Mixed-up sexuality is a pretty big thing in the Deaf community here in Ecuador. We have men dressing as girls, entering beauty pageants with glittering dresses and fabulous hair. Lesbians abound as well, forming their own soccer teams and voting blocks in the Deaf clubs and associations. We’ve even got a small pocket of folks who have gone so far as to have surgery and injections and counseling in order to acquire a new gender that they prefer more than the one they had at birth.
About six months ago, I became aware of a man who had become a woman through the surgical/hormonal route. He saved his money for years, had the process done…and then found Christ; reportedly, at least. I’ve not yet met him…or her, whichever it’s supposed to be. I have, though, been privy to a debate on the subject.
Some Deaf Christians here believe that in order to fully turn from his sin, the newly-minted “woman” should do a surgical U-turn and return to the gender of his birth. Others argue that economic issues make such a re-assignment impossible. After all, he hoarded for years before being able to afford the original change; how much longer would he have to scrimp and save? Would he continue being a disobedient child of the King in the meantime?
Well? Anyone confident enough to solve our dilemma?
The question is built on a faulty premise, which is why there is no obvious( on the surface) answer. The flawed premise being the traditional notion that gender transition is sinful. This belief is nothing more than cultural tradition and there is no firm theological basis for it at all. First, let’s divorce the issue from homosexuality, with which it is often erroneously confused. They are entirely separate phenomena. Second, looking at Scripture there are only two or three verse in all the Bible that address cross-gender behavior, and all but one of these have legitimate questions about what precisely is meant. The exception, the notorious verse in Leviticus, speaks nothing to the possibility of a legitimate biological condition which was unknown in Biblical times (indeed, unknown even 100 years ago) but has a specific context related to behavior. (as do the others, by the way) One may legitimately debate what this context is, and may even go so far as to condemn the morality of “crossdressing” as a recreational activity – but to condemn transsexuals based on such scant Biblical evidence is unwise. Of course, many traditional Christians will dispute the claim of biological origins for transsexualism, and space here does not allow a full exposition of the subject. But in the absence of that, let me offer a bit of logical reasoning that doesn’t require advanced scientific knowledge to follow. There are three things which are known scientific facts, which not even the most ardently traditionalist person disputes, and collectively they imply an obvious conclusion: 1. People are born with birth defects affecting their brain. (e.g. autism, et al) 2. people are born with birth defects affecting all the sex-specific regions of the body, from the genital organs all the way done to their very chromosomes. (i.e. intersex people, what were once described as “hermaphrodite”) 3. The human brain is a sex specific organ. That is the male brain is physically and functionally different than the female brain. Collectively, these facts demonstrate that not only is it possible for one to be born with a birth defect affecting the brain in it’s sex-specific nature, but indeed it would be inevitable that this would happen. Do we, as Christians, say to such people that their birth defect must go untreated and their lives be miserable thereby, because of a few vague verses in all of Scripture? it seems to… Read more »
First – you’ve given a thoughtful answer. Thank you.
I’m curious about an initial assertion you’ve made: homosexuality is a separate issue from gender choices. From what I have seen locally, the decision to change genders comes only after an extended period of homosexual activity. There would seem to be some correlation. Do you have some kind of substantiation for the claim that they are separate issues? I mean, from a neutral source?
The reason I begin here is that if the two concepts are connected, then the prohibition of homosexuality would seem to extend to gender changes. We could potentially end the discussion at that point. If they are truly separate issues, then we’ll have to keep going.
Thanks for interacting.
There are several different things at work here. First, let’s consider the fact that – while hard stats about the trans community are incredibly difficult to come by, because so many are terrified to be open about their condition – something on the order of 40% of post-transition male-to-female transsexuals identify as lesbians. Clearly these are not men who were at any point oriented towards men. contrast this with the incidence of lesbianism in the general population. Second, another relatively large segment, when contrasted to the general population, become asexual and have no inclination for intimacy with either gender. Now as considering those which remain, it’s helpful to consider it from their point of view. We speak of a person whose internal sense of self is female. For her, attraction to men IS heterosexuality and the hindering factor is the matter of an unfortunate anomaly of birth. I suppose it could be argued that for those who remain oriented towards women that homosexuality is an issue, depending on whether or not your respect there female gender identity. (also, all these are true of female-to-male transsexuals as well) Beyond that, consider this: do you identify your maleness by virtue of who you want to have sex with? does attraction to women make you male? does the typical homosexual struggle with gender identity? (the answer to that is NO. Despite some displaying some effeminate traits – not exclusive to homosexuals by the way – not only would most homosexuals fiercely reject the idea of being female but many of them are more “disgusted” by trans people than Traditional Christians are). Transsexualism is very much about how you precieve your SELF, not at all about sexual desire. As for explaining the phenomena you observe, it’s actually an instructive point: for many transsexuals, homosexuality serves as a “last stage of the closet.” Trans people are well aware that they are the LEAST respected variation of humanity on the planet. This is changing somewhat among those 25 and under, but for those who are older, you spend your whole life fighting tooth and nail against the idea that you are THAT sort of “freak” – even if that means attempting to find an outlet for your issues by being “just” a gay man. Transition is an astonishingly expensive, painful, and as the world sees it, shaming experience. The one who resorts to homosexuality is basically… Read more »
“I should be clear here: I find the traditional view that all homosexual relationships are by definition sinful to be an issue that also has room for differing theology”
The Bible is very clear. All homosexual relationships involving sexual activity are sinful. Period. No exceptions.
The Bible is very clear. All heterosexual relationships involving sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman are sinful. Period. No exceptions.
I don’t usually find a reason to add to something CB says, but this time I’d like to point out that his comments include Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount that treated adulterous thoughts as the same as law-breaking sinful activity.
Greg Harvey,
You are right as the rain.
Again, and i am not here to debate homosexuality, consider the logic:
Christians disagree vigerously among themselves about the very nature and method of salvation itself. all studying the same revelation and sincerly seeking to serve the same God and exercising the same human reasoning.
and for the most part they respect each other’s right to disagree.
On the other hand, most of them argue that there can be no legitimate dissent from the idea that homosexuality is sinful.
The direct implication is that in your view God was willing to allow humans to be unclear on how they come to know him, but was very careful to be sure there was no doubt about how he wanted them to have sex.
Does that seem logical to you? It doesn’t to me.
In addition, to what SEC CB and Greg say here, we have a verse from Deuteronomy 22:5 that says, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear woman’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” Seems to me that if clothing is such a big issue to God then genitalia might be also. Just sayin’……..
(And, no, I’m not arguing that women shouldn’t wear pants.)
By the way, Tammy, just because you don’t think it’s logical doesn’t mean you get to change what the Bible says. As to salvation, there is only one clear path to follow: “If you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord”, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, then you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). The fact is that the lifestyle follows.
I suppose, though, that when we’re looking for excuses for our wrong and sinful behavior, any excuse will do. I know that I’ve done it, and it looks to me like that’s what you’re doing.
Dale, lets keep in mind that God calls us to use the gift of reasons he’s given us, not to blindly follow. furthermore, he specifically condemned the temptation to supplant tradition for truth.
