Thoughts on transgender issues

theoneandonlypencil · May 3, 2020

Quartermaine said:
my position hasn't changed. GD isn't an anxity disorder and never was it had as a component specifying distress about the inner outer mismatch but pretty much all mentall illness include that distress component.

if you were saying the same things about black people that you are saying here about LGBTs then it is entirely conceivable that you woudl face social consequences.

to qualify as a mental disorder it has to produce observable dysfunctions in various aspects or spheres of an individual's life. Psych 101

there is no evidence to support this

and I asked if the same wasn't true of other minorities.

you bring it up as if it were true. Racists try to associate rape as something black men do and you are doing the same thing

what is interesting is the claim that because a gay magazine published an interview with a pedophile that was in the news at the time it meant that the gay community was allied with pedophiles or as your link states "brazenly promoted sex with children"

Around 1990 USA today published a story on Paul Cameron. Does the fact that they did mean that that publication and it's readers support Cameron's call for the construction of massive death camps for homosexuals that support themselves but charging money for people to come watch gays and lesbians being tortured and killed?

just...wow

the only reason there is the association is because of anti-gay hate groups

in the United States world wide it primarily affects women and children.

but in the United States HIV disproportionately affects noon-whites and your same report notes that over 70% of individuals in the united states with HIV are non-whites. othat justify racism?

Please, do yourself a favor and simply leave this thread. You're here for discourse, and even should I state any fact you disagree with, you'd argue with it to the grave. You are not in an emotionally good place to be having these debates, and I urge you that if you want to help the community, start by ceasing this behavior as it only seeks to fuel divisions. I wish the best for you, and I hope you go far in your endeavors.

Quartermaine · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
Please, do yourself a favor and simply leave this thread. You're here for discourse, and even should I state any fact you disagree with, you'd argue with it to the grave. You are not in an emotionally good place to be having these debates, and I urge you that if you want to help the community, start by ceasing this behavior as it only seeks to fuel divisions. I wish the best for you, and I hope you go far in your endeavors.

i thought you were done responding to me

theoneandonlypencil · May 3, 2020

@Carl Emerson I am of course in no position to tell you what to do, but if you could stop replying to Quartermaine, I would appreciate it. He keeps popping back in the thread, and as much as I want to have good discussions about the thread topic, he seems to not be in a very good place for debates and keeps trying to turn things into an attack/derail the main point of the thread.

If the rest of the thread could also do the same, that would be great. I don't want this to turn into another one of this site's many 11 page long mud-slinging sessions, and the only way I can do that is to minimize the number of people who are here for nonproductive reasons--or who at least display disruptive, passive-aggressive behavior/looking to start arguments.

This thread is for taking a look at other perspectives, sharing ideas, friendly debates and learning; it is not an 'anti this/that' battleground.

FireDragon76 · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
I agree. That's why I'm saying it's more beneficial to work out a way where we can peacefully coexist while the church goes though...whatever awful phase it's going through right now.

I think you might be missing the point I was making from the get-go. The idea of what I was saying agrees with the sentiment of 'the right to be left alone'--but that it should be acknowledged on all sides, not just the unreligious ones. If I, as a Christian, do not wish to call someone by their preferred pronouns or if I decide that I don't agree with the LGBT, or any other, position, then I have the right to do so as long as I am not inciting violence or advocating mistreatment of said individuals. Of course, this is the same with Atheists or the LGBT community; if someone decides to tell me that my religion is trash and has no place in society, of course I consider that rude, but they have the right to say it and I'm not going to publicly shame them over it.

I agree that Christians should not be legally or socially imposing anything on those unaffiliated with their religion, however, as a devout Christian I(and even my recently converted boyfriend)can attest to the fact that even just identifying as 'Christian' tends to cause people to write off our points as religious drivel even if it isn't part of our faith.

I understand Christianity is in dire need of fixing its relations with those around us, and I think the best way to do so is to educate the church more on these things and firstly get over this 'holy high horse' phase mainline evangelicals have thrown us into. In my view, I've started to compartmentalize my religious beliefs, my moral ethics and philosophical views so that if I am putting forward an argument for something being good or bad/right or wrong, I do not ever use scripture or religious dogma to back up my points. I try to find science and even usage of philosophy and history to determine things. This is a practice, I believe, that a lot of believers should pick up; even Paul himself was well acquainted with the nonreligious philosophical influences of his time, and even referenced one at one point. There is always a benefit to learning.

