Transgender and the church

[jaigner]

You weren't nebulous to begin with. You clearly stated that "At least 1 in 100 people are born without clear gender assignment." Not nebulous...very clear.

I'm sorry that you don't don't seem to realize that when you misrepresent facts that the rest of your argument falls apart and you lose all credibility. That's the issue right now. You are arguing for one side of things and presenting falsehoods in your argument. Until you recant your statement, anything else you say is meaningless. All you've done so far is try and double talk your way out of it.

Forgive me. I should have said that at least 1 in 100 are born without being 100% scientifically male or female. My question is if one of the more extreme cases, in which a person is found to have both organs or be intersexed in some way, should we say they must stay that way or would it be permissible to pursue surgical options? What should be our response to this?

Sorry that you seem to feel the need to jump on me for misspeaking. Blessings, friend.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ya'll done arguing yet? Back to the discussion:

Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit...........

And what is the fruit of the Spirit? Peace, joy, love, the removal of all sexual sin.....

Which thing is unlike the others?

Freeatlast hasn't told us about this person's fruit. He doesn't seem to think there can be fruit in this person's life because of the magnitude of what he believes to be unforgiven, unrepentant, continuing sin. He wishes to condemn when the Bible clearly says that Christ came into the world for forgiveness rather than condemnation (John 3:17).

Incorrect..he has not gone back to presenting himself as a guy therefore there is not repentance and the sin continues. Issues like this are why liberals have no credibility. It is never loving to leave someone in their sin. Never

Is he truly being left in his sin? Freeatlast has already expressed that this person is SAVED. Do you have a different definition of saved than I do? If she/he is saved, then her/his sins are forgiven! Including those that continue to go on in their lives, just as our sins are forgiven including the ones that still go on in our lives! Just because this person's sin are more evident than ours, doesn't mean they are any less forgiven.

First there is no she's here. There is only two he's who are in a homosexual relationship where one has surgically sought to it covered up.

How do you know? Did you know this couple before the reassignment? Were they a couple? And even if this is true, again, does not Christ's blood cover all our sins? Even the ones that are uncomfortable for other human being to see?

Let me tell ya'll something, the lie you told to your boss this morning is just as black as this person continuing to live as a woman. God sees both the same way: Covered by the blood of Christ.

Paul says that Christians are at liberty to do all things, just that all things are not wise for the cause of Christ. If you want to argue that this person is harming the spreading of the gospel, fine. But it is still up to this person, under the direction of the same Holy Spirit that guides you and I, to decide for themselves as they mature in Christ what to do about this issue.

The best thing other Christians can do is to:

is let the Holy Sprirt work and keep them covered in prayer, even if we are uncomfortable with their choices.

Why do you seek to remove the freedom that you glorify in your user name from this believer simply because you don't like the type of sin they are engaged in? If we are free, we are FREE! This is the gift of God to all who believe. Its time to stop the condemnation and start the discipling process and really, from your description in the OP, this has already begun.

The fact that this person was "outed" was a malicious attack on the church by Satan himself, in order to cause division and stop the work of the Holy Spirit in this person's life. You and the church leadership should treat it this way.

 

[freeatlast]

http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/09/11/4380089-new-clue-in-gender-bending-mystery

Here's one, regarding the infamous gender ambiguous runner, that states 1 in 60 bodies deviate from standard male or female. Other sources say it's closer to 1 in 100. Granted, many of these people will never know unless they have a medical issue in which it is discovered.

But for some it's more severe. I'm just saying that, rare as it may be, it's something we have to think about. I'm not making a pronouncement of acceptance here, just asking the question. So chill.

Actually it is closer to 1/25,000 births that have the problem a physical ambiguouseness. So just throwing out numbers to cloud the issue at hand is really un-ethical. You might want to start a discussion the the subject of True Hermaphroditism.

 

[freeatlast]

Ya'll done arguing yet? Back to the discussion:



And what is the fruit of the Spirit? Peace, joy, love, the removal of all sexual sin.....

Which thing is unlike the others?

Freeatlast hasn't told us about this person's fruit. He doesn't seem to think there can be fruit in this person's life because of the magnitude of what he believes to be unforgiven, unrepentant, continuing sin. He wishes to condemn when the Bible clearly says that Christ came into the world for forgiveness rather than condemnation (John 3:17).