That said, bringing up the clothes is a very good point. Many sincere thoughtful Christians DO believe that it’s sinful for a woman to wear pants, and point to this scripture among others to support that. For the most part other Christians respectfully disagree but do not get strident over that disagreement. This illustrates that an “obvious” Scripture nevertheless leads to divergent doctrine.
Which is my point. I’m not trying to suggest homosexuality is not sinful, but rather to suggest the perfectly reasonable idea that sex was not the one thing in all of human existence that God choose to be unmistakeable clear about. By all means, follow the doctrine that seems reasonable to you in light of Scripture, but don’t be so arrogant as to assume no other view is possible without it being an act of “rationalizing sin”
Nor does it mean such a one is changing what the Bible says, they just understand it differently based on the same factors you use (I assume) to seek God’s will. If Christians can disagree about, well, pretty much EVERYTHING and we understand that this arises because we imperfect humans are flawed in our understanding, and any preacher will tell you that no one is right on every single point….then why is sex the exception to that principle? why is it that the one who understands that passage on this one point a person who’s trying to excuse their own sin? What of the person who’s not a homosexual but does not understand those verses as you do?
Tammy, you’re right, of course, that we disagree on some things within the kingdom of God. However, I would point out to you that sexual sin of ALL types are, in fact, clearly addressed in scripture. Your attempts to make sexuality a matter of reason over against rightness are a little ridiculous.
By the way, are you a man masquerading as a woman?
“Dale, lets keep in mind that God calls us to use the gift of reasons he’s given us, not to blindly follow.”
Actually, God has called us to die to ourselves, take up the cross, and follow Jesus. Jesus stated very plainly that He is the only way to salvation. Jesus did not come to show us a way of salvation. Jesus is salvation.
“The direct implication is that in your view God was willing to allow humans to be unclear on how they come to know him, but was very careful to be sure there was no doubt about how he wanted them to have sex.”
No. God is not “willing to allow humans to be unclear on how they come to know Him.” God was and still is very specific as to how humans come to know Him.
God’s Word is very plain about the way of salvation. Men, women, girls, and boys who recognize they are sinners before a just and righteous God who repent and believe the biblical gospel shall be saved. Those who do not do exactly that are lost and hopelessly so, and will continue to be so no matter what they may try to do to earn God’s grace. There is only one way to become a child of God. Any way other than according to the revealed gospel of Christ is false. Salvation is in Christ and Christ alone.
Being sincere means only one thing. it means you are sincere. It does not mean you are a child of God.
“The direct implication is that in your view God was willing to allow humans to be unclear on how they come to know him, but was very careful to be sure there was no doubt about how he wanted them to have sex.”
Actually, God was extremely careful in how He created human males and human females as to how He wanted them to have sex. There has never been any real doubt about that to a “rationally” minded person. The way is entirely “reasonable” and is actually the only way that is in any way rational. Any other way makes no sense at all. It is just simply not rational.
He was and still is very, very clear about whom He wanted males and females to have sex. He wanted males to marry females and then have sex. It really is pretty simple. It is not really complicated at all. Sinful humanity has really messed up God’s rational plan by being irrationally sinful.
“Tammy, you’re right, of course, that we disagree on some things within the kingdom of God. However, I would point out to you that sexual sin of ALL types are, in fact, clearly addressed in scripture.”
You realize that you just re-stated the exact same principle i called into question don’t you? Can you account for the thesis that God’s first priority in his revelation to mankind was to be absolutely clear about the proper use of the genitals?
“Your attempts to make sexuality a matter of reason over against rightness are a little ridiculous.”
Not sexuality, but sound doctrine – and sound doctrine should ALWAYS be informed by both reason and righteousness. God did not call you to turn off your brain. How will you ever know God’s will if you do not employ sound reasoning? just go with what the preacher tells you?
“By the way, are you a man masquerading as a woman?”
By the way, your question is irrelevant to the discussion and does not in any way address the points I’ve raised. I certainly hope that you have more than that to offer to the conversation.
“God was and still is very specific as to how humans come to know Him.”
And yet – whole Christian denominations made up of millions of people disagree with other whole Christian denominations made up of millions of people on what the fine details of that process are.
This doesn’t tell you anything?
“This dosen’t tell you something?”
Tammy Rainey,
Yes it does tell me something.
It tells me that Jesus, as always, was absolutely right when He stated:
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Denominations have not determined and do not currently determine how a person comes to know God.
That was determined prior to the foundations of the earth and any and all existence. It is in Christ and Christ alone. sinners must repent and believe the biblical gospel to be saved. There is no other way.
Tammy, in looking at your blog, I’d say that the question I asked is not irrelevant to the discussion but is at the very heart of the discussion. You are a man. You’ve turned yourself into a woman. God didn’t do this to you. You did it to yourself. And that’s your problem. You think that because you “feel” something that it’s just okay for you to do it. You ignore the clear teachings of scripture. You come here with your “rationale” and “reason” parading it as a superior thought process. It isn’t. You’ve succumbed to the judgment of Romans 1, I’m sorry to say.
Whatever I may offer that isn’t good enough for you is of little consequence. What God has offered you is something you’ve obviously rejected. You’ve thwarted His plan and purpose for your life. You’re wrong. Biblically, spiritually, physically, scientifically, morally–any way you want to look at it, you’re wrong. I would hope that you’d bring something more than THAT to the conversation. But you don’t. You can’t. You’ve been blinded by your own passions and desires. And now you’re trying to justify it by pretending to have some theological, psychological and spiritual understanding that the rest of us don’t. Please, give it a rest.
“That was determined prior to the foundations of the earth and any and all existence. It is in Christ and Christ alone. sinners must repent and believe the biblical gospel to be saved. There is no other way. ”
Which is a point not in dispute. the question on the table is this: do you acknowledge or deny the assertion that fallen and flawed human beings are incapable of achieving, in this life a certain knowledge of the absolute truth as revealed by God? In short, is it not true that everyone’s theology is flawed on some point or other?
Again, for crystal clarity – what the truth IS has not been in dispute, how well humans understand it is the point in question.
Dale, assertions made without even an attempt at supporting the assertions with evidence are not really worthy of much respect. You seem to be under the impression that simply asserting “you are wrong” is enough to conclusively win the debate. It’s not. —– “Tammy, in looking at your blog, I’d say that the question I asked is not irrelevant to the discussion but is at the very heart of the discussion. ” If there had been any intent to device, I would not have included the link. “You are a man. You’ve turned yourself into a woman. God didn’t do this to you. You did it to yourself.” I have made no contrary claim on that point. “And that’s your problem.” No, it’s my solution. “You think that because you “feel” something that it’s just okay for you to do it.” Not remotely. I think that having felt something, it makes sense to use all available resources to investigate it. Including first submission to God’s will, thousands of hours of prayer and supplication, diligent attention to every relevant Scripture including not only those tiny samples which directly address the subject but the much more extensive material that tells us about the nature of God of salvation, and of His relationship to us, and it also includes scientific research. I am 50 years old and I spent all my life praying and seeking his face over this matter, and a solid decade consulting first his revelation and then cross-referencing it with other fields of study. All this is pretty much the exact opposite of “I feel it so I’m gonna do it” “You ignore the clear teachings of scripture.” Must I repeat? A claim made in the absence of demonstrating the evidence for the claim is an entirely empty assertion. If it is in fact the clear teaching of Scripture, how is it that not one person in this thread has taken the time to demonstrate the exegesis of the relevant texts to demonstrate that point in the face of my claim? Including you. “You come here with your “rationale” and “reason” parading it as a superior thought process. It isn’t.” God called you to turn off your brain then? Come now, let us reason together says the Lord. “You’ve succumbed to the judgment of Romans 1, I’m sorry to say.” One wonders why those who love Romans 1 so much… Read more »
Tammy, I know how to debate. I’m not debating you. I’m pointing out the obvious in your assertions. You are wrong. There is no debate. End of discussion. I know that isn’t sufficient for you, but I really don’t care about what you think is satisfactory in such a discussion. You’re simply attempting to justify your own lifestyle. It doesn’t work.