This is a more salutatory and fruitful practice, and also seems to be consistent with the overall Protestant mainline tradition (and I would argue it's also consistent with the Lutheran tradition as well). Unfortunately, many Christians in the US can't understand the value in this approach.

It is the approach I took at one time as a Christian, and it lead me to realizing that my attitudes needed to change. So at the least, it's a good first step. Why impose stumbling blocks where they don't need to exist? Christians who think anti-LGBT politics are a hill to die on are really missing the big picture when it comes to missiology.

theoneandonlypencil · May 3, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
This is a more salutatory and fruitful practice, and also seems to be consistent with the overall Protestant mainline tradition (and I would argue it's also consistent with the Lutheran tradition as well). Unfortunately, many Christians in the US can't understand the value in this approach.

It is the approach I took at one time as a Christian, and it lead me to realizing that my attitudes needed to change. So at the least, it's a good first step. Why impose stumbling blocks where they don't need to exist? Christians who think anti-LGBT politics are a hill to die on are really missing the big picture.

I completely agree. I, unfortunately, used to be in the 'anti-[this or that]' conservative crowd; and I became miserable, and developed an 'ego' with my religion, even if I wasn't blatant about it. I eventually came to understand that it was my own personal bias from bad experiences and only half of the story I'd been fed so I'd be pushed to label certain groups as a 'common enemy' of the church or the right.

Once I realized that I put my self-righteousness to death and started trying to think of things from the other side's perspective. As I did this, I realized how messed up I was for treating them with such little respect and kindness, and that Christianity is not supposed to be about forcing one's beliefs on others. The main center of Christianity should be love, and unfortunately, that's been traded away for aspirations of being 'right' or on the 'winning' side.

I think perhaps instead of fighting, Christians should focus on healing and working towards becoming people worthy of the respect and admiration they seem to want so much--and doing this will require a serious re-evaluation of many, many things as well as a complete 180 in how they treat others. Even Jesus didn't fight back or curse the people who took him away to be nailed to the cross, no? Being kind is an empty sentiment if there are conditions as to who gets that kindness, and what the 'kindness' even entails. The only people Christians have authority over is their own.

FireDragon76 · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
Please, do yourself a favor and simply leave this thread. You're here for discourse, and even should I state any fact you disagree with, you'd argue with it to the grave. You are not in an emotionally good place to be having these debates, and I urge you that if you want to help the community, start by ceasing this behavior as it only seeks to fuel divisions. I wish the best for you, and I hope you go far in your endeavors.

Issues of religion and sexual and gender identity are fundamental to what it means to be a person in our culture, so of course they are highly emotionally charged.

The best I know to is to withdraw my precious energies from needless engagement in such endeavors, or in Jesus' words, to spend my "ill-gotten mammon with those who will welcome me into eternal dwellings". That is why I opted out of Christianity as an organized religion. As an LGBT ally, it is not a fight I have to be involved with, especially in an environment that is ambivalent, at best, about some of my most intimate human relationships. Nobody can insist you be a martyr, as my pastor used to say. And at the same time, nobody has to be a martyr for any political movement. Those things are strictly voluntary.

theoneandonlypencil · May 3, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
Issues of religion and sexual and gender identity are fundamental to what it means to be a person in our culture, so of course they are highly emotionally charged.

The best I know to is to withdraw my precious energies from needless engagement in such endeavors, or in Jesus' words, to spend my "ill-gotten mammon with those who will welcome me into eternal dwellings". That is why I opted out of Christianity as an organized religion. As an LGBT ally, it is not a fight I have to be involved with, especially in an environment that is ambivalent about some of my most intimate human relationships. Nobody can insist you be a martyr, as my pastor used to say. And at the same time, nobody has to be a martyr for any political movement. Those things are strictly voluntary.

I understand that. My only problem with Quartermarine, really, was that he seemed to be focusing more on attacking one side rather than having a civilized discussion. Even as emotionally charged as these topics may be when debate time comes they have no place on center stage; if our arguments are driven purely by emotion, the facts become muddled and it becomes personal and not objective. I take breaks from debates when I become heated, since I've noticed reading someone's response whilst emotionally upset versus when I'm calm is almost like reading something totally different, and it's very easy to read into things too much and insert accusations/ideas that were never there to begin with.