Is he truly being left in his sin? Freeatlast has already expressed that this person is SAVED. Do you have a different definition of saved than I do? If she/he is saved, then her/his sins are forgiven! Including those that continue to go on in their lives, just as our sins are forgiven including the ones that still go on in our lives! Just because this person's sin are more evident than ours, doesn't mean they are any less forgiven.



How do you know? Did you know this couple before the reassignment? Were they a couple? And even if this is true, again, does not Christ's blood cover all our sins? Even the ones that are uncomfortable for other human being to see?

Let me tell ya'll something, the lie you told to your boss this morning is just as black as this person continuing to live as a woman. God sees both the same way: Covered by the blood of Christ.

Paul says that Christians are at liberty to do all things, just that all things are not wise for the cause of Christ. If you want to argue that this person is harming the spreading of the gospel, fine. But it is still up to this person, under the direction of the same Holy Spirit that guides you and I, to decide for themselves as they mature in Christ what to do about this issue.

The best thing other Christians can do is to:



Why do you seek to remove the freedom that you glorify in your user name from this believer simply because you don't like the type of sin they are engaged in? If we are free, we are FREE! This is the gift of God to all who believe. Its time to stop the condemnation and start the discipling process and really, from your description in the OP, this has already begun.

The fact that this person was "outed" was a malicious attack on the church by Satan himself, in order to cause division and stop the work of the Holy Spirit in this person's life. You and the church leadership should treat it this way.

We are not free to continue to sin. We are set free from sin to live to the glory of God.

 

[menageriekeeper]

We are not free to continue to sin.

Really? Does that mean you are above sin in your life?

Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[Jim1999]

What do you folks do with an infant who is born with both sex organs fully intact........and has happened more than once?

I am not talking about homosexuality!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Revmitchell]

Ya'll done arguing yet? Back to the discussion:



And what is the fruit of the Spirit? Peace, joy, love, the removal of all sexual sin.....

Which thing is unlike the others? [taunting smiley deleted]

If this is the beginning and the end of what you think Christ was talking about? You need someone to sit down with you and clear that up.

Freeatlast hasn't told us about this person's fruit. He doesn't seem to think there can be fruit in this person's life because of the magnitude of what he believes to be unforgiven, unrepentant, continuing sin. He wishes to condemn when the Bible clearly says that Christ came into the world for forgiveness rather than condemnation (John 3:17).

When will liberals ever start to study their Bibles. My word. I could explain the vastness of your error but it would take several posts and your liberal mindset most likely will not let you understand the truth. Forgiveness comes after repentance and we cannot only look for forgiveness we must also consider and apply the Holiness of God.

Is he truly being left in his sin? Freeatlast has already expressed that this person is SAVED. Do you have a different definition of saved than I do? If she/he is saved, then her/his sins are forgiven! Including those that continue to go on in their lives, just as our sins are forgiven including the ones that still go on in our lives! Just because this person's sin are more evident than ours, doesn't mean they are any less forgiven.

1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
1Co 5:10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Let me tell ya'll something,

Let me tell you something. You pervert the gospel, the church, and the Holiness of God. Your view of sin in the church is unscriptural, ungodly, and without Biblical standing.

 

[freeatlast]

What do you folks do with an infant who is born with both sex organs fully intact........and has happened more than once?

I am not talking about homosexuality!

Cheers,

Jim

You are deceived on this. That has never happened. Yes many people believe it does but to date there is absolutely no evidence that it has ever happened. What can happen is a person can be born with part of each, but never both totally intact.
You might want to start a new thread on this, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. :thumbsup:

 

[freeatlast]

REV,
No I never said either were saved. I said they made a profession. The scripture is clear.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, [fn] nor sodomites


Notice the do not be deceived. That is there because the Lord knew that some would be deceived if they were not warned with such language. The way is narrow, not broad. It is straight not up and down.

 

[freeatlast]

Really? Does that mean you are above sin in your life?

Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You are deceived about those passages. Paul was not suggesting that he was sinning. He was making a case for a person who thought he was alright without Jesus and what he suffered. He used the first person only to make his case as to what it is like living in the flesh.
Paul said this:
Phil 3:3-6
For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, [fn] rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so:
circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;
concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Notice he says he was blameless under the law. In other words he kept the law. If he kept the law while under the law he also certainly kept it under grace. While those things do not save, it does make your point of no value.
You need to stop looking for justification for your sin and accept the scriptures. The two people in this discussion are in sin. Both are engaged in homosexuality even though they have went to extremes to cover it up. Both need to repent and separate and the one needs to change his lifestyle back to living as a male in all aspects of his life.
,

 

[annsni]

Really? Does that mean you are above sin in your life?

Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

But we are not free to embrace our sin and continue in it because we're forgiven anyway. A true believer will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and will look to repent and restore all that was lost from their sin including their sexuality. A thief does not go on stealing, a fornicator does not continue in their sin and a transgendered person does not continue in their acting that which is contrary to the sex that God created them.

 

[Revmitchell]

REV,
No I never said either were saved. I said they made a profession. The scripture is clear.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, [fn] nor sodomites


Notice the do not be deceived. That is there because the Lord knew that some would be deceived if they were not warned with such language. The way is narrow, not broad. It is straight not up and down.

For the purpose of my discussion with her it matters not one way or the other. She is wanting to make assumptions and is just purely and blindly committed to her position.

 

[Jim1999]

freeatlast.

From a medical journal:

All developing babies start out with external sex organs that look female. If the baby is male, the internal sex organs mature and begin to produce the male hormone testosterone. If the hormones reach the tissues correctly, the external genitals change into the scrotum and penis. Sometimes, the genetic sex (as indicated by chromosomes) may not match the appearance of the external sex organs. About one in every 2,000 births results in a baby whose sex organs are ambiguous.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[matt wade]

All developing babies start out with external sex organs that look female. If the baby is male, the internal sex organs mature and begin to produce the male hormone testosterone. If the hormones reach the tissues correctly, the external genitals change into the scrotum and penis. Sometimes, the genetic sex (as indicated by chromosomes) may not match the appearance of the external sex organs. About one in every 2,000 births results in a baby whose sex organs are ambiguous.

What does that have to do with your original statement of, "What do you folks do with an infant who is born with both sex organs fully intact"?

 

[menageriekeeper]

But we are not free to embrace our sin and continue in it because we're forgiven anyway.

Maybe you better read that last verse again:

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

What do you think Paul was saying if not that we, while still bound to these fleshly bodies, would continue to sin?

I'm still not convinced that this person is in sin. Freeatlast can't know the motivation of this person based solely on the knowledge that church association gives. True believers will be chastised for their sin, true, but how do you know that isn't happening in this person's life?

Rev, you and freeatlast can call me liberal all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that some sins are irreversable. Do you tell the murderer to go back and bring the victim back to life before they can be saved? What about the theif? How many of those do you expect to make restitution? How much restitution is enough to enable a person to be saved?

I'm sorry, but you are liberal one who expects a person to be able to lift themselves out of their sin! You are acting as though they can and must somehow work for their salvation.

While those things do not save, it does make your point of no value.

If these things don't save, it makes my point perfectly. The point being that you have to deal with this person with the same measuring stick you use to deal with any other sin in the life of any other church member. We all still sin and sometimes we commit the same sin over and over again. Does this mean we can't be assured of what God promised us?

As I see it, this person is already suffering the consequence of their sin. They can't go back to being male. They are stuck. They could possibly be a eunach, but just as a murderer is stuck with that title, the man who once was is stuck being a woman.

If all their sins are forgiven, then the act of becoming a woman has been forgiven. Continuing to be a woman is no longer a sin.

It is the same with a person divorced and remarried before salvation. We don't expect them to put off the second wife and go back and be reconciled with the first. Why? Because that sin is forgiven and the binding broken. (not to mention going back and forth between spouses is warned against specifically in scripture)

I could explain the vastness of your error

Don't worry Rev. I understand exactly what you think my error is. Unfortunately, you have chosen(as have a good majority of "conservative" Christians) to focus on God's wrath instead of God's love. While His wrath is a terrible thing, His love and patience outshines it by far.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Let me just add the last verse so that we have the context of the passage you quoted. It isn't God Paul is worried about judging, but those without the church. And if you read the entire passage, you'll find that the church was celebrating the fact that one of their own was shall we say "experienced". And that one was evidently "experiencing" and encouraging others within the church to "experience". And therein lies the trouble. Yes, we should expect Christians to attempt to live more perfectly because the world expects us to live more perfectly.

