Why did Jesus say "in the beginning, God created them male and female"? Not Masc or Fem evolutions?

[AV1611VET]

Complicated and diverse sexual practices and gender expression existed long before Masters & Johnson's research.

Ya ... but Masters & Johnson took something that was created to be holy and made it into a sideshow under the guise of "research."

 

[Shemjaza]

Ya ... but Masters & Johnson took something that was created to be holy and made it into a sideshow under the guise of "research."

Nah, sex and and gender have been weird for as long as there have been records... and I don't doubt that it was weird before as well.

Ze and ze were created as cisgenders.

The vast majority of people are... doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

 

[timothyu]

To differentiate between man and woman.

Because until they ate of the fruit and became self aware they had no idea of what they were

 

[AV1611VET]

The vast majority of people are... doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

Imagine Bruce Jenner getting saved as a young boy.

That means that, when he dies and gets to heaven and gets his new name, it is going to be male -- not female.

So poor Caitlyn Jenner is going to have to live for all of eternity with a masculine name.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because until they ate of the fruit and became self aware they had no idea of what they were

Cute.

 

[timothyu]

No gender in the Kingdom. That's going to upset a few people and shut down a lot of parades.

 

[AV1611VET]

No gender in the Kingdom. That's going to upset a few people and shut down a lot of parades.

Poor babies.

 

[Shemjaza]

Imagine Bruce Jenner getting saved as a young boy.

That means that, when he dies and gets to heaven and gets his new name, it is going to be male -- not female.

So poor Caitlyn Jenner is going to have to live for all of eternity with a masculine name.

In this narrative Caitlyn Jenner has left her body behind... can't have body dysphoria without a body.

If heaven were real, surely no one there would be uncomfortable with their identity.

No gender in the Kingdom. That's going to upset a few people and shut down a lot of parades.

A lot of people take the gendered descriptions of entities and individuals in the Bible very literally.

 

[Shemjaza]

Poor babies.

How do you feel about giving up your status and identity as a man?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you feel about giving up your status and identity as a man?

I won't be giving up my status as a man.

No doubt timothy is talking about this verse ...

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Which isn't a reference to we becoming agender.

 

[Gottservant]

I think Jesus' word here is clear cut.

You can't get around it saying "almost gendered" - the first test of a species, is its ability to mate with its own kind.

If the first test is mating with one's own kind, being male or female is paramount - and at least in some way that can be eventually replicated.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think Jesus' word here is clear cut.

You can't get around it saying "almost gendered" - the first test of a species, is its ability to mate with its own kind.

If the first test is mating with one's own kind, being male or female is paramount - and at least in some way that can be eventually replicated.

Not true.

Not every species needs male and female members to mate.

And not every member of a species needs to mate or even be able to mate.

 

[Gottservant]

Not true.

Not every species needs male and female members to mate.

And not every member of a species needs to mate or even be able to mate.

Actually, I think you're right, on one condition, that those not mating as male and female, did so after the beginning. The whole question of the fall, falls right into this.

As for every member needing to mate, that's why I said "eventually", eventually they need to replicate after their kind.

 

[Shemjaza]

Actually, I think you're right, on one condition, that those not mating as male and female, did so after the beginning. The whole question of the fall, falls right into this.

What about species that don't have male and female?
What about species that change between male and female?
What about species that are effectively both male and female?

As for every member needing to mate, that's why I said "eventually", eventually they need to replicate after their kind.

Take ants as an example. Worker ants are definitely ants... but they will never be able to "replicate after their kind". Only the queens and the winged males will ever mate and replicate.

 

[Gottservant]

What about species that don't have male and female?
What about species that change between male and female?
What about species that are effectively both male and female?

The point is, in principle, if it is masculine, you call it male; if it is feminine, you call it female. Principle.

Something of how God speaks is important here, because if He calls something male or female, then it is. I guess if you have masculine and feminine, there is a beginning in which they see each other as male and female - God creates that.

The whole problem of Evolution, is that it drives a wedge, in how sexes see each other - rating each other for their survival, not building on affinity.

Take ants as an example. Worker ants are definitely ants... but they will never be able to "replicate after their kind". Only the queens and the winged males will ever mate and replicate.

Again, I said eventually, that includes eventuating through a ruler.

 

[Shemjaza]

The point is, in principle, if it is masculine, you call it male; if it is feminine, you call it female. Principle.

What if it isn't?

Not everything can be defined and split that way.

Something of how God speaks is important here, because if He calls something male or female, then it is. I guess if you have masculine and feminine, there is a beginning in which they see each other as male and female - God creates that.

What if it isn't?

Some situations and species and individual just don't have those traits.

The whole problem of Evolution, is that it drives a wedge, in how sexes see each other - rating each other for their survival, not building on affinity.

Building on affinity is a method of survival.

Again, I said eventually, that includes eventuating through a ruler.

Does that means if some people are sterile, intersex or transgender are still members of the species?

 

[Gottservant]

What if it isn't?

Not everything can be defined and split that way.

If it can't be split that way, it can't be "begun"

Building on affinity is a method of survival.

That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think: calling the greater the servant of the lesser.

Does that means if some people are sterile, intersex or transgender are still members of the species?

Not only are they the same species, they deserve more love.

 

[Shemjaza]

If it can't be split that way, it can't be "begun"

Then it's a useless definition of "begun". plenty of life exists and reproduces without a male/female divide.

That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think: calling the greater the servant of the lesser.

Not at all. Working as a team is an excellent survival tactic, and bonding as a pair is a great way to be a team for parenting.

Not only are they the same species, they deserve more love.

Do you understand that using mating/sexes as a definition is flawed if it doesn't apply?

It's like using Green or Red as a definition of birds because some are in fact green or red.

 

[Gottservant]

Then it's a useless definition of "begun". plenty of life exists and reproduces without a male/female divide.


Not at all. Working as a team is an excellent survival tactic, and bonding as a pair is a great way to be a team for parenting.


Do you understand that using mating/sexes as a definition is flawed if it doesn't apply?

It's like using Green or Red as a definition of birds because some are in fact green or red.

Don't you understand, that a pair of creatures not calling each other male and female, do not desire to mate.

It is necessary to objectify your opposite, before you can find it attractive.

You're basically saying "because creatures dissented from calling each other male and female, after the beginning, there is no more point: saying they can be objectified that way" - it doesn't hold up.

Jesus didn't say "God created some of them male and female, others not" - only those that wanted to mate needed to be objectified.

 

[Shemjaza]

Don't you understand, that a pair of creatures not calling each other male and female, do not desire to mate.

It is necessary to objectify your opposite, before you can find it attractive.

You're basically saying "because creatures dissented from calling each other male and female, after the beginning, there is no more point: saying they can be objectified that way" - it doesn't hold up.

Jesus didn't say "God created some of them male and female, others not" - only those that wanted to mate needed to be objectified.

False.

Mating doesn't require opposites.

Mating doesn't even require consciousness, so no, "dissent" doesn't need to occur.