That's why I advised Quartermarine to sort out his personal problems with religion/the right, so he can earnestly seek out knowledge as to WHY some of them present the arguments they do and, in turn, realize what is and isn't wrong so he can remedy as much of his and the community's image as he can.

One of the things I learned from reading plenty of Atheistic debates was that the best way to build a better argument for your ideology, is to find out what's wrong with it; and where better to look than from the people who disagree with you and find picking out flaws easy?

FireDragon76 · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
I completely agree. I, unfortunately, used to be in the 'anti-[this or that]' conservative crowd; and I became miserable, and developed an 'ego' with my religion, even if I wasn't blatant about it. I eventually came to understand that it was my own personal bias from bad experiences and only half of the story I'd been fed so I'd be pushed to label certain groups as a 'common enemy' of the church or the right.

After over a decade seriously exploring the Church, I came to the conclusion there are some things Christianity does a really poor job handling. Unfortunately, the Church spends more time talking about what is right and wrong than talking about how to be an emotionally regulated human being. The Church too often is in the crutch business, instead of the healing business.

The main center of Christianity should be love, and unfortunately, that's been traded away for aspirations of being 'right' or on the 'winning' side.

Of course, love is the whole point. Self-sacrificial love. Being right should have nothing to do with it.

I really think Bishop Jack Spong has it right when he said Christians should be people that love wastefully- that best captures Jesus' true ethics. But your average Christian seems to think of love as a zero-sum game. Of course, this has its origins in psychological damage that is unhealed, an ideal of love that is warped by abuse and neglect.

I think perhaps instead of fighting, Christians should focus on healing and working towards becoming people worthy of the respect and admiration they seem to want so much--and doing this will require a serious re-evaluation of many, many things as well as a complete 180 in how they treat others.

Bolded, because this is completely accurate to my experience, and needs to be re-emphasized. Many Christians' behaviors in the US doesn't even measure up to the standards of pagan ethics. Yet Jesus said that "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven". Jesus didn't lower the bar on ethics as long as you live up to a narrow set of prescribed behaviors, he raised the bar in terms of a person's character.

FireDragon76 · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
One of the things I learned from reading plenty of Atheistic debates was that the best way to build a better argument for your ideology, is to find out what's wrong with it; and where better to look than from the people who disagree with you and find picking out flaws easy?

That's a good point. One of the reasons I really took Liberation Theology seriously in the end was because it seriously engaged with atheism and Marxism. Most other forms of Christian theology are merely dismissive of other viewpoints or don't take them seriously.

I think Bonhoeffer is a good place to start if you want to see some of the "original sins" of Christianity that have persisted into the modern age, especially his Letters and Papers from Prison, and to a lesser extent, his Ethics, if you really want to see the religious impulse in the West laid bare, dissected, and analyzed for all its flaws. But it's some pretty deep stuff and might be over many Christians heads.

theoneandonlypencil · May 3, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
After over a decade seriously exploring the Church, I came to the conclusion there are some things Christianity does a really poor job handling. Unfortunately, the Church spends more time talking about what is right and wrong than talking about how to be an emotionally regulated human being. The Church too often is in the crutch business, instead of the healing business.

YES, exactly. This is especially prevalent in the church's obsession with sin, and a false-delusion that one can become completely 'sanctified'(meaning they never sin again) in this life. I think this was likely due to the corruption of the church...I don't think many realize how far we've slipped back into pharisee-like behavior, or how it was probably very skillfully implemented into the church by corrupted leaders who wanted to use their spiritual authority to gain power under the guise of 'Godliness'. Guilt is such a powerful psychological tool for manipulation, and there are wolves among our sheep who unfortunately know how to utilize it well. I disagree with organized religion as a whole, which is why I try to correct myself when referring to myself as 'religious' and instead use something like 'of the faith' or simply a 'believer'.

