Transgender son

[Sum1sGruj]

Wat 2011? I take it you have fallen victim to believing that 2012 mayan prophecy? I await your answer.

No, just that the events of Jesus on Earth were almost 2000 years ago, and so people are getting lazy in their faith and commitment, while some secularists are actually attacking the foundations of Christianity itself.

But nonetheless, the part you should be focused on is that Jesus did not rule out the OC. He completed it and sacrificed himself so we do not have to face punishment and sacrifice on Earth. Needless to say, what the OC dictates as sin is still sin, and if Jesus did not say this and that about this and that, it's because it is already explained in the OC.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Ok then. Just curious. I thought it would have been odd. Anyway. Back on topic. I'm right you're wrong goodnight for now.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

We seem to have wandered away from the main topic of conversation! How did "transgender son" turn into a discussion of the "end times"?

You are the one who drew that conclusion. What should be noted, as it is more accurate, is how did the thread go from transgender son to twisting Biblical truth?
Seriously. these kinds of threads bring out a lot of things about the general consensus of the Bible.

 

[CocoaBean]

Actually, Amber made a logical deduction based on comments by you. She should have instead ignored your "baiting" behavior. You have repeated the same assertion about the OC ad nauseam, and doing so does not make the other readers any more likely to accept the argument than it did the first time you stated it. Please move on!

I think we get that you believe transgenderism to be a sin. However, even if this is true, a sin is a sin is a sin. Is there any one of us without sin? I think it is ironic that this thread is tagged under "transgender" and "compassion", because I certainly have not seen much compassion shown by people on any transgender thread.

 

[LoraElise]

I find it offensive that one would try to shatter biblical orthodoxy with something that is untrue, so it's really tit for tat.

Please explain how gender dysphoria shatters Biblical orthodoxy, when the Bible is utterly silent on the subject.

One might consider debating from fact, rather than from ideological opinion.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Please explain how gender dysphoria shatters Biblical orthodoxy, when the Bible is utterly silent on the subject.

One might consider debating from fact, rather than from ideological opinion.

The Bible speaks on cross dressing and homosexuality. If you are not true to your sex as God commands, then you are sinning.

What a lot of people have done is run along with some bogus, and yet very refutable idea that the OC does not still stand by what it constitutes as sin. People think that because we do not have to sacrifice or face Earthly punishment, that it somehow translates to us not needing to follow the law. Jesus completed the law, and the only things he overwrote were the things he stated. Whatever he didn't state was not stated because the OC already explains it.

The only opinion, forgive me for saying, is what one chooses their gender to be. It is not hardwired, it is obtained through experience. One can sit there all day and fool those with liberal mindsets that will cater to their plight, but this is religion and therefore not the place to be expecting such.

Pure, un-catering logic is what you will get from me, plain and simple.

 

[CocoaBean]

The Bible speaks on cross dressing and homosexuality. If you are not true to your sex as God commands, then you are sinning.

What a lot of people have done is run along with some bogus, and yet very refutable idea that the OC does not still stand by what it constitutes as sin. People think that because we do not have to sacrifice or face Earthly punishment, that it somehow translates to us not needing to follow the law. Jesus completed the law, and the only things he overwrote were the things he stated. Whatever he didn't state was not stated because the OC already explains it.

The only opinion, forgive me for saying, is what one chooses their gender to be. It is not hardwired, it is obtained through experience. One can sit there all day and fool those with big hearts and want to cater to their plight, but this is religion and therefore not the place to be expecting such.

This thread is not about cross dressing or homosexuality! And, yeah, that OC argument sounds familiar....

 

[LoraElise]

But all that doesn't matter in lieu of the fact that I have refuted every grain of contrary on this thread over and over and the only thing that happens is a continued circularity by you and a couple others.

You've refuted nothing, and seem to have quite a high opinion of yourself. You've simply dismissed everything that conflicts with your personal ideological worldview, regardless of the evidence.

