In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not quite. The Jewish people being in exile is what exposed them to ideas of resurrection in the first place. It has been very hard for religious scholars to locate pre-exilic Jewish beliefs in a resurrection. However, post-exilic Jewish thought finds such beliefs widespread. See here and here. So, this would be an example of God's people being open to whatever truths that can be found among the regular folks outside of the particular religious community.

Jews being a marginal cult in a majority pagan roman Empire. Why would you think I had the Jews in mind instead of the Pagans who denied resurrection and didn't even conceive of it? Pagans who dominated the empire and whom Christianity didn't specifically cater itself too, in many offensive ways to Pagans. If you're afraid of the Church being marginal you ought to know it started in a marginal position. Hence why would it failing to live up to a new secular standard (for it isn't Christian standard) be of any real concern to the faithful? Should we have sacrificed incense to Caesar in order to not only save our lives, but to be relevant and culturally accepted?

That's not the argument. As I said above, the argument by the culture is that the church should not be restrictive to just the gender binary. Nor should the church participate in useless denials of gender dysphoria. If the medical community (i.e., the experts) asserts that this phenomenon is real, what reason would the church have to deny the reality? It makes the church look as if her head is in the sand. The tug of the wider culture is toward inclusion of others. Such inclusivity does not require that you cease believing in the genders of male and female.

I don't deny there are people with a bent psyche that leads them to feel uncomfortable with their bodies. I just ask why we have to give what they have to say credence when it appears to be a mental illness or as i would describe it now, a fad.

What I find interesting about your view is that you are concerned that the Church includes the culture. Why aren't you concerned that the culture doesn't want to include the Church, that it doesn't want to accept Christian principles? Are you so keen to surrender all your beliefs at the altar of liberal secularism? I'm not, don't know how any Christian could be. Where does it ever end on these topics since you are willing to abandon what has been a core part of Christian understanding of men and women since the beginning.

You act as if Christians should be the ones accomodating themselves to the culture. No it's the culture that's wrong, not Christianity for 2000 years.

Except that's exactly the history of slavery. The church did not lead the way. The wider culture did, and the church eventually followed.

So because the Church was wrong about slavery, therefore she is wrong about trannies? I don't follow your logic. Nor do I consider this obsession with slavery a proof of every liberal disposition.

 

[The Transcendentian]

Jesus Christ of Nazareth mandated us to spread the Good News of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He did not mandate us to persecute the very people the Gospel is meant for. The sinner. I wish Christians would get that fact. Be blessed.

That is true. I know that many conservative Christians myself included are not good at sharing God's love with the world. I remember hearing about a church sign that said "all gays go to hell", while true, that church forgot to include the part about how God wants all people, gay or otherwise, to repent so they can be saved. But "not using someone's preferred pronoun" is not an act of persecution.

 

[The Transcendentian]

Yet some more EO's from the the radical left


In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

This is just the beginning. It will seem insignificant compared to what's to come.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Yet some more EO's from the the radical left


In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

I find all this sensitivity unreal.
I have had unwanted sexual advances from both sexes, focus on getting the job done and working in a friendly environment. I am happy to call people anything if it keeps them motivated.

And that is all there is.
I remember two incidents of me asking suppliers if a failure was down to them. They got terribly upset that I dared question the situation. But I needed a solution and we needed to find the cause.

If their reputation is suffering such a question can be the last straw. It makes performance failure very volatile and grasping for discrimination an easy target. If one is confused and insecure gender dysphoria will not help. And passing laws on this to me is just absurd but it helps keep the left happy.....

 

[Hazelelponi]

the church will marginalize itself into irrelevance by not continually evolving with the wider culture.

God is unchanging...

We don't become a part of this world to become more palatable to them. We are to live in the world without being of this world.

Quality over quantity.

However, if the far left wants us to refer to them as "it" because they don't believe themselves part of the human race (peopled with he's and she's in accordance with human biology, daughters and sons, mothers and fathers), then I'm happy to comply.

 

[Lost4words]

If you follow the world and its ways you will win favour with the devil.

If you follow God and His word, you will suffer persecution.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If you follow the world and its ways you will win favour with the devil.

If you follow God and His word, you will suffer persecution.

"God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness". Genesis 1:4

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Yet some more EO's from the the radical left


In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

This is the same stuff that's in the bill being presented to the Victorian Parliament in Australia. It all has to do with treaties signed in the world body without our knowledge or agreement. Welcome to the new world order.

 

[Sunshinee777]

Nobody wants to carry their cross and follow Christ anymore. Just give in to every desire--then force everyone else to accept that.