I tend to see sin not as what sends one to hell per se, but an indicator of spiritual closeness to God. Of course one needs to be aware of their sins as a Christian, however, trying to eliminate sin from your life without first working on your relationship with God and the people around you is akin to trying to cool off your house with fans while the heating system is on, rather than just turn the temperature down; I.E. you're trying to eliminate the effect, not the cause.

One can easily distinguish right from wrong by dividing them into two categories; selfishness, and selflessness. Almost every sin(the ten commandments sum it up well, minus the one about keeping the sabbath)can be labeled as 'selfish' and committed by an individual looking perpetually inward instead of outward. Almost all of the Godly virtues can be defined as selfless in one way or another, looking outward instead of inward. So it would make sense that one of the easiest ways to avoid sinning is to practice selflessness, and cultivating selfless traits.

FireDragon76 said:
Of course, love is the whole point. Self-sacrificial love. Being right should have nothing to do with it.

I really think Bishop Jack Spong has it right when he said Christians should be people that love wastefully- that best captures Jesus' true ethics. But your average Christian seems to think of love as a zero-sum game. Of course, this has its origins in psychological damage that is unhealed, an ideal of love that is warped by abuse and neglect.

I could not agree more. It makes me sad to think of the people who claim to love like Jesus, and to be like Jesus--yet they do not display any real love for people outside of their religious 'clique'.

FireDragon76 said:
Bolded, because this is completely accurate to my experience, and needs to be re-emphasized. Many Christians' behaviors in the US doesn't even measure up to the standards of pagan ethics. Yet Jesus said that "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven". Jesus didn't lower the bar on ethics as long as you live up to a narrow set of prescribed behaviors, he raised the bar in terms of a person's character.

Indeed. I actually find it a little backward that Christians take it upon themselves to blame and judge nonbelievers; call me crazy, but I cannot recall an instance in the new testament(which is what I believe Christians are supposed to be mainly following, in terms of scripture)where this kind of idea is promoted? Perhaps in the old testament somewhere, but I don't like to make any calls based on the chapter of Judaism that needed near-constant correction anyways.

The bible actually makes several statements indicating that unbelievers cannot even begin to understand our faith, and that it's like foolishness to them. How, then, does rebuking a nonbeliever for sinful behavior edify them when they are spiritually incapable of understanding why they're sinning? This also is contradictory to the fact that new converts need to be 'weaned off of spiritual milk' and given more wisdom the more they grow in Christ, as well as needing loving correction from other Christians as opposed to the concept of just being able to recognize/work out sin habits and turn it off like the flick of a switch. How on earth one can honestly judge a nonbeliever for acting like a nonbeliever, I do not know. This might be why the evangelical movement seems to garner more opposition than converts these days.

theoneandonlypencil · May 3, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
That's a good point. One of the reasons I really took Liberation Theology seriously in the end was because it seriously engaged with atheism and Marxism. Most other forms of Christian theology are merely dismissive of other viewpoints or don't take them seriously.

I think Bonhoeffer is a good place to start if you want to see some of the "original sins" of Christianity that have persisted into the modern age, especially his Letters and Papers from Prison, and to a lesser extent, his Ethics, if you really want to see the religious impulse in the West laid bare, dissected, and analyzed for all its flaws. But it's some pretty deep stuff and might be over many Christians heads.

I will have to check that out, then. I've been trying to find more information on these things(especially on topics like the early church and its teachings)to piece together a bigger picture of what went wrong and, perhaps, what the church should've been as opposed to what it is now. God does make sure everyone, even nonbelievers, has a part in the grand scheme of things--this subject may be one of those areas especially.

FireDragon76 · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
YES, exactly. This is especially prevalent in the church's obsession with sin, and a false-delusion that one can become completely 'sanctified'(meaning they never sin again) in this life.

It's beyond that. Sin and purity shouldn't even factor in to sound ethics, because it's ultimately a category confusion. Jesus didn't seem particularly concerned with purity as much as his religious opponents were, for instance. Yet Christianity, being ostentsibly "religious", inherited this dubious category from Judaism.

When Paul says "whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to others" that is the whole of the Law", he was speaking to a profound truth. Non-harm is a sufficient basis for human ethics, and is universally understood in many religions and philosophies. This is not something that one needs a religious revelation to understand, it is implicit in being a relational being.

