Transgenderism ..... ask your questions!

[RitaTG]

Thank you for your questions RitaTG. Before I answer, there are a couple of thoughts that I need to express.

First, I trust your word RitaTG that you will not reply on a negative way. I can only hope that others will follow your lead in doing same.

Second, my words come from a man who is a sinner. I was born with my will enslaved to sin, and from that state have done many things for which I should be condemned. Thankfully, God gives me His grace.

That being said, here are my answers to your questions...

1. Being a homosexual (having a homosexual orientation) is not a sin. Choosing to engage in same-sex relations is sinful.

2. I honestly have no set position on whether or not transgenderism is a sin. I lean towards saying that it is not.

Thank you for an honest and very clear and direct reply Jae.
Sincerely
Rita

 

[RitaTG]

revsdd and revjohn ..... thank you for such thoughtful answers.

 

[crazyheart]

Neither are sins ,Rita, homosexuality or transgenderism. You know, as I pondered this, I appreciate

revsdd and revjohn's answer, because I have never heard a sermon by anyone in the last twenty years

in a pulpit talk openly about the subject. Why is this? We never seem to do anything openly . I have to admit that in

the churches where I preached, I skirted the topic as well knowing the stance of most of them.

How many skirt the topic and talk about it in safe places like WC2 but not from the pulpit?

 

[Jaebius]

Thank you for an honest and very clear and direct reply Jae.
Sincerely
Rita

You're welcome RitaTG. I appreciated @revsdd words on law and grace.

 

[Jaebius]

Neither are sins ,Rita, homosexuality or transgenderism. You know, as I pondered this, I appreciate

revsdd and revjohn's answer, because I have never heard a sermon by anyone in the last twenty years

in a pulpit talk openly about the subject. Why is this? We never seem to do anything openly . I have to admit that in

the churches where I preached, I skirted the topic as well knowing the stance of most of them.

How many skirt the topic and talk about it in safe places like WC2 but not from the pulpit?

I've never heard a sermon directly on these topics either crazyheart. More often, they are mentioned in other sermons when the preacher is discussing how to apply the words of texts to our own lives.

I've never mentioned either homosexuality or transgenderism when I've preached, because I've never felt that the texts I've preached from called for the inclusion of said subjects.

 

[revsdd]

I've discussed these issues at Bible Study and other types of groups but I haven't preached specifically on these issues. I see them as more fitting to group discussion than into the more one way type of communication represented by preaching.

 

[crazyheart]

Have you an opinion about David and Jonathan that might be used in a sermon @revsdd?

 

[revjohn]

After WonderCafe.ca opened the church I was serving had monthly WonderWorship services. The topic was drawn from a shoe box and all topics were submitted by the congregation. "What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality?" was probably the third question that we dealt with and it brought all kinds of folk out of the woodwork. Several of whom were not members of the congregation and were clearly spoiling for some kind of fight.

It didn't get raucous. There was some tenseness and folk wondered whether or not we should continue with that venture.

True to form the "true believers" who showed up to "correct" our thinking that morning failed to show for other topics. Either they were unconcerned about what the UCCAN thought about divorce or pre-marital sex and only concerned with what we thought about homosexuality or based on what was said about homosexuality they wrote us completely off.

The discussion went along the lines of my previous post.

How often to I preach about homosexuality? About half as much as I preach about heterosexuality. How often is that? Not often at all. Also not preached about often are the topics of being left-handed or red-headed.

As far as David and Jonathan are concerned I believe they were good friends. I see nothing in scripture which leads me to think otherwise.

David morns Jonathan's death saying, "your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." I hope if I am ever put in the place of having to eulogize any of my beloved male companions I can do that without wagging tongues speculating that we must have been sexually involved.

 

[Jaebius]

In agreement with John concerning Jonathan and David. They were a model of good, close friendship.

 

[Luce NDs]

John is common sense in old tongues ... as David is the beauty .. sort of indicating a beautiful broad minded topic of psyche that is hidden in words ... as God is subtle in meaning as recessive in the emotional domain ...

