Transgender and the church

[Revmitchell]

No you don't. You only have your own judgment that you made either from things you heard about this person, or by what you have seen on the outside of this person. God sees the heart.

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

You are applying the principle incorrectly. She isn't remaining in her sin. She is living with the consequence of a sin that has been forgiven. Why can't YOU forgive her of something she did before she was saved? (not that she needs it, but issues like this are why Christians are considered to be the most unloving bunch of people when we are supposed to be dramatically different!)

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

 

[jaigner]

I agree that such a person, if repentant, should be welcomed in the Church and the Church, contrary to its reputation, should welcome this person wholly and completely, as they are no worse than any other who has found grace.

Has anyone stopped to think about the more extreme cases? I'm not defending this, but it's a valid questions. At least 1 in 100 people are born without clear gender assignment. Even more extreme cases are born with, putting it mildly, both organs. What would be our response to this person who had surgery to define their gender more clearly? And would we believe it if they told us? Because we likely already go to church and work and live with these people without knowing it.

 

[freeatlast]

No you don't. You only have your own judgement that you made either from things you heard about this person, or by what you have seen on the outside of this person. God sees the heart.



You are applying the principle incorrectly. She isn't remaining in her sin. She is living with the consequence of a sin that has been forgiven. Why can't YOU forgive her of something she did before she was saved? (not that she needs it, but issues like this are why Christians are considered to be the most unloving bunch of people when we are supposed to be dramatically different!)

Not correct. 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. Forgiveness does not mean the acceptance of the sin. It means the acceptance of the person who was sinning and they are to stop what they are doing and return to God's way of living . It's called repentance! He (the transgenderer) is only living with the consequences of his sin if he seeks to return to his birth state which he cannot do completely because of his proir sin. He would continue to live in sin if he did not revert back as much as he could. The reason is that God not only forbids homosexuality he forbids living as another gender and this include how we dress. Men are not to put on women's clothing or women men's clothing. The idea is that God wants a very clear distinction between the sexes. He would need to stop the hormones, put on men's clothing, perhaps grow a beard if that is what it takes to look male or what ever else it takes, but he could not remain living as a woman which he never was or he would be living in sin.

 

[matt wade]

At least 1 in 100 people are born without clear gender assignment.

At least 1 in 100 people? You can't just throw that out there without a source to back it up.

 

[Revmitchell]

Has anyone stopped to think about the more extreme cases?

Of course we have. There are always liberals to bring it up for the 1000th time.

 

[matt wade]

At least 1 in 100 people? You can't just throw that out there without a source to back it up.

OK..did my own research. Let's see if I can do this without being too explicit.

"In approximately 1 in 5,000 infants there is enough variation in the appearance ..... to give rise to hesitation about appropriate assignment by the physician involved."

"Approximately 1 in 20,000 infants is born with enough ambiguity that assignment becomes a more drawn-out process of multiple tests and intensive education of the parents...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment

So, your 1 in 100 that "are born without clear gender assignment" is a completely false statement.

 

[jaigner]

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.

 

[jaigner]

Of course we have. There are always liberals to bring it up for the 1000th time.

Mitch, these comments are completely unhelpful. So what if I'm not as conservative as you? That doesn't mean you can irresponsibly label me and draw lines to separate me from those your deem palatable and correct.

I'm not saying this to get people to change their mind on gender reassignment. I'm not trying to get the church to accept homosexuality. Sometimes, we question status quo because it may not be conclusive enough or it may not be examined enough. It is ridiculous for you to jump all over the things I say without any substance or merit.

This is just completely unhelpful. If you would like to interact with me or the thread, do so, but these comments are in poor spirit and are unwelcome.

 

[Revmitchell]

Mitch, these comments are completely unhelpful. So what if I'm not as conservative as you? That doesn't mean you can irresponsibly label me and draw lines to separate me from those your deem palatable and correct.

I'm not saying this to get people to change their mind on gender reassignment. I'm not trying to get the church to accept homosexuality. Sometimes, we question status quo because it may not be conclusive enough or it may not be examined enough. It is ridiculous for you to jump all over the things I say without any substance or merit.

This is just completely unhelpful. If you would like to interact with me or the thread, do so, but these comments are in poor spirit and are unwelcome.

Your comments are in poor spirit and are unwelcome. You throw out irrelevant and false claims. You work to throw doubt on truth while remaining in a vast vagueness as all libbies do by not (in this case) admitting you think its alright but trying to cast doubt on truth. What..do you think you are the first liberal I have seen take your tack. You may not like labels but I make sure things are clearly defined. And you liberals question the status quo because you want to sneak in and effect change instead of letting people see you coming. It is not honest. Your own argument labels you and nothing else.

 

[jaigner]

Your comments are in poor spirit and are unwelcome. You throw out irrelevant and false claims. You work to throw doubt on truth while remaining in a vast vagueness as all libbies do by not (in this case) admitting you think its alright but trying to cast doubt on truth. What..do you think you are the first liberal I have seen take your tack. You may not like labels but I make sure things are clearly defined. And you liberals question the status quo because you want to sneak in and effect change instead of letting people see you coming. It is not honest. Your own argument labels you and nothing else.