That is not the case here. The person described in the OP, while living with the consequences of previous sin, is NOT encouraging others to follow in their footsteps. They even have gone to great lengths to prevent their sin from becoming public knowledge in order to better protect the church in which they serve. (if freeatlast can think the worst of them, then I get to think the best of them. It comes with being a liberal.)

And while we are on the subject of which sins are going to keep us from salvation let me point out a few things that God hates:

Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Pro 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.



Let me count, lets see....pride....wicked imaginations.....mischeif....discord... Wow, I can count four out of the seven happening in this thread! How so?

Pride: that this person's sin is somehow worse than those of the other member's of their church (or ourselves since we are the ones debating)

Wicked imaginations: The very first idea that freeatlast considered was that thesee people were hom*sexuals in disguise. He won't even consider the idea that this person may have been born with ambiguous genitalia and was raised as a boy only to find later that he fell more toward the feminine than the masculine.

Mischief: Someone outed this person. I have yet to see proof that the outing was done for the good of the person (ie, to make them deal with their sin). This person was well liked and well respected. Who started the trouble?

Discord: I can see the potential for all kinds of discord, can't you? I mean, I could take it personally that Rev Mitchell called me a liberal that was full of error. We could put each other on our ignore lists. If we were a church, I can fully see the potential for it to rip a church in half and me and the Rev might end up on seperate sides! (freeatlast would be on the other side too)

Yeah, see we need to tread awfully carefully when dealing with issues such as this.

 

[menageriekeeper]

She is wanting to make assumptions and is just purely and blindly committed to her position.

btw, my brothers, this has been the most fun I've had here in a while. Just leave me to my side of the conversation please.

Some of this is getting a bit off topic, so I'm going to start a new thread in the "general Baptist discussions" on what repentance looks like.

Mods, I just realized, this thread is in a fellowship forum. Should it be moved?

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev, you and freeatlast can call me liberal all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that some sins are irreversable. Do you tell the murderer to go back and bring the victim back to life before they can be saved?

What is it with liberals that they cannot make legitimate comparisons. This is no where near being even close.

What about the theif? How many of those do you expect to make restitution?

Luk 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold."

How much restitution is enough to enable a person to be saved?

Strawman alert

I'm sorry, but you are liberal one who expects a person to be able to lift themselves out of their sin! You are acting as though they can and must somehow work for their salvation.

False accusation. Now you have become a false witness.

As I see it, this person is already suffering the consequence of their sin. They can't go back to being male. They are stuck. They could possibly be a eunach, but just as a murderer is stuck with that title, the man who once was is stuck being a woman.

They must live with their decision to change their organs but that is all. Has no effect on being a man or a woman. That is an act not a reality.

If all their sins are forgiven, then the act of becoming a woman has been forgiven. Continuing to be a woman is no longer a sin.

You cannot back that up with scripture. Continuing in sin is just that.

It is the same with a person divorced and remarried before salvation. We don't expect them to put off the second wife and go back and be reconciled with the first. Why? Because that sin is forgiven and the binding broken. (not to mention going back and forth between spouses is warned against specifically in scripture)

Another failure to make a legitimate comparison. Its not even close.

Don't worry Rev. I understand exactly what you think my error is. Unfortunately, you have chosen(as have a good majority of "conservative" Christians) to focus on God's wrath instead of God's love.

Yet again you have chosen to be a false witness and knowingly make a false accusation against me.

While His wrath is a terrible thing, His love and patience outshines it by far.

It all has to be considered equally

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

That is not the case here. The person described in the OP, while living with the consequences of previous sin, is NOT encouraging others to follow in their footsteps. They even have gone to great lengths to prevent their sin from becoming public knowledge in order to better protect the church in which they serve. (if freeatlast can think the worst of them, then I get to think the best of them. It comes with being a liberal.)

Trying to keep it secret does not change the dynamics.

Pride: that this person's sin is somehow worse than those of the other member's of their church (or ourselves since we are the ones debating)

Another moment of being a false witness. No one said this.