Alas hoo really understands mind if one shelves this topic to remove it from subjective-objective discussions? This is not the place ... so the place must be beyond us and will really be hell for those that didn't believe in the concept of mind as put down (oppressed)? It all appears to be trapped in the phone etics ... the spirit of how its said ...

Then most would say religiously that there's not a change of a ghost in religious-based reality ... thus the spoke in Ezekiel's weal ... a distant AUM ... some say hommoe!

 

[revsdd]

I have to agree with revjohn as well. I think it's unfortunate that the story of David and Jonathon's close friendship has been taken over as an example of something it isn't - or at least there's no evidence that it was anything other than a close friendship between two men. To use it as a "biblical example" of a homosexual relationship goes wildly beyond the text and isn't really any different than fundamentalist proof-texting to "prove" that homosexuality is a sin.

A few years ago I made use of the David-Jonathon story in a sermon about the importance and value of friendship. Sexualizing the story takes that entire element away from it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine if David (beauty) and Jonathan (common) were sex-less spirits ... common emotions ... on Mingle? Some would say angels and demons in Black and White as non-porno literary value ... thus crew up of the thumus feature ... of spooky inflationary mode ... in de strange pulse ... perspective on sects from beyond as they collide ... with hummus ? Thus the AUm Eire ... as Y's oleph art ... lost inde wends ... and unwinding ... denouement?

Real people just don't get these thing-heh ease ...

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Well, if you were God or you chose to create a God in your image, it would certainly be easy to say that homosexuality is not a sin.

However if God is the God revealed in the scriptures, I think it is not possible to honestly take that position.

There are a few seemingly reasonable arguments that can be used against one or two of the verses regarding homosexuality, but none that stand up to all of them.(That I have yet heard) I don’t think women were sodomizing women.

Teachers who oppose scripture to please people are not in fact doing them any favours, because it is because of our sin and brokenness that we need Jesus. These teachers are offering the false hope that they do not.

Jesus was not a strict literalist? The spirit of the law was what mattered? OK. So he equated hating with murder and looking with lust as adultery. So sinning, according to Jesus, is much easier to achieve than previously thought and the holiness of God is perfect. Even if you are not a strict literalist, and nobody is, you have to interpret scriptures meaning. If WRONG is your interpretation, well that is not an interpretation, it is rebellion.

I believe that the bible contains what God essentially wants us to know, and I am certain that I am not planning on standing up to him and saying, “I think you were wrong about that.” What truth I know comes from Him and I’ll stand on the word – even where I’d prefer not to.

There is a movie becoming available tomorrow on this subject and will be free on YouTube in two months.

Regarding transgenderism, I think it would be difficult to make the case through scripture that it is a sin, but then if it leads to a sexual lifestyle that is outside of a married man and woman in a monogamous relationship – then we are back at sin.

I am not in agreement with the way society has chosen to understand transgenderism. Abandoning science and all evidence so as to give the impression that we care.

Putting on the opposite sex’s clothing or going into their washroom does not change your gender, nor do operations or hormone therapy. It only changes how you present. Gender is defined at the chromosome level.

I understand that some people feel that they are in the wrong body, but that does not mean they are right.

Anorexic women have a suicide rate 57 times higher than the rate of a healthy woman. Is that because people are teasing them about how fat they are? I doubt it. They are suffering, I believe from a mental disorder that keeps them from seeing their body as it really is. People do not commit suicide because they are over weight, they do it because their brain is not coping properly with reality.


Then there is the BIID people we have already discussed. They want to be called transabled now, because of the successes of the transgendered. I don’t think they actually came with too many parts, I think it is a mental disorder, and I don’t think people kill themselves because people are teasing them because they have two legs more than they should.


Anyway, TG not sin, Anorexia not sin, BIID not sin.

Alcorn parents loving their child, the best they know how, not sin.