There's really no point in going on with this, so I'm done. Please enjoy the rest of your summer.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

This thread is not about cross dressing or homosexuality! And, yeah, that OC argument sounds familiar....

I bet it does sound familiar, as it is true and one would be going on complete ignorant bliss to believe otherwise. The OC stands in what it describes to be sin.
And that is precisely what transgenderism is. Let's not mock the issue with semantics. One's opinion on their gender does not change the fact that they are one or both those things.

 

[CocoaBean]

O.k. So, let me get this straight, gender is a matter of opinion? Does it matter who's opinion it is? In your opinion, are you a man, or a "reflection" of a man? (Notation under your profile name noted). Transgenderism is "going on complete ignorant bliss"? The gender dysphoric individuals I know are anything other than ignorant, and their suffering could hardly be classified as "bliss", whether it be here on earth (or in the afterlife, according to your interpretation of scripture).

 

[Sum1sGruj]

O.k. So, let me get this straight, gender is a matter of opinion? Does it matter who's opinion it is? In your opinion, are you a man, or a "reflection" of a man? (Notation under your profile name noted). Transgenderism is "going on complete ignorant bliss"? The gender dysphoric individuals I know are anything other than ignorant, and their suffering could hardly be classified as "bliss", whether it be here on earth (or in the afterlife, according to your interpretation of scripture).

Neglecting the OC is ignorant bliss, as Jesus never promoted such. It's actually the worst thing a Christian can do, really. It negates the religion at it's important fundamental aspects, and I see a lot of that, not just among transgenders, but many Christians in general.

Their suffering would not be such if they lived in a sinless world, and yet they endorse sin by playing the twisted game of Earthly affairs. God has special ordainment for people whose trials are harder, but that doesn't seem to avail anyone nowadays even though such an idea is directly stated in the NT.

A man can consider himself a woman and therefore not be cross dressing when he puts on women's clothes. That is what lies at the end of your logic.

 

[CocoaBean]

Neglecting the OC is ignorant bliss, as Jesus never promoted such. It's actually the worst thing a Christian can do, really. It negates the religion at it's important fundamental aspects, and I see a lot of that, not just among transgenders, but many Christians in general.

Their suffering would not be such if they lived in a sinless world, and yet they endorse sin by playing the twisted game of Earthly affairs. God has special ordainment for people whose trials are harder, but that doesn't seem to avail anyone nowadays even though such an idea is directly stated in the NT.

A man can consider himself a woman and therefore not be cross dressing when he puts on women's clothes. That is what lies at the end of your logic.

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". I'm not sure sin is dependent on ignorance of the OC. In fact, I'm pretty sure one can still commit a sin and be totally not ignorant of the OC! I'm also pretty sure that humans commit sins on this earth daily without endorsing it, and that we all play "the twisted game of earthly affairs", and to disagree would be quite delusional.

I also believe that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the worst thing a Christian can do, as it is unforgiven and unpardonable. Pretty sure that's in the Bible, too.

And saying that gender is a matter of opinion is your logic, not mine. Please don't attribute your arguments to me.

 

[Zebra1552]

What a lot of people have done is run along with some bogus, and yet very refutable idea that the OC does not still stand by what it constitutes as sin. People think that because we do not have to sacrifice or face Earthly punishment, that it somehow translates to us not needing to follow the law. Jesus completed the law, and the only things he overwrote were the things he stated. Whatever he didn't state was not stated because the OC already explains it.

Do you eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers? How about cleanse yourself after any... emissions? I doubt you follow your own rule. Why expect others to? As pointed out, the verse on 'crossdressing' was purely cultural. Other cultures did it as part of their religious rituals.

The only opinion, forgive me for saying, is what one chooses their gender to be. It is not hardwired, it is obtained through experience. One can sit there all day and fool those with liberal mindsets that will cater to their plight, but this is religion and therefore not the place to be expecting such.