I’m done.
I can’t imagine contributing anything not yet contributed on the question of surgeries to alter one’s genitalia. I would, however, welcome the chance to address this idea that, since debate exists over the gospel, there must be much more uncertainty over other issues.
The biblical statement least disputed among Christians is the simple credo: “Jesus is Lord.” It is also, of course, the most ignored, but that’s a discussion for another day.
I might find it difficult to imagine that God would be so specific regarding what He reveals to us about sexual norms. I might find it incongruous with the general picture of God’s priorities or nature that I have constructed for myself. Let’s face it: I might consider it to be backwards or inconvenient or judgmental or intolerant or downright meanspirited.
But if I affirm that Jesus is Lord and do so sincerely, then I am confessing in agreement with Christians down through the ages that it really does not matter how I react to what God has said. I’ve had bosses whose opinions I did not share. I live under the authority of a government whose opinions I often do not share. I have served the Lord under accountability to congregations whose choices are not always the choices that I have advised. What do I do in those situations? I submit to the revealed will of those who are in authority over me, even when I do not see the wisdom of it.
My exercises in rhetoric do not trump the authority of someone who is Lord over me.
Either the God revealed to us in the Bible is or is not Lord over me. If He is, then my exercises in the logic of what I think that God (if He were to follow my good advice) would reveal with what priorities and levels of specificity, however intriguing they might be, are quite beside the point.
And so, to sum up, for you who are looking for something solid and indisputable that is the uniform agreement of all true Christians across all time and space—something that undergirds Christian teaching on both the gospel and sexual morality—the answer you seek, I submit to you, is that I submit.
Jesus is Lord.
“I might find it difficult to imagine that God would be so specific regarding what He reveals to us about sexual norms. I might find it incongruous with the general picture of God’s priorities or nature that I have constructed for myself. Let’s face it: I might consider it to be backwards or inconvenient or judgmental or intolerant or downright meanspirited.” Why does it logically follow that because something seems incongruous it therefore means it is your perception of that which is in error? Have any of yall actually taken 2 consecutive minutes out of your life and asked yourself “what if I’m wrong? what if I’ve been taught a false doctrine? what if I’m preaching tradition and not truth?” If something attributed to “God said” seems to me to be irrational or meanspirited, what that says to me – given what i know of God from Scripture – then that’s a huge red flag to me that says “look again and be VERY sure” “But if I affirm that Jesus is Lord and do so sincerely, then I am confessing in agreement with Christians down through the ages that it really does not matter how I react to what God has said.” A doctrine or teaching doesn’t get a free pass because “Christians down through the ages” taught it. One can spend the rest of the night listing off things that millions of Christians over many generations taught and believed that turned out to not be true. the collective wisdom of church history is a valuable tool but it is not definitive. Affirming Jesus is lord (he is) is not at all the same thing as affirming that the church can’t be wrong. ” I’ve had bosses whose opinions I did not share. I live under the authority of a government whose opinions I often do not share. I have served the Lord under accountability to congregations whose choices are not always the choices that I have advised. What do I do in those situations? I submit to the revealed will of those who are in authority over me, even when I do not see the wisdom of it. That’s not the question at hand though. when you submit to authority you still have to know what the actual command is. you may not share your bosses priorities and submit anyway – but if a co-worker comes around and… Read more »
having already been too wordy, let me add this. There are not, to my knowledge, studies which demonstrate that gender identity and sexual attraction are different things, i don’t even know how you’d demonstrate that medically.
There are, however, several solid studies which demonstrate that in pre-treatment transsexuals, the brain construct is much more similar to the identified sex than it is to the gonadal sex. There’s considerably more direct scientific evidence that there’s a biological correlation to transsexualism than has been demonstrated to exist for homosexuals.
A friend of mine has a blog on which she’s collected an impressive set of links to these studies if you have the time and the scientific mind to dig into them. It may be found here:
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/p/transsexual-and-intersex-gender-identity.html
1 Cor 7:24 might do it.
Good point, but don’t we have to view verse 24 in light of verse 17?
“But in any case each one of you should continue to live the way God has given you to live—the way you were when God called you. This is a rule I make in all the churches.”
Paul begins this paragraph by pointing out that however God made us to live is how we should continue. Paul goes on to list a few variations or examples, none of which is a sin or by-product of sin. Can we apply verse 24 in this context to the question at hand? I don’t think so.
Thanks for the verse, though. It’s a great starting point.
Dr Russell Moore discusses this topic on His blog. His website is Mooretothepoint.com
I found this article. I assume this is the one you are speaking about:
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2013/08/15/conservative-christianity-and-the-transgender-question
That is one of them but he has another article I will see if I can find it
The article is a five part blog he does called Joan or John it was actually a question he used in my ethics class
We have a relative that is dealing with this very issue. The discussion that Dr. Moore has on his site was a good starting point for us to begin to think thru this issue and how the church should hanle it.
The Paper that Dr. Moore did can be found in the following link, and look for the Joan or John.pdf
http://www.russellmoore.com/papers/
Matt 19:12 comes to mind.
All of us made alive by the Holy Spirit inherit bodies that bear the scars and lives that yet suffer the consequences of our sin until the resurrection. Most of us accrue more as believers still being sanctified.
So – you’re drawing a line between (for example) a former alcoholic with cirrhosis and the individual in question here? As the alcoholic suffers the continued fallout from his sins (without remedy), so also the person we’re discussing should simply strive to honor God despite his altered condition?
Did I understand you correctly?
I’m not arguing for a legalistic “have to” one way or another. Sin’s consequences make life complicated and we often have to suffer at our own hands. It’s often better to suffer through self-denial than pursue a comfortable end by compromising a principle somewhere. The context of the verse was a difficult teaching for many, but the rule Jesus wasn’t giving wasn’t whether or not to marry, but to seek to glorify him regardless of our present difficulty. Marriage just happens to be a big difficulty for many that is worth struggling through. Singleness is likewise a big difficulty that is worth struggling through.
The fellow (and he is a man despite outward appearances) that we are talking about is for all intents and purposes a eunuch. I wouldn’t consider it good for him to marry another man. Probably the best course is for him to remain unmarried. There may be a woman who would care to marry a man like him with whom she could not have normal relations unless the expenditures for some sort of surgical reconstruction are not unreasonably spent. I would say that such is probably going to be too great for him and his resources may be better utilized equipping him for kingdom work than equipping him for heterosexual marriage.