I believe there is many people who are and more people who will, I feel people are opening their eyes (well, God opening their eyes) for what's going on in this world and they pick their side. Which is a wonderful thing, thank you Lord. World is coming more and more polarised I see that clearly. That's when harvest begins.

 

[hedrick]

I read your earlier posts in this thread and, in the main, I agree with you. However, on this specific point you’ve made, what is your justification for trans (MTF) athletes directly competing against bio-females?

First, this thread is about Biden'e EO's. EO's don't change the law, so they won't actually make this happen. It's up to the courts to interpret existing law, and Congress to change it. What the EO does is change which side the government will join in court, and stop the Federal government from doing things like suing Connecticut to overturn their law on the subject.

Second, many states already have laws that allow trans athletes to compete. It has not killed women's sports. That appears to be hysteria from people who oppose trans rights for other reasons. While it hasn't killed women's sports, it has caused a few trans athletes to win. At that point I think we need to ask why we have athletics in schools. In my opinion it's not to find the best women athletes in the state, but to promote physical fitness, experiencing teamwork, etc. It's more interesting to compete with people with similar skills. But in school that will never be completely the case. There will always be schools that have one or two people who will later become professional athletes. Given the small number of trans, I don't think they pose any more danger to sports than the few people who are naturally much better at sports than others.

There are high stakes sports where winning matters more. But the NCAA and Olympics already have rules that allow trans athletes but try to control their advantage. I don't know that the current rules are perfect, but they will no doubt change. In the states with laws protecting trans rights, I don't believe those have affected the NCAA and Olympic competitions. I don't know why a Federal law would either.

I personally think that this fear is largely baseless, and is being used by people who are opposed to trans rights as a whole, but find that sports and bathrooms are the best way to make turn off thought. "Think of the children" is a long-standing tactic to stop careful thought.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

People can call themselves whatever they want. I don’t care. I also don’t have to agree with it. But if they want me to call them whatever they want me to: sure whatever. It’s not any different than a name change.
There are more gender critical issues I have a problem with on a secular level but I don’t even care about normal men using the bathroom. We all have stalls. Generally you can tell if someone is being a creepier or not. like if a grown man briskly walks straight to a stall in the woman’s bathroom, does his business, then leaves afterwards, I know it was probably a bathroom emergency.
It’s just about whether or not you’re lurking. Even if you’re female, I’m gonna think something is up.
However, I digress. Religiously of course it is wrong. Because it is a delusion. But because we know they are only lying to themselves, I don’t see the problem with being a peacemaker and calling them by their new name and “gender” even if we don’t agree with it.
Don’t worry, it will peak soon enough. Even the left is getting sick of their antics; I see it on the forums.

 

[Magnanimity]

Jews being a marginal cult in a majority pagan roman Empire. Why would you think I had the Jews in mind instead of the Pagans who denied resurrection and didn't even conceive of it?

So, what I tried to note to you was that the opposite of what you seem to affirm here is what historically happened. Out more bluntly, Jewish people didn’t seem to have ideas of resurrection until they got exposed to these ideas while in exile. As in, the Jews got it from others. If resurrection is the truth, then this is an example of “God’s people” receiving truth from outside of their own understanding of God’s revelation. See the point?

new secular standard

If God sustains everything in being for every moment of existence (which he very likely does) and of God loves every human that’s ever lived just as much as he loves you or me (again, very likely) then it would follow that there isn’t such a stark demarcation between the sacred and profane as ppl like to make out. As an example, there isn’t sacred justice vs secular justice. There’s just the universal of justice. And we all know what it is—rendering to each person what is due to her. Bifurcation the world into a “city of God” and a “city of man” may have been helpful once upon a time to St Augustine and his contemporaries (though I’m suspicious of even that) but it isn’t helpful today. Peace and co-existence can only come through ongoing dialogue and mutual valuation of “the other” (in this case the secular other). It’s the only way forward. Otherwise, humans will do what they do and think of the other as some sort of enemy to be opposed. Your fellow secular man is not your enemy, he’s your neighbor to be loved, no two ways about it.

You act as if Christians should be the ones accomodating themselves to the culture. No it's the culture that's wrong, not Christianity for 2000 years.

Sometimes the church leads the way. Some times the culture seems to lead the way. The point is that the path forward includes all of humanity. All of them, no exclusions, no exceptions. One of your greatest saints taught this ardently—Gregory of Nyssa.