I am open and honest in everything I say here. Sometimes it's better to ask questions than to throw out the same old tired arguments. Sorry, mitch, but life is nowhere near as black and white as you would like it to be, and typical labels do nothing more than to add uncertainty and are unnecessarily incendiary.

My prayer, and I'm being serious, is that many folks here would grow to see the greatness of a God who transcends their neat little boxes. In fact, that is my prayer for the environment I grew up in. Blessings to you, friend, and my prayers are with you.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am open and honest in everything I say here. Sometimes it's better to ask questions than to throw out the same old tired arguments. Sorry, mitch, but life is nowhere near as black and white as you would like it to be, and typical labels do nothing more than to add uncertainty and are unnecessarily incendiary.

My prayer, and I'm being serious, is that many folks here would grow to see the greatness of a God who transcends their neat little boxes. In fact, that is my prayer for the environment I grew up in. Blessings to you, friend, and my prayers are with you.

Now say something relevant. The greatness of God does not question who and who is not female or male. And the only box here is God's box that he has placed on His creation. It is easy and cheap to create all sorts of grey areas. All that does is unnecessarily broaden standards which God never gave consent to. But narrow is the way.

 

[matt wade]

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.

What a bunch of double talking. You original claim was:

"At least 1 in 100 people are born without clear gender assignment."

Then in your follow up here you say:

"many of these people will never know unless they have a medical issue in which it is discovered"

What you are really saying is a bunch of baloney. You are trying to tell us that 1 in 100 people don't have a clear gender assignment, yet they don't know about it! You are making me laugh very hard over here.

 

[Revmitchell]

What a bunch of double talking. You original claim was:

"At least 1 in 100 people are born without clear gender assignment."

Then in your follow up here you say:

"many of these people will never know unless they have a medical issue in which it is discovered"

What you are really saying is a bunch of baloney. You are trying to tell us that 1 in 100 people don't have a clear gender assignment, yet they don't know about it! You are making me laugh very hard over here.

Its that obscurity liberals love so well.

 

[jaigner]

What a bunch of double talking. You original claim was:

"At least 1 in 100 people are born without clear gender assignment."

Then in your follow up here you say:

"many of these people will never know unless they have a medical issue in which it is discovered"

What you are really saying is a bunch of baloney. You are trying to tell us that 1 in 100 people don't have a clear gender assignment, yet they don't know about it! You are making me laugh very hard over here.

Okay, friend, look, if I was nebulous to begin with, I apologize, I'm just saying that it's not always, 100% of the time, cut and dry. I do not approve of homosexuality or gender reassignment, but just asking a simple question about how we should handle an extreme case. I really wish that, if you didn't have anything to add, you would just leave me alone and let someone with a more generous and lucid response chime in.

 

[jaigner]

Now say something relevant. The greatness of God does not question who and who is not female or male. And the only box here is God's box that he has placed on His creation. It is easy and cheap to create all sorts of grey areas. All that does is unnecessarily broaden standards which God never gave consent to. But narrow is the way.

Hey, I just posed a simple scenario. I'm not trying to question God and God's essence and character. Just questioning some of our own constructs that we cling to and that make us feel better and more secure.

Again, blessings to you.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hey, I just posed a simple scenario. I'm not trying to question God and God's essence and character. Just questioning some of our own constructs that we cling to and that make us feel better and more secure.

Again, blessings to you.

Liberal speak and more obscurity......And I question your questions and the motives thereof. Reminds me of Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren when they talk about hell.

 

[jaigner]

Liberal speak and more obscurity......And I question your questions and the motives thereof. Reminds me of Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren when they talk about hell.

Again, I feel sorry for you, mitch. Let's strive for unity among Christians. Judgment divides, love unites.

 

[Revmitchell]

Again, I feel sorry for you, mitch. Let's strive for unity among Christians. Judgment divides, love unites.

There is no unity outside of truth (that which you work to obscure). But see you want to use buzz words like judge, unity, etc as a tool to redirect from a clear view of your failed ideology. It is a liberal misuse of those words and is common when liberals do not want their garbage seen in plain sight.

 

[jaigner]

There is no unity outside of truth (that which you work to obscure). But see you want to use buzz words like judge, unity, etc as a tool to redirect from a clear view of your failed ideology. It is a liberal misuse of those words and is common when liberals do not want their garbage seen in plain sight.

Blessings, friend.

 

[matt wade]

Okay, friend, look, if I was nebulous to begin with, I apologize, I'm just saying that it's not always, 100% of the time, cut and dry. I do not approve of homosexuality or gender reassignment, but just asking a simple question about how we should handle an extreme case. I really wish that, if you didn't have anything to add, you would just leave me alone and let someone with a more generous and lucid response chime in.

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.