Agreed. This is nothing more or less than a “scar” of a sinful life, not something by which to be judged.
If he can afford to change later and wants to do so, then by all means with prayer for speedy recovery. If it remains a financial hurdle, then no condemnation. Reversal is not needed to prove OR guarantee salvation.
I am amazed at the situations you encounter in your mission work. We don’t pay you enough.
To be perfectly, completely, absolutely blunt – I get paid enough.
The greatest “pay raise” I can imagine is the continual personal support of people in the US. I’m not talking about money; I mean, a personal connection with more and more folks in the SBC that leads to a greater understanding of what we do. For me, at times the effort to achieve understanding equals affirmation.
And affirmation is a powerful thing. I would gladly – thrillingly – welcome any group that wanted to come down just to see a tiny slice of what the missionary life is about. I’d give you the grand tour, introduce you to all the missionaries, if it meant deeper connections between Baptists here and Baptists there.
Jeremy,
This is a different topic, and I think we’ve discussed it briefly before, but I’d love to have you discuss the controversy over cochlear implants in the deaf community, and whether you think there is a Christian dimension to the issue.
I’ll add it to the list.
Not knowing the DNA of the person in question how do we know what there gender really is. aside from Tammy’s heavily biased approach and Jim’s assumption this was a fellow because he had a sex change to become a woman. The latter would seem likely but “what if” he had male genitalia and the chromosomes of a female.
Since we don’t know, I think the eunuch approach is the wisest. Since he was known as a male before It would probably be best for him to return to a male persona. But if this is egregious to him, perhaps we should give time for the conviction of the Spirit and the application of the Word to do their work.
If in fact, he had a DNA test and it confirms his maleness, then by all means he should return to a male lifestyle. And those “obscure” passages that Tammy referred to should offer direction.
But I don’t wish I was in your shoes.
Dismissing my comments as “heavily biased” without discussing the points raised is a bit too easy, don’t you think?
For example, you rightly acknowledge that it is possible (rare, but it happens, to appear male from birth and have female chromosomes (or the reverse)which is just one of dozens of intersex conditions. Please explain then how we can assume the brain is immune to this sort of phenomena?
I move the previous question: the entire discussion so far, apart from my own comment, proceeds from the assumption of a fact not in evidence – that the Bible expresses a clear word that gender transition for the transsexual is sinful. It seems to me that if we are going to advise a babe in Christ to make such a MASSIVE decision as to detransition, it behooves to NOT simply assume a traditional view is in fact the correct one.
Frankly, the churches of Christ need to take a frank look at this issue and consider whether they are preaching the will of God or the traditions of men on this point. It’s not like we haven’t been wrong before on points of controversy.
Tammy, Not really sure I follow from your perspective. It seems that you believe you are the only one in the comments that is speaking from an un-biased approach. You write; the entire discussion so far, apart from my own comment, proceeds from the assumption of a fact not in evidence.” You reference “vague scriptures” but never give the scripture references. Could you help me out in what you are saying are vague scriptural references? As for your original argument in the first comment. If one were to follow the logic for that argument, then we would not need to ask a drunk to stop drinking. We should not disciple a dope addict to stop doing drugs. We should not disciple a prostitute from selling her body. The logic you seem to promote is a logic that they had a deficiency in a sex gene, or a brain functioning one way in a body that was designed to function differently. That is still sin. We all were marred as a result of the fall. The deficiency we all received from the fall effects all of creation. When the salvation of Christ comes in the life of a deficient person, Christ changes that person. I don’t think I have found in Scripture where Christ changes the sexuality of a person. Thus, one who has changed his/her sexuality surgically and hormonally seems to be an issue where it should be reversed surgically. The hormones are used to maintain the appearance needed to make others believe he/she is of that gender. Your question about a nose job, seems to be apples to oranges. Yes there is a surgical procedure to change the appearance. The question that results doesn’t have anything to do with an outright false appearance of gender. I was involved in an accident when I was 25 and had an total facial reconstruction due to my face going through the windshield. While my nose still is a pretty big snooker it was at one time like a hawks bill. The changing of my nose did not change my personality, nor did it change my gender. As I conclude this statement I guess I need you to express where these verses are that you see as vague references to this situation. Also, the question that you seem to be asking from us is how we believe changing gender is a sin? I… Read more »
okay, taking points in order: 1. I’m not assuming my views are not biased (albeit they are informed by information from both opposing points of view) rather, I’m saying that my posts, alone (at least at that point) did NOT assume as a foregoing premise that transsexual transition is clearly a sin. This is not an assertion concerning bias, but an observation that the other posts do start with that assumption. 2. Scripture references commonly brought up regarding trans people (KJV): Deut. 22:5 – The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. 1 Cor. 6:9 – Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. (later translations do not use the term “effeminate”) IIRC there are a couple of other NT verses which somewhat parallel the latter above, but are dependent on the nature of the translation in order to find a reference to gender non-conformity. The Former citation is relatively straightforward, but appears alongside other laws we do not seek to enforce in the Christian era (i.e. not wearing garments of mixed fabrics) The Latter, it can be reasonably argued (and some translations actually say) refers to male prostitution (that is a homosexual act) or quite possibly pederasty. Thus I say “vague” in that neither reference is clear cut and definitive, and certainly not about an actual medical condition. 3. I’m not sure I see any analogy between an identified and reasonable birth defect and a predisposition to some temperamental weakness. Even less so to a choice like prostitution. 4. Again, you say “it’s sin” as if it is a claim that needs no proof. it does. if you are going to ask a person to live in spiritual misery their entire life in order to follow God’s law, then the least you can do is demonstrate definitively that it IS in fact God’s law. First things first. 5. It’s true that the world and those in it were physically marred as a result of the fall, but that does not logically imply that any such defect is sinful. One does not claim the autistic or the epileptic is sinful in having that condition,… Read more »
By the way, the series by Dr. Moore that Andrew mentioned starts here:
http://www.russellmoore.com/2009/05/25/joan-or-john-my-answer-part-one/
There are a great many points he makes which I believe are questionable (one would not assume that a person who has, for instance, a nose job is “playing god” by not accepting the nose they were given, one would not counsel one born blind to avoid any medicine that might give them sight because they should be content with how they were born, and so forth – just for one example)
However, I try to avail myself of the arguments on both sides for the sake of intellectual honesty. I once believed as Moore does on this issue, but I’ve come to the conclusion that I was wrong.
Anyone have a biblical response for us? Something that addresses the substance Ms. Rainey’s comments regarding transexual inclinations and the Bible?
JEREMY, here are three scriptural references given by St. Ambrose that will apply to any Christian minister seeking to help ALL people who are in distress because of ANY ‘inclinations’ that have resulted from The Fall. These scriptures, of course, would include any specific pastoral concerns, I believe:
““For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off. For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel (Luke 15:5) carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off. And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” (Ecclesiastes 7:17)
for restraint should temper righteousness. For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?
Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said: “Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matthew 11:28) So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God. Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek; persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others, such as are the teachers who call themselves pure.”