Nor do I consider this obsession with slavery a proof of every liberal disposition.

it isn’t just slavery. Marriage wasn’t always considered a sacrament in the early church. Is it one? It came to be one, largely thru the influence of St Augustine. Or, is it better to think of marriage as a social contract? The slavery issue has other underlying issues that “secular” Modernity contributed a lot of support for—the universality of human dignity and the universality of human conscience. That the individual conscience of your fellow man must be respected is an idea clearly articulated in documents of Vatican II. But as an idea articulated and represented throughout the whole history of the church? Nope. Even now, you seem hesitant to listen to your fellow (secular) man on these issues. You want to tell him what the truth is, rather than being open to the possibility that he might have some truth for you.

 

[Magnanimity]

While it hasn't killed women's sports, it has caused a few trans athletes to win.

Right, which is why I questioned your judgment that this is all ok. I used an analogy with PED’s (which are generally prohibited on the reasoning that they give unfair advantages to athletes and a desire to “level the playing field”). Being born biologically male would seem also to give unfair advantages and contribute to an unlevel playing field, as you seem to acknowledge here.

At that point I think we need to ask why we have athletics in schools. In my opinion it's not to find the best women athletes in the state, but to promote physical fitness, experiencing teamwork, etc.

This is a bit of a rosy and idealistic view of sports. Superior athletes (and their parents) are often much more pragmatic in their view of sports because they’re all aware of the real-world advantages that accrue to superior athletes in the US (college scholarships, the possibility of playing professionally). All of which means there are high stakes that could be undermined by allowing anyone to have an unfair advantage in youth sports.

but find that sports and bathrooms are the best way to make turn off thought.

As I noted above, I’m with you in resisting the fear-mongering. There’s a conservative-leaning trans YouTuber who goes by Blaire White. She’s pretty great. I remember that she once did a video on the bathrooms issue and she joked in passing with her guest by saying “trans folks have been around for a long time. Where do people think that they have gone to the bathroom all these years..?” We can get caught up in fear sometimes in these discussions. But I think my opposition to your opinion here is entirely based in reason and consideration of justice for our female athletes.

 

[hedrick]

This is a bit of a rosy and idealistic view of sports. Superior athletes (and their parents) are often much more pragmatic in their view of sports because they’re all aware of the real-world advantages that accrue to superior athletes in the US (college scholarships, the possibility of playing professionally). All of which means there are high stakes that could be undermined by allowing anyone to have an unfair advantage in youth sports.

But those things are controlled by NCAA and Olympic rules. Presumably college recruiters understand that not every trans athlete in high school is in compliance with those rules. I'm reasonably sure that there are high-performing non-trans women that they can also consider. I would rather leave them to decide what rules should be used in college and later, and not intervene legally in either direction. (However I would expect college intramural sports to accept trans people fully.)

 

[zippy2006]

At that point I think we need to ask why we have athletics in schools. In my opinion it's not to find the best women athletes in the state, but to promote physical fitness, experiencing teamwork, etc. It's more interesting to compete with people with similar skills. But in school that will never be completely the case.

Men and women's sports aren't separated merely for the sake of competition. Combining them would harm teamwork as much as competition. Your philosophy of sports is greatly lacking.

We don't let men play in women's leagues for the same reason we don't let adults play in children's leagues, or for the same reason we disallow steroids at every level of sports. Throwing an adult into a children's league is not going to help the children focus on teamwork rather than competition.

This is the sort of bad argumentation that progressivism lives on, and it will get much worse when we're talking about abuse shelters rather than sports leagues. What you're doing is sacrificing the integrity and safety of female spaces for the sake of the self-approbation of a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.

 

[PaulCyp1]

He can "redefine" oxygen, but It won't make the slightest difference in the nature of oxygen. The nature of things in inherent. Oxygen, or water, or human, or male, or female, don't come into existence when humans "define" them. They already has an innate definition, which humans can discover. If humans try to define such realities as something other than what they are, those humans are simply wrong, and no rational person is going to accept their new "definition".

 

[nolidad]

Yet some more EO's from the the radical left


In far-reaching executive order, Biden redefines 'sex'

Just another step down the road to the end and the return of Jesus.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Moving so much closer to divine judgement against this nation.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So, what I tried to note to you was that the opposite of what you seem to affirm here is what historically happened. Out more bluntly, Jewish people didn’t seem to have ideas of resurrection until they got exposed to these ideas while in exile. As in, the Jews got it from others. If resurrection is the truth, then this is an example of “God’s people” receiving truth from outside of their own understanding of God’s revelation. See the point?

I don’t agree with this idea but that is besides my point which you seem keen to ignore. Why shouldn’t have the early Church have abandoned the idea of resurrection to be more acceptable to Roman citizens? I presume you consider the resurrection merely an idea rather than an actual event in the life of our Lord, so it wouldn’t have mattered if the early Church had given up this belief in favour of a more palatable belief right? After all, the secular culture of the Roman Empire was civilized and surely we Christians were being stubborn in believing in ideas like resurrection?