And that is precisely why the Church should get out of the morality business. It does a poor job as a moralist, anyways. It can only either restate the obvious or state untruths, there is no middle ground.

Guilt is such a powerful psychological tool for manipulation, and there are wolves among our sheep who unfortunately know how to utilize it well.

Well, the whole Augustinian concept of original sin sort of sets people up, potentially, for manipulation by guilt. Even though early Christians saw the religion as liberating, Augustine needed the heavy hand of "Daddy" in his life to make up for an emotionally absent father.

Of course one needs to be aware of their sins as a Christian, however, trying to eliminate sin from your life without first working on your relationship with God and the people around you is akin to trying to cool off your house with fans while the heating system is on, rather than just turn the temperature down; I.E. you're trying to eliminate the effect, not the cause.

I'd go further than that. It is near-meaningless to speak of sin absent concrete relationships. Otherwise, people are just talking about the sort of manipulative narratives I've criticized previously. People can indeed be made to feel guilty for imaginary wrongs.

Carl Emerson · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
the only way I can do that is to minimize the number of people who are here for nonproductive reasons--or who at least display disruptive, passive-aggressive behavior/looking to start arguments.

Do you think I am doing that ? I understand your intensions I think, I am happy to withdraw or possibly participate on a different level - I think the claims being made around around gender confusion by the promoters of these permissive lifestyles are pretty insidious and deceptive. I have some experience of the spiritual bondage that comes with it. I have seen lives beautifully released from bondage, this has been a significant aspect of my calling.

KCfromNC · May 3, 2020

theoneandonlypencil said:
Once again, making passive-aggressive comments towards me and ignoring anything I have to say that doesn't agree with your views.

Don't confuse me not uncritically accepting everything you say with ignoring what you post.

And "passive-aggressive"? Nice attempt at poisoning the well. I'll give you a heads up that personal attacks like that are against the rules here.

KC, at least you have to acknowledge that I try my best to be kind and genuinely try to understand where the other person is coming from.

Kind by calling them passive-aggressive, for example?

Although to be honest, the fact that you dismissed my example just because it's happening to a larger group and not a minority is a little concerning.

I didn't do that. You were questioning why something happens more often in a larger group. I explained why.

I'll also point out that acting as if it is "concerning" that I don't agree with you is another attempt to make this about me rather than the contents of the post. Seems to be a pattern forming.

You mentioned that you didn't understand why people didn't just leave the LGBT community alone. I responded with the fact that the LGBT community also does not leave others alone, and as long as they're asking something of me

So you say, and yet who is it who started a thread about someone else's "issues"?

Is the sarcasm necessary? Is it simply unbearable that I care about everyone's well being, and not just a certain group? Or that I don't mindlessly follow whatever is fed to me?

My point was obvious, and here you're ignoring it and instead trying to make a big deal about whatever you can to distract from. Earlier on it was making up personal failings on my part. Here it is getting all worked up over perceived tone, then following it up with acting as if my response was some sort of baseless emotional outburst. Those sorts of attempts are quite transparent.

Obviously I can't just jump into the medical field and develop a cure for GD overnight; but what I can do is try to bring awareness to both sides and get some attention on the concept that we should be looking to explore alternatives to extreme surgeries and social distress.

If you want to get people to accept what you're saying, you're going to need more than just assertions and implications.

As I told you in the other thread; if you're set on your way of thinking and have no interest in an open-minded discussion, I have no desire nor benefit in talking to you.

Again, attempts at personal attacks rather than actually addressing what I wrote just read as a distraction. It makes it look as if there's no real substance to back up whatever it is you think your posts are trying to demonstrate.

KCfromNC · May 3, 2020

Strathos said:
When we have non-Christians over for dinner, they typically have no problem respectfully bowing their heads and closing their eyes while we say Grace.

But but but that's different. That's just basic respect for the feeling of others ... oh wait.

ETA - although reading through the rest of the responses, perhaps the better analogy would be non-Christians telling people their Christian friends are actually atheists when in public gatherings. Because we know that happens all the time, just like some people prefer to do to transgender individuals.

Oh, wait, nope, that would be incredibly rude and presumptuous. The examples we have of things like that are, say, Romans labeling Christians as atheists as a political move because they believed in the "wrong" god.