Wicked imaginations: The very first idea that freeatlast considered was that thesee people were hom*sexuals in disguise. He won't even consider the idea that this person may have been born with ambiguous genitalia and was raised as a boy only to find later that he fell more toward the feminine than the masculine.

Again your just making stuff up.

Mischief: Someone outed this person. I have yet to see proof that the outing was done for the good of the person (ie, to make them deal with their sin). This person was well liked and well respected. Who started the trouble?

Which was appropriate.

Discord: I can see the potential for all kinds of discord, can't you? I mean, I could take it personally that Rev Mitchell called me a liberal that was full of error. We could put each other on our ignore lists. If we were a church, I can fully see the potential for it to rip a church in half and me and the Rev might end up on seperate sides! (freeatlast would be on the other side too)

False teachings as your are need to be exposed for what they are. The discord is a result of those who commit the acts not because of those who dealt with it.

Yeah, see we need to tread awfully carefully when dealing with issues such as this.

And you would do well to consider your won words.

 

[menageriekeeper]

This one first:

Another failure to make a legitimate comparison. Its not even close.

Legitmate comparisons. I have always heard the saying "thats like comparing apples to oranges", but you know what, apples and oranges have a lot in common. Both are fruits. Both grow on trees that in turn grow similarly.

My comparisons are made on the criteria that is similar in both cases. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it an "illegitmate comparison".

This one next:

Luk 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold."

Did the Lord require it of him? Or did Zacchaeus volunteer to do it out of the joy he had at being shown the Lord's forgiveness?

How 'bout all those early Christains who brought all they had (something we don't do today) and laid it at the apostle's feet. Was it required?

The answer to both is no. Show me where restitution is required as part of repentance.

This one last since you obviously chose not to truly deal with the rest of my post and instead accused me of false witness. :

Which was appropriate.

How do you KNOW it was appropriate? Freeatlast hasn't described how this person was outed. For all we know, they may have outed themselves (which fact would change the course of this thread rather dramatically). From the tone of the OP though, I am led to believe that this was an act of troublemaking.

Is it ever appropriate to announce the sins of another before the congregation or even before the leaders of the church as a body? (might be another thread)

 

[Revmitchell]

This one first:



Legitmate comparisons. I have always heard the saying "thats like comparing apples to oranges", but you know what, apples and oranges have a lot in common. Both are fruits. Both grow on trees that in turn grow similarly.

My comparisons are made on the criteria that is similar in both cases.

Yea that is where you run into problems.


Did the Lord require it of him? Or did Zacchaeus volunteer to do it out of the joy he had at being shown the Lord's forgiveness?[/quote]

It was the law.

How 'bout all those early Christains who brought all they had (something we don't do today) and laid it at the apostle's feet. Was it required?

Do you know what comparison is? This is not one yet again. That example has nothing to do with someone making restitution.

Show me where restitution is required as part of repentance.

Who said it was part of anything? You continue to set up false doctrines no one claimed.

This one last since you obviously chose not to truly deal with the rest of my post and instead accused me of false witness. [taunting smiley deleted] :

Well that is up to you except all of your false accusations are there for all to see including this one.

How do you KNOW it was appropriate? Freeatlast hasn't described how this person was outed.

Then maybe you shouldn't make such judgments about it until you know. You need to hold yourself to the same standard you are trying to hold everyone else to.

For all we know, they may have outed themselves (which fact would change the course of this thread rather dramatically). From the tone of the OP though, I am led to believe that this was an act of troublemaking.

That is merely what you want to believe because you do not like scriptural guidelines on this or anyone to hold them to it.

Is it ever appropriate to announce the sins of another before the congregation or even before the leaders of the church as a body? (might be another thread)

Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


1Ti 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

 

[freeatlast]

freeatlast.

From a medical journal:

All developing babies start out with external sex organs that look female. If the baby is male, the internal sex organs mature and begin to produce the male hormone testosterone. If the hormones reach the tissues correctly, the external genitals change into the scrotum and penis. Sometimes, the genetic sex (as indicated by chromosomes) may not match the appearance of the external sex organs. About one in every 2,000 births results in a baby whose sex organs are ambiguous.

Cheers,

Jim

that is false and has nothing to with this discussion.