Tell me, why shouldn't the Church have given up resurrection?

If God sustains everything in being for every moment of existence (which he very likely does) and of God loves every human that’s ever lived just as much as he loves you or me (again, very likely) then it would follow that there isn’t such a stark demarcation between the sacred and profane as ppl like to make out. As an example, there isn’t sacred justice vs secular justice. There’s just the universal of justice. And we all know what it is—rendering to each person what is due to her. Bifurcation the world into a “city of God” and a “city of man” may have been helpful once upon a time to St Augustine and his contemporaries (though I’m suspicious of even that) but it isn’t helpful today. Peace and co-existence can only come through ongoing dialogue and mutual valuation of “the other” (in this case the secular other). It’s the only way forward. Otherwise, humans will do what they do and think of the other as some sort of enemy to be opposed. Your fellow secular man is not your enemy, he’s your neighbor to be loved, no two ways about it.

Therefore everything is justified and all Christian standards can be abandoned.

Sometimes the church leads the way. Some times the culture seems to lead the way. The point is that the path forward includes all of humanity. All of them, no exclusions, no exceptions. One of your greatest saints taught this ardently—Gregory of Nyssa.

As a ‘Catholic’ (I don’t really see any evidence of you being a Catholic) I would have thought you would consider Gregory of Nyssa one of yours, rather than belonging just my own Church. Sometimes the culture does lead the way, but I’m not arguing for a Church dominated society but rather a Christian lead one. That involves secular Christians doing what is expected of them by the faith and part of the faith has been the recognition of men and women as real categories, not something someone can change on a whim.

This is true because it’s built into the underlying assumptions of Christianity. A male only priesthood, different social expectations for men and women, different codes of dress, naming of children and giving them in most cases either a masculine or feminine name.

There was no nonsense about letting the child choose his ‘gender’ and I see no reason to abandon our Christian standard in favour of the new secular atheist morality you are pushing. Where is the limit? When do you say no to secular culture? Do you ever say no? I might presume you believe in everything contra to the Catholic Church, to which you presumably belong to.

it isn’t just slavery. Marriage wasn’t always considered a sacrament in the early church. Is it one? It came to be one, largely thru the influence of St Augustine. Or, is it better to think of marriage as a social contract? The slavery issue has other underlying issues that “secular” Modernity contributed a lot of support for—the universality of human dignity and the universality of human conscience. That the individual conscience of your fellow man must be respected is an idea clearly articulated in documents of Vatican II. But as an idea articulated and represented throughout the whole history of the church? Nope. Even now, you seem hesitant to listen to your fellow (secular) man on these issues. You want to tell him what the truth is, rather than being open to the possibility that he might have some truth for you.

Marriage was considered the union between a man and a woman and there were was no toleration of Polygamy, Homosexuality and infidelity among other things.

And no, I don’t have to respect the individual conscience of my fellow man because he doesn’t respect my conscience. I find it interesting that the tide only goes one way. You demand I respect the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] but the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] won’t respect my opposition to them. Why then am I too give an undue level of respect by calling them something that I know is false?

Especially when they have no care for respecting Christianity? Evidently you don’t respect Christianity either, based on how you speak about Saint Augustine. How are you Catholic again?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yeah he did.

Not everyone was chosen to be his Apostle.

He also defined marriage: Let a man leave his father and mother and cling unto his wife and the two shall be one flesh. All sorts of gendered language there.

 

[GDL]

Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth discriminate?

I am affraid you need the definition of discrimination:
"The unjust or pre- judicial treatment of different categories of people especially on the grounds of race , age or sex. "
I do not think He was "unjust".

How about a look back to an earlier English dictionary - Websters 1828:

DISCRIMINATION, noun

1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.

2. The state of being distinguished.

3. Mark of distinction.


There are a couple major types of dictionaries - prescriptive & descriptive. Prescriptive are in the mode of stating rules. Descriptive change with the times and describe how words are used.

Although discrimination has come to have a bad connotation, it really just means to distinguish, to observe differences, to judge. We all observe differences, distinguish, judge, discriminate every day.

Buying into the cultural changes of languages is nothing more than buying into the ideologies, beliefs, laws, practices of a culture.

We get taught we can't discriminate on the grounds of sex, so now we move to there being no gender. This is all a ploy to change the way people think, by redefining the words we use, to go along with godless legislation and ideologies.

And, yes, Jesus discriminates properly, accurately, according to absolute Truth. As Christians we are to be learning from Him to think, speak, and discriminate. We are not to be taking on the thinking of worldly, godless cultures according to their godless legislation & ideologies.