KCfromNC · May 3, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
How does preferred pronouns work? If I'm speaking to you and you are a biological woman, I will not be using male nor female pronouns when talking to you, the only pronouns I will use will be you/your not he/she. The only time I might refer to you as a she is if I am talking about you to someone else at which time you won't know to be offended because you aren't a part of the conversation.

"Meet my friend X, she's a teacher".

theoneandonlypencil · May 3, 2020

KCfromNC said:
Don't confuse me not uncritically accepting everything you say with ignoring what you post.

And "passive-aggressive"? Nice attempt at poisoning the well. I'll give you a heads up that personal attacks like that are against the rules here.

I don't expect you to uncritically accept everything I say; I expect direct answers to my responses without chopping out parts of my reply, and without being met with sarcasm and/or vague statements about this and that.

I don't think you understand the meaning of 'poisoning the well'. You have been passive-aggressive, both in this thread and in the previous thread I debated with you in. If I've offended you at any point, I wholly apologize--however, I've been blunt with you because I have already made very clear the kind of debating in which I will and will not participate in, and what kind of behavior I will not tolerate whilst debating. Telling someone that they're being passive-aggressive, especially if they are being that way, is not a personal attack; I already made clear I am not into personal attacks and I'm here to grow, not form grudges over things. I have been very respectful towards everyone in this thread, and even FireDragon and I managed to connect over the topic and have a very meaningful conversation that I have been greatly enjoying--despite us initially seeming to have clashing views. Nothing I have done here is against the site's rules.

KCfromNC said:
Kind by calling them passive-aggressive, for example?

I have certainly shown you far more courtesy and honesty than what has been shown in return, and I have not made any personal attacks against you or your political/ideological basis(something you've done repeatedly in the last thread). If you are being passive-aggressive or are at least displaying yourself in a negative, defensive manner--I have every right to bring it to your attention. It has nothing to do with kindness.

KCfromNC said:
I didn't do that. You were questioning why something happens more often in a larger group. I explained why.

No. I was using an analogy to bring up the fact that just because something happens to a larger group at rates even more frequently than other cases, it is not seen as being as 'serious' or offensive as when it happens to a minority, despite it being (supposedly)equally disrespectful in both cases. I brought up how disrespectful people can be towards Christians out of malice too, and your response was;

"Also strange you seem surprised that something happens more often to a larger group of people. Or at least I think you do, but since I'm forced to guess based on just a hint, who knows?

Maybe if you just came out and said what you meant it would be less strange. Or perhaps all of this innuendo is just a way to avoid putting forward an idea which, when stated plainly, is just bad. Without more data I'll just have to wait and see."

I acknowledge that Christians make up a larger group, but frequency aside my main point still stands.

KCfromNC said:
I'll also point out that acting as if it is "concerning" that I don't agree with you is another attempt to make this about me rather than the contents of the post. Seems to be a pattern forming.

I am concerned about your views on this; I'm not inside of your head, I cannot tell what your true motives are. All I know about you are the words you type--and all I've gotten from you regarding the blatant disrespect towards religious folk is akin to "They're a larger group, so it happens".

This is also very much about you at the moment, as I've made very obvious by how many times I've told you the issues I have with how you debate, and that I am not willing to continue unless you acknowledge and fix those issues. I've made no attempt to hide that fact and repeatedly leave it in your ballpark to decide how to handle it. There is no need to read so far into what I say, as I say what I mean and mean what I say.

KCfromNC said:
So you say, and yet who is it who started a thread about someone else's "issues"?

This feels a little bit like you've gone round in a circle. I already stated that I started the thread to simply share my thoughts; I'm not asking anyone to agree with me or claiming that the trans community is [this and that]. But it is true; often times the LGBT does involve people with their personal 'issues' because these issues apparently require the unquestioned cooperation of others in a way that I happen to disagree with. I also generally want to understand things better, and that's why I talk to other people about it.

Besides that, getting involved in someone else's beliefs/ideology is one thing; but I don't think there's only one exclusive group allowed to talk about a mental disorder(talking about GD here).

KCfromNC said:
My point was obvious, and here you're ignoring it and instead trying to make a big deal about whatever you can to distract from. Earlier on it was making up personal failings on my part. Here it is getting all worked up over perceived tone, then following it up with acting as if my response was some sort of baseless emotional outburst. Those sorts of attempts are quite transparent.

