Transgendered Member?

[Shoostie]

Actually the OP does not specify that. It just says that the individual is a rather convincing woman.

I've never seen (the media provides a large sample size) a man passing as a woman that was really a convincing women. It* is probably is skilled at applying large amounts of makeup and otherwise puts a lot of effort into appearing as a woman. It probably looks like a very ugly woman when it dresses plainly. And, it probably looks like a man, with implants, for anyone really paying attention, no matter how it dresses.

*Agedman says when a man gets his junk reshaped, it's no longer a man or a woman. "It" is the proper pronoun for anything not male or female.

 

[agedman]

I've never seen (the media provides a large sample size) a man passing as a woman that was really a convincing women. It* is probably is skilled at applying large amounts of makeup and otherwise puts a lot of effort into appearing as a woman. It probably looks like a very ugly woman when it dresses plainly. And, it probably looks like a man, with implants, for anyone really paying attention, no matter how it dresses.

*Agedman says when a man gets his junk reshaped, it's no longer a man or a woman. "It" is the proper pronoun for anything not male or female.

The proper term us eunuch.

Daniel was a eunuch.

A Ethiopian eunuch was lead to Christ by Phillip.

Why would you be ashamed of having believer fellowship with a eunuch?

 

[Reformed1689]

The proper term us eunuch.

Daniel was a eunuch.

A Ethiopian eunuch was lead to Christ by Phillip.

Why would you be ashamed of having believer fellowship with a eunuch?

It's not the same thing. There is a difference between someone forcibly becoming a eunuch and someone wanting to be and portray themselves as the opposite sex. That is nowhere near the same thing. So no, the proper term is not eunuch.

 

[agedman]

All comes down to if the person either accepts that it would be a sinful lifetyle to pretend to now being a woman or not!

Is pretending a sin?

There certainly are Christians who pretend, Santa, elves. Easter bunnies, spies, actors, ...

Does pretending have a time associated to be called sin?

Or is it that some on the BB actually think that the person is condemned in direct violation of Romans 8?

 

[agedman]

ABSOLUTELY NOT that is helping HIM continue in HIS sin by defying God and the natural order.

It absolutely would be homosexuality as it would be a man in a man in a relationship. You should be banned from this board.

Why?

Why if the person does not engage in physical relations would it be homosexuality?

I’ll ask you to consider Romans 8. How would you apply it to this situation?

 

[agedman]

It's not the same thing. There is a difference between someone forcibly becoming a eunuch and someone wanting to be and portray themselves as the opposite sex. That is nowhere near the same thing. So no, the proper term is not eunuch.

Actually, it does.

According to the OP that person is determined to live as a eunuch.

 

[agedman]

When it comes to sins that are Politically Correct, sins embraced by the Left, especially LGBQTDFE, it's all about love and we're all sinners, blah, blah, blah. But, when it comes to Politically INCorrect sins, sins the Left hates, then it's intolerable, kick them out of church just for their alleged thoughts, pass laws making them criminals for minding their own business!!!

People who's values align with the world, not the Bible, obviously belong to the world (and Satan), not to God.

My how you can rant and drift far from the truth of the OP!

Do you take Romans 8 as factual?

 

[agedman]

As for tranny's; gays; lesbians, etc. If the Bible calls them out as sinners, THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME! Then, sinners ARE THEY ALL!

According to Romans all have sinned.

According to John all are liars.

According to Romans 8....?

 

[Revmitchell]

It's not the same thing. There is a difference between someone forcibly becoming a eunuch and someone wanting to be and portray themselves as the opposite sex. That is nowhere near the same thing. So no, the proper term is not eunuch.

The lengths to which he is going to defend this perverted behavior is astounding

 

[Reformed1689]

Actually, it does.

According to the OP that person is determined to live as a eunuch.

Again, all it says is a-sexual. It doesn't say anything about not living as a woman. A-sexual and living as a eunuch are not the same thing.

 

[Reformed1689]

Why?

Why if the person does not engage in physical relations would it be homosexuality?

I’ll ask you to consider Romans 8. How would you apply it to this situation?

Why do you think homosexuality is only physical? And what about Romans 8?

 

[agedman]

Are all sinners?

Yes

Do all continue to be sinful, even willfully unfaithful despite being believers?

Yes

Did not John state that forgiveness and cleansing hing on confession?

When did Peter confess to the Lord for betraying Him?

Not found in Scriptures.

When did Judas confess before men for the betrayal?

Stated clearly in Scriptures.

Did Peter pretend to be fine associating with gentile believers?

Yep, and had to be rebuked by Paul.

Did he confess?

No Scripture statement.

Should all grow and mature setting aside the flesh and the lusts as God makes them aware and gives strength?

Of course.

Some posters are unhinged upon the manner of attire worn.

In the ancients, BOTH men and women worn long flowing tunics. That was for their time, but in contrast to today the tunics were not particularly distinguishable as male or female tunics. They were tunics - non gender specific.

Today, the cloth is cut differently to accentuate the body. The clothing is worn to entice, to deceive, to enhance, to hide defects, to support, ....