Pure, un-catering logic is what you will get from me, plain and simple.

If you think you're spouting logic, then take a closer look. In the above sentence, you rip an idea just because it's 'liberal'. This is an irrelevant piece of information that merely amounts to an ad hominem attack and a generalization about liberals. Prior to that, you erroneously state that the Law is to be upheld except where the Bible says otherwise. The Bible states numerous things in the Law that are never nullified by Jesus' words. Should we still stone people? Therefore you're not using proper hermeneutics because you are unwilling to take into account the full impact of your claim, nevermind using logic. It's not logical to ignore hermeneutics to uphold traditional standards. One must rely on what the Bible said in its original context.

 

[Zebra1552]

Hmm, but Jesus never denounced the OC, he completed it. The difference is that we do not have to sacrifice and face Earthly punishment. And he smoothed a few edges of it. Other then that, it's still there, and a sin is a sin whether we face the consequence here or when we die.

I'm sorry, but I missed this Bible verse in the OT or otherwise that indicates God set gender in stone. Where is it?

So really, your civil rights are a product of a world turning away from God. It's 2011 after all. Rings bells. Hell's bells.

Then get off your computer, because your computer is a modern instrument that's clearly a result of a world turning away from God.

But all that doesn't matter in lieu of the fact that I have refuted every grain of contrary on this thread over and over and the only thing that happens is a continued circularity by you and a couple others.

Your idea and everyone else's idea of a refutation seem to be two completely different things. Several posters including myself seem to think you're full of it. Why, then, should we believe your false bravado?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Cocoabean,

O.k. So, let me get this straight, gender is a matter of opinion?

Sum1sGruj didnt say that, but that is increasingly what people are saying and thinking as society gets more and more screwed up and away from God.
The post by Zoe in the science thread on the subject is very useful but there remains the contention that is the physical body right, or the brain? The argument against Sum1sGruj at present seems to be that what the brain says should take precedence, which I think is a slightly dangerous precedent in itself, rather than the body anatomy taking precedence.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Jaws13,

Do you eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers?

Christians usually do, there is no reason why not.
　

I'm sorry, but I missed this Bible verse in the OT or otherwise that indicates God set gender in stone. Where is it?

Surely Gen 2 etc God set ‘gender in stone’
​

Then get off your computer, because your computer is a modern instrument that's clearly a result of a world turning away from God.

I disagree. The computer isnt mentioned in the Bible but in the beginning God made them male and female.

Your idea and everyone else's idea of a refutation seem to be two completely different things. Several posters including myself seem to think you're full of it. Why, then, should we believe your false bravado?

On the other hand several posters like myself don’t believe you have really grasped this either.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Why do people say follow things from the OT and ignore some of the others. Being trans is not being gay hence the reason this thread is still up. I am rather curious why you are allowed to pick and choose what you want to follow and somehow consider this to be a far worse sin than other thing...

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Do you eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers? How about cleanse yourself after any... emissions? I doubt you follow your own rule. Why expect others to? As pointed out, the verse on 'crossdressing' was purely cultural. Other cultures did it as part of their religious rituals.

It's not cultural, it's the law. God issued such to the Jews because they were the firm believers at the time. Jesus was for everyone, the law is for everyone who wants to be part of such. It's quite ridiculous to say one does not have to follow the law simply because they have no Jewish descent. As far as God is concerned anyways, we are all connected through Adam. As far as nature is concerned, we are all connected as humans.

So whether we are Jewish, English, Scottish, African, Spanish, etc., we are all but the same.
The law was given by God.

Therefore, we have to follow it. Cross dressing is a sin and for good reason. Not cleaning yourself after emissions is a sin, and for good reason. Jesus stated that it is not what you swallow that pollutes your life, but what you vomit up. Carries more then one message, but it means we can eat shellfish and pork.
It takes a bit of thought to reconcile these things, but it does not take a genius to see why.