KCfromNC said:
...Or at least I think you do, but since I'm forced to guess based on just a hint, who knows?

Maybe if you just came out and said what you meant it would be less strange. Or perhaps all of this innuendo is just a way to avoid putting forward an idea which, when stated plainly, is just bad.

Forgive me for stepping out of bounds here, but perhaps you should take your own advice and make sure your point is as obvious as you say it is.

I'm sorry you take issue with how I write. This quote;

"Is it simply unbearable that I care about everyone's well being, and not just a certain group? Or that I don't mindlessly follow whatever is fed to me?"

Was my attempt, again, at trying to illuminate part of the bigger picture to you and to try and get you to 'think' about what I'm saying--that failed, however. I'm not worked up, and I am sorry if you perceive my criticism of your slightly rude and evasive behavior as if you were writing from a 'baseless emotional outburst'. Although, it is interesting you should be the one to describe it with that choice of words, and not me.

And no; I didn't accuse you of 'personal failings'. If you saw my being blunt with you as such, that is something you need to work out on your own as, again, I was being very straightforward on both this and the other thread with it being about beneficial debating and respectful behavior, not personal blame. You can acknowledge my observation of your behavior and use it to better yourself and your arguments, or you can leave it. It makes no difference to me.

KCfromNC said:
If you want to get people to accept what you're saying, you're going to need more than just assertions and implications.

KC, I haven't seen you post a single citation or study on this thread so please, make sure you're measuring yourself by the same standards you measure others. Everyone here has google to check for the validity of claims, which is what I do; if people had bothered to look up the facts I mentioned about gender dysphoria(namely it being previously classified as a mental disorder for good reason, and the fact that the transgender brain mimics the structure/functions of the opposite sex's brain), they'd find that there is quite a lot to back up my assertions. And if I'm wrong, I will gladly take the L and educate myself further.

KCfromNC said:
Again, attempts at personal attacks rather than actually addressing what I wrote just read as a distraction. It makes it look as if there's no real substance to back up whatever it is you think your posts are trying to demonstrate.

So this is 2020...where telling someone that if they have their mindset on one set of beliefs, have no desire to have a real discussion and you have no interest in talking with them counts as a 'personal attack'. I really do hope it is obvious how ridiculous that sounds.

Either way, I have no ill will towards you and I hope you have a good day/evening, but I'm ending this discussion with you here. Should you ever change your mind about how you approach debates and want to discuss these things in a less tense manner; feel free to contact me.

God bless and I wish you the best.

Aryeh Jay · May 3, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
Of course, but the question is does a trans need healing ??

It would appear that a person would actually have to ask Jesus to heal themselves or another person. He didn’t just heal every single person He met or that was afflicted in the land. So a trans person would have to ask to be healed.

The centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13)
Cured the paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8)
Opened the eyes of two blind men (Matthew 9:27-31)
A woman of Canaan (Matthew 15:22-28)
Cured a boy who was plagued by a demon (Matthew 17:14-21)
Opened the eyes of two blind men (Matthew 20:30-34)
Peter's mother-in-law of a fever (Mark 1:30-31)
A leper (Mark 1:40-45)
Cured a deaf and mute man (Mark 7:31-37)
Opened the eyes of a blind man (Mark 8:22-26)
Cured a woman of an issue of blood (Luke 8:43-48)
Cleansed ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
The nobleman's son (John 4:46-47)
Opened the eyes of a man born blind (John 9:1-38)

Ken-1122 · May 3, 2020

KCfromNC said:
"Meet my friend X, she's a teacher".

So the offense is when you are talking to someone else about them but they are close enough to hear the conversation.

Quartermaine · May 3, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
Do you think I am doing that ? I understand your intensions I think, I am happy to withdraw or possibly participate on a different level - I think the claims being made around around gender confusion by the promoters of these permissive lifestyles are pretty insidious and deceptive. I have some experience of the spiritual bondage that comes with it. I have seen lives beautifully released from bondage, this has been a significant aspect of my calling.

and what claims are these exactly?

Thoughts on transgender issues

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist

Well-Known Member

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist

Well-Known Member

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist

Well-Known Member

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads