatments like therapy which is more or less designed to question ones self as part oif therapy.

But as mentioned we seen a sudden spike in transgenderism especially females which some called a social contagion. Reports showed that gender clinics were assuming too much and rushing patients through to transitioning and were closed.

That sparked a panic by authorities who have since change the treatment model to one using therapy first to ensure the person is not also suffering from other problems that cause them to feel trans. Many who have been disagnosed as trans were actually gay.

But the ideology has not disappeared its still rampant online where it best can be expressed because there is no objective reality when it comes to narratives. The new reality is Narrative, personal experience and feelings. Its very powerful and can lure people in to a world of make believe.

The narratives are always underpinned by Woke as in the new morality of identity rights which is hard for people to resist and object to as it seems noble. But thats the Trojan Horse that allows ideologues to smuggle the ideology in like with the using Protection Rights to bring gender ideology to schools.

So I think its a spiritual war disguised as Humanism and all that entails whether thats Woke, Gender and Trans ideology, Abortion Rights, Race or other issues like Political issues such as we have seen in Isreal and Anti-Semetism, Cancel Culture, PC ect. Society have become divided into groups pitted against each other.

But it seems its religion and especially Christianity thats becoming the greatest threat and increasingly targeted. Which to me points to it fundementally being spiritual. A spiritual war.

So its going to keep raising its ugly head in different ways and we have to be on the guard. Our best hope is the Truth and Reality, Gods order will shine through in the end. All we can do is stand on that Truth and keep referring back to it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

the problem then can be, of course, that what you find you believe to be correct doesn't actually align with your religious position.

I don't find myself disagreeing with God much.

Which I know sounds weird to you. Maybe it is weird since I disagreed all the time with Islam.

But in actual Christianity the only times I find myself disagreeing is when I don't understand something. So I don't disagree. I say I don't know until I understand better.

It sounds like a cop out but it's knowing God to that degree of trust in what you really might not understand.

We could take any number of divisive topics and ignore what's plain in the Bible and do what we like; or we could curse the heavens and walk away from God; or we could say we see what's plain and don't clearly understand it and then seek to understand.

The later option is the one that truly knows God is trustworthy, because for people it's probably the most difficult, especially when said divisive topic might be hitting them upside the head.

It's easier when you know God isn't out to hurt you and trust that He really does love you. And I do have trust in God. Which is the one thing I don't hand out lightly after a lifetime of pain and abuse.

This whole answer may have been off the mark of your question... I just realized this... Lol.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't find myself disagreeing with God much.

Which I know sounds weird to you. Maybe it is weird since I disagreed all the time with Islam.

But in actual Christianity the only times I find myself disagreeing is when I don't understand something. So I don't disagree. I say I don't know until I understand better.

It sounds like a cop out but it's knowing God to that degree of trust in what you really might not understand.

We could take any number of divisive topics and ignore what's plain in the Bible and do what we like; or we could curse the heavens and walk away from God; or we could say we see what's plain and don't clearly understand it and then seek to understand.

The later option is the one that truly knows God is trustworthy, because for people it's probably the most difficult, especially when said divisive topic might be hitting them upside the head.

It's easier when you know God isn't out to hurt you and trust that He really does love you. And I do have trust in God. Which is the one thing I don't hand out lightly after a lifetime of pain and abuse.

There appears to me to be a personal God and then a separate biblical version of God. I've no experience with the first and I'm definitely no fan of the second. Do you reconcile the two somehow?

 

[Hazelelponi]

There appears to me to be a personal God and then a separate biblical version of God. I've no experience with the first and I'm definitely no fan of the second. Do you reconcile the two somehow?

Yes and the reconciliation is unimaginably beautiful.

When it all comes together it's something amazing. But that is something that I think comes from God alone.

You can get some of the way with man-made thought and reason, a good portion I imagine... But there's a point where you get it but just don't get it place.

That's where prayer, waiting, maybe even just a little hoping it will make sense someday comes into play.

When I got to that point all I could do was be agnostic and live my life. When I was actually saved I hadn't even thought about Christianity for at least a year because I had given up on it making some kind of complete sense.

I would just say to anyone in that place that it does can and will all reconcile into something unimaginably beautiful. It's worth it to not give up.

 

[Whyayeman]

Yeah, but I did not mention the word "woke" in my reply. But yes, "woke" is a buzzword from MAGA and the far-right (can't stand the far-right or the far-left). We should try to put ourselves into other's shoes, but not go overboard and show disapproval. We must show common sense, and having minors transitioning is not right. If one can not drink beer until age 21, and the brain is not fully developed until age 25, why should we allow kids to be brainwashed into trans stuff?