So ultimately, we’re at this place in the thread where arguments are constructed around one wearing what is seen as deceitful. Yet, the very deceit is carried on every day in every assembly by everybody. That fact cannot be escaped.

Some may want to think of it differently, but deceit is deceit. A lie is a lie. In this some posters are correct.

But, do not think deceit is less than deceit when women and men “dress for success” in the workplace or the assembly.

Osteen dresses in suits to deceive.
Houston (not the place) dresses without suits to deceive.

Some posters on this thread put on cloths this morning knowing they deceive.

Deceit is not conditional.

I’m about as strong as bad breath. When I was born, others clothed me. When I die, others will cloth me. Until then I dress to hide my sinful body and its imperfections.

Is that wrong?

 

[agedman]

Again, all it says is a-sexual. It doesn't say anything about not living as a woman. A-sexual and living as a eunuch are not the same thing.

Some are born as a eunuch.
Some are made a eunuch by others.
Some are willfully a eunuch.

There are two aspects of being a eunuch.

One physical, one mental/emotional.

According to the OP this person has satisfied both.

(For those who do not know, the castration of the male does not mean the male cannot engage in physical, nor does it make the person without desire. It take BOTH the physical and mental/emotional to be a true eunuch in the biblical sense.)

 

[agedman]

Why do you think homosexuality is only physical? And what about Romans 8?

Do you actually think that there are believers who are not same sex attracted, yet refrain from that sin?

Does not Romans open with the action of perversion as sinful?

Does not Paul remind that some were engaged in such?

Why would you question Romans 8 being applicable?

 

[Reformed1689]

Are all sinners?

Yes

Do all continue to be sinful, even willfully unfaithful despite being believers?

Yes

Did not John state that forgiveness and cleansing hing on confession?

When did Peter confess to the Lord for betraying Him?

Not found in Scriptures.

When did Judas confess before men for the betrayal?

Stated clearly in Scriptures.

Did Peter pretend to be fine associating with gentile believers?

Yep, and had to be rebuked by Paul.

Did he confess?

No Scripture statement.

Should all grow and mature setting aside the flesh and the lusts as God makes them aware and gives strength?

Of course.

Some posters are unhinged upon the manner of attire worn.

In the ancients, BOTH men and women worn long flowing tunics. That was for their time, but in contrast to today the tunics were not particularly distinguishable as male or female tunics. They were tunics - non gender specific.

Today, the cloth is cut differently to accentuate the body. The clothing is worn to entice, to deceive, to enhance, to hide defects, to support, ....

So ultimately, we’re at this place in the thread where arguments are constructed around one wearing what is seen as deceitful. Yet, the very deceit is carried on every day in every assembly by everybody. That fact cannot be escaped.

Some may want to think of it differently, but deceit is deceit. A lie is a lie. In this some posters are correct.

But, do not think deceit is less than deceit when women and men “dress for success” in the workplace or the assembly.

Osteen dresses in suits to deceive.
Houston (not the place) dresses without suits to deceive.

Some posters on this thread put on cloths this morning knowing they deceive.

Deceit is not conditional.

I’m about as strong as bad breath. When I was born, others clothed me. When I die, others will cloth me. Until then I dress to hide my sinful body and its imperfections.

Is that wrong?

This post is full of nonsense.

 

[Reformed1689]

Do you actually think that there are believers who are not same sex attracted, yet refrain from that sin?

Does not Romans open with the action of perversion as sinful?

Does not Paul remind that some were engaged in such?

Why would you question Romans 8 being applicable?

I didn't question whether it was applicable, I asked for what you are referring to as opposed to just throwing out a chapter. And the rest of this post I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[agedman]

I've never seen (the media provides a large sample size) a man passing as a woman that was really a convincing women. It* is probably is skilled at applying large amounts of makeup and otherwise puts a lot of effort into appearing as a woman. It probably looks like a very ugly woman when it dresses plainly. And, it probably looks like a man, with implants, for anyone really paying attention, no matter how it dresses.

*Agedman says when a man gets his junk reshaped, it's no longer a man or a woman. "It" is the proper pronoun for anything not male or female.

I suppose it needs ask, do you actually go looking for media of this type?

I ask because, in all my being on line, it rarely comes across my screen.

So, just how do you account for “knowing” so much about how “these people” look?

Does not Scripture provide the principle of not setting anything impure (unclean) before our eyes?

 

[agedman]

This post is full of nonsense.

Why?

 

[agedman]

I didn't question whether it was applicable, I asked for what you are referring to as opposed to just throwing out a chapter. And the rest of this post I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Frankly that is difficult for me to understand.

I offered a simple question.

“Do you actually think that there are believers who are not same sex attracted, yet refrain from that sin? ”

Then I pointed you to Romans 8.

Is there something in that passage that would not support the presentation I have been making?

 

[Reformed1689]

Frankly that is difficult for me to understand.

I offered a simple question.

“Do you actually think that there are believers who are not same sex attracted, yet refrain from that sin? ”

Then I pointed you to Romans 8.

Is there something in that passage that would not support the presentation I have been making?

Yeah you need to be more clear. No idea what you are trying to say.