St. Ambrose (c. 340 – 4 April 397)
that’s a powerful commentary. Thanks for sharing.
Jeremy,
It seems that 19:4 is the NT verse I would establish as my basis. Not only does it cover the NT text, but it also relates to Genesis 1 and Genesis 5, which some would refer to as the Torah. No vague reference that I can see.
Tim–
Can you clarify which book? I know we can figure it out, given there’s only 4 NT books with a 19:4, but it would be good.
Doug
Doug,
Sorry about that. Matthew.
No worries. Just figured that would be best clarified by you rather than assumed by everyone else.
Jeremy, If I may, and since you asked, here is my “Biblical” response. I will start by saying that, I believe, the dirty little secret of the Bible is that it is about sin – but, for me, not like we usually talk about it. As the discussion has unfolded, a number of verses have been advanced and discussed as evidence of sin, love, or mercy. I also read Dr. Moore’s article on “Joan/John” which I found helpful. Dr. Moore’s conclusions are correct but they are reflected in the precise theological manner I would expect of a Baptist pastor and academician. I say this not to be dismissive but to illustrate something I see that we quite often miss in discussions of this nature and that is that sin is an awful condition and not something that is simply a matter of Biblical “do’s”: and “don’ts” or trying to squeeze out of a verse or thought some sense of what God might want or not want. Instead, if we simply consider the nature of sin, both its author and condition, we might find the answer to your question and a more robust (perhaps) expansion of Dr. Moore’s thoughts and conclusions. To do so I am going to tell you about myself. I am 66 years of age; a father, husband, grandfather; a strongly conservative Southern Baptist with some visibility and leadership in my strongly conservative Southern Baptist Church; and a man who loves God and Jesus with all of his heart. I am also a man who has struggled, and continues to struggle, with same-sex attraction and the desire to be a woman. It has been a life-long struggle and one that I can lose at any moment if I just stop fighting. That I do not is a testament more to the love of God and the example of Jesus than anything else. I long for heaven and the New Jerusalem so that I may be at peace with my body in ways ordinary people do not understand. But my struggle has thrown me into a battle that has taught me about the inflexibility and immutability of pristine truth, the immenseness of grace, and the sheer wonder of salvation and love. It has also taught me about the Satan and the true awfulness of sin and depravity. So here goes. I was 2 years old when my parents divorced… Read more »
Ahh, what heartache, what pain, what glorious transparency!
Thank you. Thank you, a thousand times over, for bringing a voice of experience and holiness into what has been, up to this point, an academic discussion of possibilities and potentialities.
Your experiences resonate the truths of the Bible, and as such are as evidential as scientific studies. Thank you.
Thank you “Jim” for your testimony, let me preface by saying that it is well to acknowledge that SOME transgenderism (and some homosexuality) absolutely does arise from childhood trauma of the sort you describe. It would be foolishness for those on either side of the debate to presume their understanding is a truth which applies universally (albeit, people on both sides do just that). In light of your transparency, it behooves me to respond in kind. I was born in North MS in 1963, in a culture and situation saturated with conservative Christian traditions. While my parents were nominal Christians, I was in a church every week through out my childhood at the hands of deeply Christian grandparents. At no time during my childhood was i exposed to any “perverting” influence of the sort commonly cited. i was never molested, exposed, saw the exposure of another, my first observation of porn was around age 15. There was no “absent father” or any of the other things that are usually cited. And yet by the first year of school i was absolutely convinced i should have been born female – and just as convinced i was the only such “freak” in all of human history. I knew I dare not tell anyone, and worked hard to construct a suitable male persona while taking the opportunity to occasionally try on some clothes of my female cousins when I had the chance. I wasn’t aware of the term “transsexual” for several years thereafter. i dreaded puberty and responded to it with a decade of deep depression. Meanwhile, I came to Christ at the age of nine, I helped co-found the Bible club at my high school, and was a virgin when I graduated high school. In the years following graduation I understood, or thought I did, three things: (a) I’d never be able to become a female; (b) I was a sinful abomination for wanting to; and (c) i could not go on living like that. I made up my mind that once my grandparents passed away, I’d kill myself (they were all in their 70’s at the time – they all lived into their 90’s) In 1986 i attended a Freddie Gage crusade in a nearby town. He delivered a message that said, in summary, “If you are plagued by a besetting sin that you have no power to overcome, you need… Read more »
Tammy/Tommy, In light of this confession it seems that I would take you back to my original comment to you. Your position is that everyone is approaching this differently than you. You responded that you were unbiased in your approach because you have read on both sides of the issue. Now you reveal that you are 5 years transitioned from male into female. Do you not see that you are biased in your approach? You made the decision to move from Tommy to Tammy. God did not make that decision for you. Of course if i were a strict Calvinist I would say that before the foundation of the world God knew you would make this decision and as such it is ordained by Him. But, I really do not know of many strict Calvinist that would go there. They would appeal to apostasy. However, it is clear regardless of the theological system one thinks within you have decided to do something that is not ordained of God. In you desire to find inner peace you decided it was your option to transition your sexuality from male to female. That is the way you found peace. However, the Bible does not advocate our doing things ourselves to find peace but to rely on the strength of God. While I am a heterosexual I struggle with the same heterosexual desires that others do. I could find myself in an adulterous relationship in a heartbeat if I let my guards down. It is something that I struggle with on a daily basis. That is the reason I have my quiet times every day because I have to turn every thing over to Him on a daily basis. It is through prayer and constant communing with God that brings about this strength. Do you think that is the reason Paul instructed us to: “pray without ceasing”? One other thing and I will close. Do you not understand the utter feeling of trickery one feels after discovering this debate has been with a transgender person? Many in this comment stream entered this debate with the clear assumption we were debated, as best we could, on an unbiased position. Even when you were called out on your biased approach you assured us that your approach was the only one that was unbiased. It was only after baptistjim revealed his story that you told yours. Tammy/Tommy… Read more »
Duckman Dale and Tim Rogers,
There are those who frequent this blog on a regular basis who will either openly or silently declare that both of you have been close-minded, intemperate, judgmental, unkind, and harsh with Tammy Rainey in your comments to her.
However, that is not the case at all — far from it. The two of you have spoken the truth to her and in doing so, you have shown her true compassion and Christian grace.
For whatever it may mean to you, I thank you both for being men of integrity here and unashamedly writing that which in true.
Seriously, Tim? We’re going to default to the “let me make up a male name for you lest I sully my fingertips by typing your fake name” routine? I had hoped this conversation was above such nonsense. I also find it impressive that when someone agree with you and the open their heart it’s “glorious transparency” and when someone who disagrees does so it’s not that at all. And you wonder why i see bias. Still, let me clear up some points for the record. “You responded that you were unbiased in your approach…” I’ve made no profession to be unbiased. Just that I engage the question at hand without a pre-assumed conclusion. NO ONE is unbiased on any subject, but one can endeavor to check their logic and try to avoid fallacies so that their reasoning is clearer. ” However, it is clear regardless of the theological system one thinks within you have decided to do something that is not ordained of God. ” There it is again. A deceleration of “fact” absent any supporting argument. You say “it is clear” as if it is a self-evident fact that needs no supporting argument – and it’s not. Any compelling case one seeks to make, especially when addressing the experience of one dealing with an issue you have no experience, training, or study with STARTS with demonstrating the reasoning for your assumptions – not just assuming they are right simply because you believe them to be right. ” I could find myself in an adulterous relationship in a heartbeat if I let my guards down.” A. do you argue god would give you peace in your soul in the midst of that affair, or would he prick your consistence? B. The bible DIRECTLY states that adultery is wrong, in the Ten Commandments even. Please find a direct deceleration that gender transition is wrong in the eyes of God. Or make better analogies. “That is the reason I have my quiet times every day because I have to turn every thing over to Him on a daily basis.” So we’re just going to ignore the part of my testimony in which I constantly kept my condition before his throne for decades, right? It’s probably inconvenient to the whole “you are selfishly seeking to justify your sin” narrative. ” Do you not understand the utter feeling of trickery one feels after discovering… Read more »
Tim,
Had you taken a few seconds to click Tammy’s name you would have found the info. If you had, what would you have argued differently?
Frankly, I have moe of a problem with the anonymous posters here who deliberately conceal their names and identities and then who take potshots at others.
All in all, this has been a pretty decent discussion. I’m with Dave in not being fully aware of the deaf culture stuff.
If I may interject a question…
Tammy Rainey contends that they have peace in thier soul about the decision they made to have a sex change…
My question to Tammy is….what does “peace in your soul” mean?
The reason I ask is that I’m not sure we’re operating on the same understanding regarding “peace of the soul”.
Also, I haven’t read every word here so pardon m if I missed something…
but are you, Tammy, remaining celibate as a woman or do you seek out intimate relationships with another….and if so which sex?
Tarheel-
“peace in the soul” is a term for that feeling of not being under conviction of sin – of having dealt with God on an issue and feeling that you are reconciled. Any Christian who’s been “backslidden” and returned to Him has an idea what that’s like.
Also, mixed into that, is the feeling of contented faith that God has not “neglected” you
On your second question, I feel that there’s a privacy issue at work here. If it were relevant to my argument about transsexualism, it would be necessary for me to discuss it – but it’s not, and so I do not wish to detail my private sex life except to say that since my transition I have not engaged in extramarital sex. That says only what it says and no one should expect a response based on what they infer from it.
That said, given my position that a transsexual’s authentic sex is that sex which originate in the brain, not in the pants, my position is that a male-to-female transsexual who prefers the company of men is a heterosexual, by definition.
It is completely relevant!
If one is born a man…surgery cannot change it.
A person born a man, will deca man.
If said person engages in sexual contact with a man…he’s committing homosexual activity which is unambiguously classified as sin in scripture.
So, clinging to some sort of extreme version of rationalization, even to the point of surgical alteration, is weak and transparent.
*die a man
Not
Deca
Ahhh….iPad autocorrect just astounds me sometimes. Lol
tarheel, i can only say that in my worldview, the reality of a persons soul and spirit is not identified by that which they keep in their underwear. if that’s your position, you are welcome to it.
No, but “what’s in ones underwear” indicates the sex that God created them to be….having a surgery does not change it.
One born a male, having intimate relations with another born a male, is in fact homosexuality.
It seems to me that you are seeking and have been for some time, to recreate yourself in a better image than the one that God created you to be.
It’s a direct and intentional defiance of the Holy Creator God, and to use your phrase, if that’s the way you choose to live…then it’s up to you.
This is a manifestation of the fundamental sin that seperates man from God, it’s as Sproul calls it, cosmic treason….idolatry. As Paul put it, “worshiping the creature, rather than the creator.”
But again, if that’s what you choose…if that’s how you wish to relate to God….then it’s up to you.
But, I implore you….be reconciled to God.
“tarheel, i can only say that in my worldview, the reality of a persons soul and spirit is not identified by that which they keep in their underwear.”
Tammy,
You are right. According to your “worldview, the reality of a person’s soul and spirit was not identified by that which they keep in their underwear.”
The revealed truth here, according to your own words, is that your “worldview” has persuaded you that the reality of your soul and spirit was identified by that which you “did not want to keep” in your underwear. Therefore, you changed it to be in accord with “your” personal worldview. Your worldview is not that of a biblical worldview.
There is a reason that your worldview is not a biblical worldview. That reason is revealed very plainly in Romans 1:18-32.
“No, but “what’s in ones underwear” indicates the sex that God created them to be….having a surgery does not change it.” O? then what sex did god intend the intersex person to be? If sex is determined by the genitalia alone, then what sex IS such a person? You can say “neither” or “both” but if you ASK that person – they KNOW an answer and it’s not going to be neither or both. If their genitals don’t tell them – HOW DO THEY KNOW? You are aware, i assume, that when a baby is born with ambiguous genitalia it has been customary for the parents to make a choice and the surgeon operate in order to assign the child as either male or female. What you are probably aware of is that as that child grows up they VERY often testify that the wrong choice was made – but how can they know? they have a vagina, right (even though man made) so clearly they are female, end of story. right? No? HOW DO THEY KNOW? And how do we as third part observers decide what sex god “meant” for them to be? That’s assuming that you subscribe to the undemonstrated claim that god specifically decided and assigned each child’s sex and other physical characteristics “One born a male, having intimate relations with another born a male, is in fact homosexuality.” So? what does this prove about the sinfulness of transsexualism? do you deny it is possible to go through transition and remain abstinent thereafter? do you deny that it is possible to do so and confine their intimacy to females? f these are possible, then whether or not you think the situation you describe is a homosexual act is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the bible says or implies transition is sinful. “It seems to me that you are seeking and have been for some time, to recreate yourself in a better image than the one that God created you to be. It’s a direct and intentional defiance of the Holy Creator God, and to use your phrase, if that’s the way you choose to live…then it’s up to you.” This assumes that God specifically selects every physical characteristic we are born with. if a child is born blind and the doctors say “we can give him sight” would your advice be “do not try… Read more »
“You are right. According to your “worldview, the reality of a person’s soul and spirit was not identified by that which they keep in their underwear.”
The revealed truth here, according to your own words, is that your “worldview” has persuaded you that the reality of your soul and spirit was identified by that which you “did not want to keep” in your underwear. Therefore, you changed it to be in accord with “your” personal worldview. Your worldview is not that of a biblical worldview.”
Yet another repetition of the same fundamental error: you will never make a persuasive case by claiming facts not in evidence. SAYING it is not biblical does not PROVE it is not or even attempt a case for the claim. it’s a “because i said so” argument which is no argument at all. And please, don’t try to make an issue out of “worldview” – we all have a worldview, and various sorts of Christians have contrasting worldviews, all of them claiming TRIER’S is the true Biblical worldview and every one else has erred.
“There is a reason that your worldview is not a biblical worldview. That reason is revealed very plainly in Romans 1:18-32”
Which says nothing at all about transsexuals.
i’ll ask you what i ask above: have ANY of you ever DARED in the quiet place of your contemplation to honestly face up to the question “What if i’m wrong?”
Have any of you ever laid aside what your mama said and what your preacher said and what your Sunday School teacher said and opened your bible without any preconceived idea of what everyone else SAID that it says and set out to see for yourself, prepared to accept the possibility that what you THOUGHT was true…isn’t in there?
If what you claim to be true IS in fact true, then it can withstand examination. if you are afraid to even CONSIDER that it might not be, that’s a very good sign it isn’t.
“Which says nothing at all about transsexuals.”
Once again, Tammy, you are right.
However, to be specific, I was in reference to the passage in its description of people who have fallen to having reprobate mind, of which, by all you have stated here in this thread, you have done so.
let me walk through that logic:
You claim that I am in sin, yet have not demonstrated it >>>
Based on that claim, you call me to repentance without proving repentance is needed >>>
based upon my (apparent) failure to repent you conclude that i have a reprobate mind >>>
which is why i don’t recognize that your claim that i am in sin is valid and doesn’t need proof.
That’s called circular reasoning – it’s not valid.
first things first – prove to a reasonable degree that we may assume the condition in question is in fact sinful, THEN call for repentance. You can’t draw any fair conclusions about reprobate minds until you have done the first tings first.
No, Tammy, this time you are once again wrong.
I have “claimed” nothing. I have dogmatically stated you are wrong.
However, for argument’s sake, let’s just imagine for a moment that I lost my mind and became a raving lunatic and stated that God is just fine with you doing whatever you want in life as long as you are sincere. Let’s say every person on this blog thread said you were OK and in good standing with God as long as you are sincere.
The truth is, you are still wrong. You are in an alien position to revealed, biblical truth and all the rationalization in the world will not change that one iota.
By your own admission, you are of those individuals described in Romans 1:18 ff.
Hey CB, isn’t SBCVoices wonderful! In one thread we go at it strongly disagreeing, yet in another we join together in complete agreement! God bless SBCVoices!
SVMuschany,
Yes, I think this is a good medium for dialogue. However, I have a suspicion that even if we were face-to-face, we could have the same relationship. You seem to have a stand-up guy type of personality. I have respect for guys like that. That is why I have come to admire guys like Dave Miller, Tim Rogers, Dwight McKissic, Peter Lumpkins, Bob Cleveland, Marty Duren, Art Rogers, Chris Roberts, Jared Moore, William Thornton,and many others.
You say what you think and you own it. I respect that.
cb, please allow me to correct myself:
You have dogmatically stated something you have not demonstrated to be true.
Thank you for noting the misstatement.
Ms Rainey has given us a wonderful example of what to consider for the sake of mercy, which I consider critical in understanding Torah. I agree we may have to consider gender ID separately. However, when the gentiles were coming to Christ James outlines 4 things in Acts to avoid…eating blood, polutions of idols, things strangled and sexual sin…these as minimal starting points as they grow the graft into Israel. I would say the main thing is to begin there celebately then to pray for wisdom having him learn the scriptures and pray for wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Others cannot make this decision for this person. Judge the fruit of their life not on whether you agree theologically with them, but whether you see honesty and other character growing. Obedience to God will follow and no one can make this decision for her. I say her not as my theological choice, but in honor of the choice she made. This eay she is free to follow God and not my imposition of my theology.
well said.
Another question here, to further discussion….
Dee,
You mentioned judging others based whether we see them “growing in honesty and character”.
Is having a surgery to change ones God given sex, and then living life that way – presumably not making announcements to people regarding the fact that one is a man living as a woman, living a life of honesty?
I’m not trying to be jerky…really I’m not…but I am having a hard time seeing how such things reflect a life of honesty….
Character is grown over time. I made a lot of mistakes in my 20s and 30s..ok and early 40s…from trying to know who im supposed to be…married a man who was not serious about God after giving up on my calling…and that from trying to fit my calling into denominationalism which stifled it. In my 50s making much better decisions…but it was a journey. I think this person needs time to hear God speak to them about who God created them to be and that transcends gender. But gender/eunichness will fall into place with time. Needs to hear from God not too many human judges. A few Godly people teaching how to hear God speak. Honor the person remember we all have to learn trial and error.
I think the point is that this person just came to salvation. Needs time to grow. Doubt you were sinless this fast…one abomination is not worse than another. Discipleship is a process not a contest as the pharisees would have it.
FYI…this from a person who believes scripture teaches pork and homosexual acts are as abominable as gossip!
“this from a person who believes scripture teaches pork and homosexual acts are as abominable as gossip!”
What????
Are you stating that eating “pork” (Ham, Pork-chops Sausage, Beacon, and even B-B-Q) equates to a sin such as “homosexuality” or heterosexual sins and is an abomination such as is gossip?
Is that what you actually believe? If so, I have a question for you:
From what planet in an alternate galaxy do you originate?
Dee has commented before on similar subjects. If I were attempt to put a name on the system she proposes, it would be “messianic christian Judaizers”. Of which only the third word is capitalized because it’s what she really seems to believe…
People are redeemed …not abominations. These are all on the forbidden list and Peter interpreted his vision to mean gentiles were not forbidden and that Pharisaic tradition was wrong to treat believing Gentiles as dogs.
I must be on visitation to another planet today also. For I have committed breakfast blasphemy by spelling “bacon” as “beacon.” However it is true that “bacon” can be a “beacon.” How so?
Well, I’ll tell you. On an early morning when it is so cold that every time you try to put your feet out from under the cover to get out of bed, they try to jump back under and icicles are hanging off your nose and you declare you shall just stay in bed all day (maybe all winter) and then, suddenly — you smell bacon cooking in the kitchen. . . .
Then you slap yourself in the face, jump from the bed into your pants and boots and follow that “bacon beacon” to the kitchen . . . and all is well with the world. . . . after about three helpins’ and a pot of coffee to wash it down.
I thought it was a kludge between bacon and deacon, like that was what the deacons were calling their Sunday morning prayer breakfast.
Jim Pemberton,
In most of the churches I have served, it was a requirement that the deacons eat pork at least twice a week for an evening meal and eat bacon for breakfast every day. Naturally, sausage is always mixed in with the gravy and eggs.
My son, in his 7-year-old wisdom, recently opined that it was much easier to get up when he could smell bacon than when he heard the rattle of the Cheerios box.
All I could say was that it was easier to get up when I was planning to *cook* bacon than when I planned to rattle the Cheerios box.
The Hibbard men are very intelligent men.
We even had sense enough to come out of the deer woods early Saturday when it was 35 degrees with a wind chill of 15.
Which was good, because one of my church members had fallen, shattered the glass on his shower door, and his son needed backup help in taking care of the situation. His son being the man whose land I hunt on, whose truck I had, and whose house I was returning the truck to just as he was heading to help his father.
One might call that a coincidence, but I have my doubts.
I like bacon.
David
I think there are some great points here.
First, I think Ms. Rainey has pointed out that we must be merciful in our approach to the issue. These are real people who have real issues. They deserve our love. And yes, we’ve been wrong on other topics, so we should proceed with caution.
However – I think the crux of the initial question comes down to one of identity: who determines our inner, existential identity? Mankind? Or God? Ms. Rainey said, “Transsexualism is very much about how you precieve your SELF, not at all about sexual desire.” This was her concluding statement in a paragraph focusing on what defines someone as male. If we want to examine whether it is wrong to re-define our gender, let’s look no further than that concept.