I wasn't disagreeing!

 

[o_mlly]

Not all the humans on this forum.

Only someone who was once Christian can reject it. Many people were never Christian and so have no reason to reject it; it was never on the table in the first place.

I hardly think people are here to 'evangelise' against Christianity. More so to discuss other opinions and to correct inaccuracies in the science and ethics forums.

? The question was directed to only those humans "who adamantly reject Christian beliefs".

I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. I am not necessarily even a moderate.

Nor does your post disclose you as one "who adamantly reject Christian beliefs". Good.

 

[o_mlly]

You should honestly look into the history of the site.

No. They know who they are.

 

[o_mlly]

I think that's what this issue has caused in me the most, a complete assessment (a first time assessment for me as a Christian) of what the Christian stance on medicine even should be.

A resource you may find of interest: The National Catholic Bioethics Center

 

[Hazelelponi]

A resource you may find of interest: The National Catholic Bioethics Center

Thank you...

 

[Larniavc]

The question was directed to only those humans "who adamantly reject Christian beliefs".

But what do you mean? How do you 'adamantly' reject Christian beliefs?

P1 "hey you, yes you. Have you heard about Jesus....?"
P2 "sorry, not interested".

Q1 "hey you, yes you. You better stop being gay because you'll go to Hell...."
Q2 "sorry, not interested".

Is that an adamant rejection?

 

[BCP1928]

Yes the medical aspect is key to the different ideological outlooks on this. As the new Ideology assumes there is no innate order to human sex and gender it logically follows that diagnosis and treatment will follow this idea that subjective identity is the measure of ones sex and gender and basically everything in life.

If there was no order to human sex and gender there would be no basis for any diagnosis and treatment. There is order, just an order that you don't like.

 

[o_mlly]

But what do you mean? How do you 'adamantly' reject Christian beliefs?

P1 "hey you, yes you. Have you heard about Jesus....?"
P2 "sorry, not interested".

Q1 "hey you, yes you. You better stop being gay because you'll go to Hell...."
Q2 "sorry, not interested".

Is that an adamant rejection?

You answered your own question in your earlier post. One cannot reject what they do not know.

Only someone who was once Christian can reject it. Many people were never Christian and so have no reason to reject it; it was never on the table in the first place.

Close. One does not have to be Christian to reject Christianity; only informed of Christian beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

If there was no order to human sex and gender there would be no basis for any diagnosis and treatment. There is order, just an order that you don't like.

I am not sure what you mean. The reason we can have disagnosis and treatment is because there is order to humans as in what is conducive of good functioning or not for health and wellbeing.

There is order in the values we attach to being human in that there are certain natural rights and ways we can live together which allow us to live in relative peace and order. If we neglect these then society breaks down.

 

[BCP1928]

I am not sure what you mean. The reason we can have disagnosis and treatment is because there is order to humans as in what is conducive of good functioning or not for health and wellbeing.

You said,

"As the new Ideology assumes there is no innate order to human sex and gender it logically follows that diagnosis and treatment will follow this idea that subjective identity is the measure of ones sex and gender and basically everything in life."

I was merely pointing out that this was false. If the "new ideology" assumed that there is no innate order then proponents would know a priori that they would not be able to diagnose and treat.

There is order in the values we attach to being human in that there are certain natural rights and ways we can live together which allow us to live in relative peace and order. If we neglect these then society breaks down.

Correct. So it is important to know what they are.

 

[Paulos23]

No. They know who they are.

No, honestly you should. This site was meant to bring Christians together. And in the process, it brought in many non-Christians for people to talk to and potentially convert. I joined during that time. It wasn't always friendly, but it was friendlier than it is now and the discussion was lively.

I feel this site lost something when part of the forms became Christian only, and then only for the individual sects of Christianity. You learn nothing in an echo chamber.

 

[trophy33]

I feel this site lost something when part of the forms became Christian only, and then only for the individual sects of Christianity. You learn nothing in an echo chamber.

Agreed. I see some meaning in creating some space for Christians only - when somebody has a specific question about theology, he probably does not want to argue that God or Jesus exist all over again.

However, there are so many various sections with various rules that one frequently does not know where to even create a thread. Which then requires a lot of rules and a lot of moderators for just deleting, moving posts and threads because "it does not belong here".

I do not see many reasons for more than lets say five sections. Currently there are hundreds visible just on the home page, thats crazy.