As a side, when we get hay fever or a head ache or back ache or lots of other symptoms, we treat the symptom and not the cause, because it gets us relief. We don’t go out and destroy all pollen generating plants within a five mile radius, but just take a very expensive antihistamine. So hormones or cross dressing may relieve symptoms and may help with pain, but the cause is not that someone got the wrong body, and it does not help in getting to root causes if doctors start making that wrong assumption.


Just my opinion.

 

[Waterfall]

Ignorance causes us to sin.

 

[RitaTG]

Thank you for your post Pontifex ..... very clear.....
Just a few points if I may .....
You said that chromosomes determine sex ..... I would suggest that you look at what gender geneticists have to say about that.
You will quickly find that the primitive XX = woman and XY = man understanding is entirely inadequate.
Now lets look at the mental disorder theory ....
Conversion (reparative) therapy ...... proven to be 99% INEFFECTIVE ... indeed it is shown to dangerously increase the suicide rate as the person fails.
Look at the peer reviewed results of Exodus International as a start....
Competent gender therapy that helps a person sort out their gender in a neutral way ... VERY ESSENTIAL.... combined with making the presentation and body more closely match the heart .... 99% EFFECTIVE. The suicide rate drops from 43% to around 1% for those that most fully transition. The general population is at 2%
So .... my choice ... which therapy offers the best chance of success... hmmmm......
You made a point about HRT and SRS will never make a person like me a woman....
You are correct.....
I take HRT because I AM a woman
I will have SRS because I AM a woman
These things just help make things a bit more right .... thats all .... and I will say it makes a huge difference in being able to cope with everyday life.
Pontifex ..... I would encourage you to look deeper into the research and the knowledge gained so far.
Again ....thank you for sharing your views and considering my reply.
Regards
Rita

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine the concept of homo-Jinni-us angels with no sex ... could they get close in heaven without screwing the neighbour?

Imagine not fretting about being screwed by someone in real life ... as it is said some just accept that's the way it is and thus forceful nutz and then bolting ... as they flee in free flight ... no responsibility or reverence for the totally screwed by capital success of a rare few ... that's non allal in Hebrew ambiguous and pore-lye understood by those determinate against any knowledge!

For such insensitive capital screwing all in sight and sigh'n ... I can't take life seriously! There's go Tue be Moor to wit ...

 

[Delightful Life]

i posit that in Pontifex's worldview, there are certain identities aboot human beings that are innate, unchangable, made by g_d & therefore Sacred -- for any change to happen would be against g_d and blasphemous, sinful, etc

one of these is the concept of the human soul?

another is someone's sex?

so, in effect, i think, someone's sex is a part of their soul and to try to change a soul, which was given by his g_d, is inherently wrong -- also, the sex act, which is sacred by his beliefs, and also given by his g_d, the two souls participating in the act must be 'opposite' -- to do otherwise is to be blasphemous, against his g_d's word?

because his beliefs are this way, there is no way to decompile or defrag it -- we are fortunate that he is able and willing to express his beliefs here

 

[Jaebius]

I'm not a biblical literalist. Neither, of course, was Jesus. That's one of the things that got him in trouble with the Pharisees. Jesus saw past the strict letter of the law, so to speak, and saw the spirit of the law as what mattered. I think we are always called to discern the spirit rather than simply to read the letter.

If taken literally, one would have to say that homosexual activity is sinful - and, from a literalistic point of view, one would say that homosexual orientation is not. But from a more spritual point of view, one has to ask "why" certain prohibitions were put in place in the Old Testament. The forbidden meats, for example, tended to be those that spoiled quickly. The prohibitions were likely a public health matter more than anything. In terms of sex, you see many examples of child-bearing (a heterosexual activity) being held up as an ideal. Why? I suspect for pragmatic reasons. Israel was a small country surrounded by enemies. Israel needed children. Especially boys to raise an army. Homosexuality would be non-procreative and therefore was condemned as against the national interest.

In the New Testament, I think that Paul's concern was not so much homosexuality as it was adultery or fornication. He saw sex as something that should take place within marriage. Obviously there was no same sex marriage in those days, therefore homosexuality was illicit sexual activity. Women, for example, exchanging natural relations for unnatural relations means turning away from sexual activity within marriage to a form of sexual activity that could only happen outside marriage. What would Paul write in our present context, where same sex marriage is allowed? I suspect he'd argue for faithfulness within those marriages.

So, short answer to your question - no.





Transgenderism has more to do with identity than with sex as I understand it. Again, I'd say no. There's even less biblical content about this than there is about homosexuality, of course.

How do you Steven distinguish between what is to be taken literally in the Bible and what is not. Fr'instance, you suggest here that Paul's words regarding same-sex relation should not be taken literally, whereas his words concerning faithfulness in marriage should be. How have you made this interpretation?

 

[revsdd]

How do you Steven distinguish between what is to be taken literally in the Bible and what is not. Fr'instance, you suggest here that Paul's words regarding same-sex relation should not be taken literally, whereas his words concerning faithfulness in marriage should be. How have you made this interpretation?

Pr. Jae, let me reply to both you and Pontifex Geronimo 13 (hereafter referred to as "our friend") in the same post. The question you raise is a question we all have to deal with, since even our friend concedes that

Even if you are not a strict literalist, and nobody is ...

He then acknowledges the real issue:

you have to interpret scriptures (sic) meaning.

That's where the rubber hits the road. The issue of interpretation. What can we do except be guided by the Holy Spirit as best as best as we can discern. In that vein, on the issue of homosexuality:

My own discernment after a lot of prayer and reflection on this issue (because it isn't an easy one and one can make the argument either way) is that God's real concern in a variety of subjects (marriage, divorce, adultery, idolatry, etc. etc.) is with honesty and faithfulness. God's concern is not with sex per se of any type but it is rather with the misuse of sex. If sex is used in such a way as to betray or harm another then I believe it is sinful because betrayal and harm are inconsistent with God's will. Thus, adulterous behaviour is sinful. Promiscuity is sinful. Pedophilia is sinful. Rape is sinful. Bestiality is sinful. In the absence of any betrayal or harm to another it is my opinion that God is not offended by sexual activity.

Thus, in Paul's context, homosexuality was problematic because it could not take place within a committed, covenantal relationship - ie, marriage. It was by definition either adulterous or promiscuous because either (1) it broke an existing committed, covenantal relationship, or (2) it was sex in the absence of a committed, covenantal relationship. My opinion is that if homosexual activity could be conducted within a committed and covenantal relationship, Paul would not be concerned with it, except to the extent that he would want the commitment and covenant upheld. In my view, that is actually a literal interpretation of all of Paul's writings about sexuality of any kind - and to anticipate an argument, if the issue were that I was simply trying to buy into the ways of the world, I would also be looking for an opportunity to justify adultery, which is tragically acceptable today, or promiscuity, which is commonplace today, or sex outside marriage, which is virtually everywhere today. I condone none of those. I argue that sex must take place within a committed and covenanted relationship, and I deplore the media's "normalization" of uncommitted sex; its portrayal of sexual activity as little more than playtime. It has to be taken more seriously than that. I support same sex marriage because it provides that commitment and covenant to what would be an otherwise problematic sexual relationship. In Paul's day, homosexuality could not pass that test.

That's my interpretation. I think that a huge part of interpreting the Bible is to be taken up with understanding the cultural norms and practices of the society to which the various books of the Bible were written, and to discern "WHY" those books were written as they were. That principle guides me on this issue. I may be right or I may be wrong. I reject our friend's assertion that

If WRONG is your interpretation, well that is not an interpretation, it is rebellion.

A wrong interpretation is just that - a wrong interpretation. It would be rebellion only if it were deliberately and defiantly wrong. I have come to my position after a great deal of study, reflection and prayer. My position is neither deliberately nor defiantly wrong. It is my attempt to discern the will of God.

 

[Carolla]

thanks revsdd for your insightful post