What has become of this whole idea of cross dressing is that it has been issued as a lifestyle. It is a lifelong sinful nature.
Gender is not based on opinion, people just want to make it that way. That's simply the way it is.
Like I said, I am not catering to the subject. I find the idea to be completely false and with very good reason. The idea seems nothing more to me then just a plea to let the truth not be acknowledged for the sake of others, which I am not willing to if it is in lieu of God. That is for very good reason as well.

If you think you're spouting logic, then take a closer look. In the above sentence, you rip an idea just because it's 'liberal'. This is an irrelevant piece of information that merely amounts to an ad hominem attack and a generalization about liberals. Prior to that, you erroneously state that the Law is to be upheld except where the Bible says otherwise. The Bible states numerous things in the Law that are never nullified by Jesus' words. Should we still stone people? Therefore you're not using proper hermeneutics because you are unwilling to take into account the full impact of your claim, nevermind using logic. It's not logical to ignore hermeneutics to uphold traditional standards. One must rely on what the Bible said in its original context.

I have stated several times that Jesus' sacrifice keeps us from Earthly punishment and sacrifice. That was the reason for his sacrifice, so that we may enter Heaven through him.
So I am being quite proper.
That is the same recurring argument that not only is obsolete, but it also shows a supreme lack of interpretation of the Bible.
As you can see from what I said in the last quote, Jesus completed the law, he did not nullify it.

As for your claim on me making 'generalizations' on liberals, that is your opinion. I do not like much of any political party, even conservatives. I am a mild libertarian because in my opinion you cannot force anyone to do anything, so you might as well keep fairness in order. But that is politics, not religion and so it does not matter.
What I mean by liberals in lieu of all this is the idea that everyone can do as they please and it has no place in biblical intrigue.

I'm all about hermeneutics, but the idea is correct theology, not whatever one wants it to be, and that is all some of you are doing.

 

[cprstat]

.

 

[Zebra1552]

It's not cultural, it's the law.

Okay. If it's the Law, then follow it. All of it, except the parts Jesus supposedly changed.

Ever touched a dead animal without a burnt offering?

Lev 5:2 Or when any of you touch any unclean thing--whether the carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean livestock or the carcass of an unclean swarming thing--and are unaware of it, you have become unclean, and are guilty.
Lev 5:3 Or when you touch human uncleanness--any uncleanness by which one can become unclean--and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall be guilty.
Lev 5:4 Or when any of you utter aloud a rash oath for a bad or a good purpose, whatever people utter in an oath, and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall in any of these be guilty.
Lev 5:5 When you realize your guilt in any of these, you shall confess the sin that you have committed.
Lev 5:6 And you shall bring to the LORD, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, a female from the flock, a sheep or a goat, as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for your sin.
Lev 5:7 But if you cannot afford a sheep, you shall bring to the LORD, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.
Lev 5:8 You shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the sin offering, wringing its head at the nape without severing it.
Lev 5:9 He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering on the side of the altar, while the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering.
Lev 5:10 And the second he shall offer for a burnt offering according to the regulation. Thus the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for the sin that you have committed, and you shall be forgiven.

Ever had a discharge?

Lev 15:1 The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying:
Lev 15:2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When any man has a discharge from his member, his discharge makes him ceremonially unclean.
Lev 15:3 The uncleanness of his discharge is this: whether his member flows with his discharge, or his member is stopped from discharging, it is uncleanness for him.
Lev 15:4 Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean; and everything on which he sits shall be unclean.
Lev 15:5 Anyone who touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:6 All who sit on anything on which the one with the discharge has sat shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:7 All who touch the body of the one with the discharge shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:8 If the one with the discharge spits on persons who are clean, then they shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:9 Any saddle on which the one with the discharge rides shall be unclean.
Lev 15:10 All who touch anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening, and all who carry such a thing shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:11 All those whom the one with the discharge touches without his having rinsed his hands in water shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:12 Any earthen vessel that the one with the discharge touches shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.
Lev 15:13 When the one with a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, he shall count seven days for his cleansing; he shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water, and he shall be clean.
Lev 15:14 On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest.
Lev 15:15 The priest shall offer them, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement on his behalf before the LORD for his discharge.

Ever gotten a haircut?
Lev 19:27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.

Eaten beef?
Lev 19:26 You shall not eat anything with its blood. You shall not practice augury or witchcraft.

Met a witch without stoning them?

Lev 20:27 A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death, their blood is upon them.

I think you get my point.

God issued such to the Jews because they were the firm believers at the time. Jesus was for everyone, the law is for everyone who wants to be part of such. It's quite ridiculous to say one does not have to follow the law simply because they have no Jewish descent. As far as God is concerned anyways, we are all connected through Adam. As far as nature is concerned, we are all connected as humans.

Paul disagrees:
Gal 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law."
Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for "The one who is righteous will live by faith."
Gal 3:12 But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, "Whoever does the works of the law will live by them."
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"--
Gal 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person's will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, "And to offsprings," as of many; but it says, "And to your offspring," that is, to one person, who is Christ.
Gal 3:17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.
Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

He later calls the Law a yoke of slavery.

So whether we are Jewish, English, Scottish, African, Spanish, etc., we are all but the same.
The law was given by God.

To the Israelites. See above.

Therefore, we have to follow it.

Paul, again, says otherwise.

Cross dressing is a sin and for good reason. Not cleaning yourself after emissions is a sin, and for good reason. Jesus stated that it is not what you swallow that pollutes your life, but what you vomit up. Carries more then one message, but it means we can eat shellfish and pork.
It takes a bit of thought to reconcile these things, but it does not take a genius to see why.

Then quit cutting your hair and trimming your beard/shaving. Offer your offerings, go buy lambs and doves to kill. Oh, and have fun dealing with PETA. If you want to submit yourself to a yoke of bondage, be my guest, but I will have no part of it. Jesus has set me free, and I am free indeed.

What has become of this whole idea of cross dressing is that it has been issued as a lifestyle. It is a lifelong sinful nature.

Then please prove that this was not a cultural law and was in fact a lifestyle. The burden is on you to prove your claim. I've given information to refute it.

Gender is not based on opinion, people just want to make it that way. That's simply the way it is.

Merely denying a well-established academic fact does not refute it.

I have stated several times that Jesus' sacrifice keeps us from Earthly punishment and sacrifice. That was the reason for his sacrifice, so that we may enter Heaven through him.
So I am being quite proper.
That is the same recurring argument that not only is obsolete, but it also shows a supreme lack of interpretation of the Bible.
As you can see from what I said in the last quote, Jesus completed the law, he did not nullify it.

I interpret the Bible just fine. Cut the insults. You say Jesus' sacrifice keeps us from Earthly punishment and sacrifice. Where is that written?

As for your claim on me making 'generalizations' on liberals, that is your opinion.

You're right, it is. Just like it's your opinion that transgendered people are living sinful lives worthy of hellfire and brimstone.

I do not like much of any political party, even conservatives. I am a mild libertarian because in my opinion you cannot force anyone to do anything, so you might as well keep fairness in order. But that is politics, not religion and so it does not matter.

When you throw 'liberal' as a term onto a belief, you make politics matter.
You introduced it. Address it, or concede the fallacy.

What I mean by liberals in lieu of all this is the idea that everyone can do as they please and it has no place in biblical intrigue.

That is not what liberal Christians believe. Straw man argument.

I'm all about hermeneutics, but the idea is correct theology, not whatever one wants it to be, and that is all some of you are doing.

Cut the false accusations and address the topic. I made a statement about the culture, which you have not addressed. I would appreciate some give and take in a discussion, as that's what discussions are for.