God defined identity by divine fiat. He made them as male and female. That was design. In no other way does the Bible clearly delineate physical identity – only in terms of gender. It doesn’t say, “Large-nosed and wide-hipped, He made them.” No references to hair-color, or hearing status, or anything else. Male and female. This is all the Spirit of God Himself opted to say on the matter.
Choosing to alter that providentially-designed identity would be a mistake. After all, every time someone in the Bible opts to alter God’s plans it generally does not work out. In fact, I can think of a few examples where it is treated as sin.
And that’s simply the beginning of the discussion.
Let’s see:
1. From your telling of the story, it sounds like he now views both the gender identity “decision” and the reassignment surgery as sinful.
2. I also sense from the story that he was not born with physical hermaphroditism which could be due to a chromosomal abnormality like Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY) or Turner Syndrome (XO). So there isn’t a physical cause for sexual identity confusion or a need for a “gender identity selection” decision.
3. Given #1 and #2, I think he current situation most closely resembles eunuchs in the Bible. This suggests there are two issues to deal with physically:
a. The physical mutilation in the form of plastic surgery to provide the appearance of female sexual characteristics.
b. Hormonal therapy and other grooming activities to maintain the appearance.
Presumably, again assuming the story as told is true, he would have been given hormonal therapy prior to the reassignment surgery. Changing that therapy might still be an option whether or not the surgical re-reassignment were attempted. But the thought that there is ANY (physical) utility in attempting to re-plumb him as a male is scientifically pretty unrealistic.
So for all intents and purposes, he is physically a eunuch with traditional sexual chromosomal material for a man (XY). Short of turning him over to the secular psychologists for the rest of his life, he could accomplish most of the personal effort to regain a male “gender identity” by focusing on switching hormonal therapy and grooming. He would have to learn to live with the “fact” that he is essentially mutilated by the surgery and that isn’t reversible.
This one, like the other story, also has rather frustrating echoes of incredulity to it. It isn’t that I disbelieve the story as presented, but there is a sensation that the situation has spun out of control through essentially gossip and that is why there are so many differing opinions in the story itself.
If he chose to share his story that way and make it so public, it certainly does cause me to wonder if his profession of faith is authentic. If he didn’t, then the “community” needs to be counseled on how gossip generally hinders the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction, repentance, restitution, and sanctification. He’s arguably become more of a spectacle than a person through the gossip in my opinion.
Great thoughts Jeremy. Forgive me for selective quotes but I will strive to be fair to your intent. “I think the crux of the initial question comes down to one of identity: who determines our inner, existential identity? Mankind? Or God?” That’s a heck of a philosophical question, or at least the kernel of one. Let’s be clear, I believe we agree (if you are Christian) that our sex is indeed and indisputably ordained by God. A transsexual is not at all presuming to alter their sex, in that context – rather they seek to conform their flesh to the sex they know in their spirit to be correct. The imponderable philosophical question is – what is “me”? Wherein does the soul reside? Can we confidently state that one’s “brain sex” – their self perception of their sex – will always align with the sex of their “soul”? do we even believe the soul HAS a sex? There is much here we simply cannot know with confidence. “God defined identity by divine fiat.” Indeed. But does this mean that God ordains what you ARE in your innermost being, or that he ordains the specific arrangement of your flesh? And if we mean the latter… “He made them as male and female. That was design. In no other way does the Bible clearly delineate physical identity” …then whence commoth the intersex condition? if we take the theological position that god literally ordains a male child born with a penis and a female child born with a vagina and that’s always and only his will – then how do we account for the intersex people? Are such people rare? Very much so – but so are self-professed transsexuals. It seems to me that it’s unreasonable in light of the fact that we KNOW that human flesh is, on occasion, out of alignment with the binary design of which you speak (IMO, as one of the many results of the fall) to insist that when God ordains one’s male or female sex, he does this by way of the arrangement of the flesh. I submit, rather, that the inner sense of one’s sex is the point that is ordained of God, and that the flesh – as happens in so many various ways – is sometimes flawed. Moreover, if God’s ordained sex for me – as witnessed by my mind and spirit –… Read more »
Who God says i am is more important than who i think i am. My perception is flawed.
Indeed. What does God say you are?
I won’t address all the points Tammy makes, but I will discuss the general principles that mitigate her understanding. First, it is unwise to draw principles from the exceptions. One typical pattern for disputing a general principle is to cite exceptions, both hypothetical and real. Examples of apparently acceptable physical gender exceptions are typically trotted out to justify spiritually sinful perversion. It’s already been observed that the Bible doesn’t observe today’s transgender issues because it didn’t exist as we know it. On the one hand, this is true. On the other it isn’t. The transgender issue the Bible addresses is the eunuch. I believe Matthew 19:12 addresses both physical and spiritual eunuchs. But the spiritual eunuchs here would not be those with gender confusion. They are those who are comfortable with a life of celibacy for the purpose of devoting their lives to kingdom work. While male and female brains are different, not only is natural non-genetic hermaphroditism rare (genetic hermaphroditism is far more common and neither produces reproductive systems that function well if at all), it’s not reasonable to think that it would change only the brain without changing the body. The evidence that people with transgender proclivities already have a brain of the opposite gender does not lend itself to concluding a cause. It’s at least as likely that the observable structure and function of the brain is shaped by the way it’s used as the way it’s used is affected by its observable structure and function. That said, all of this falls under the exceptional rather than the normal. There is much perversion among people in all gender categories, modern and ancient. So there is an ethical principle that transcends any of them. Biblically, God gave us gender identities for the purpose of glorifying him. If we find our happiness in him, we will welcome our place as one gender or another, whether we follow healthy inclinations into a heterosexual marriage or resign ourselves to lives of singleness. Either one requires sacrifice if it is to glorify God. That’s where this comes down to the question of identity being discussed. We either find our identity in Christ or choose to pursue an identity outside of Christ. Some people choose to pursue an identity outside of Christ and claim that it is of Christ. One reason that the normal needs to be upheld as the ethical principle is… Read more »
“First, it is unwise to draw principles from the exceptions.” Agreed. But this does not mitigate the reality that we should discern the details of a situation and not try to force every person into a narrow arbitrary standard. “Examples of apparently acceptable physical gender exceptions are typically trotted out to justify spiritually sinful perversion” Again, this assumes as a given that transsexualism is sin without demonstrating it. ” It’s already been observed that the Bible doesn’t observe today’s transgender issues because it didn’t exist as we know it. On the one hand, this is true. On the other it isn’t.” The eunuch in the Bible did not live at a time when medical/surgical intervention to address the situation was available or even known. That said, there are some parallels. The Bible says some eunuchs were made that way by God. if we are to consider them a parallel to the modern transsexual, we can’t throw that out. ” it’s not reasonable to think that it would change only the brain without changing the body.” Why not? other forms of intersex conditions affect only one part of the body (AIS, for instance, deals only with hormone receptors on the cells – and any other effect is merely a side effect of that one flaw) . Beyond that, let’s clarify. Science illustrates that all human fetuses being their existence in a default female state. If the baby possess as Y chromosome, and processes occur without mishap, that will trigger in the mother two separate events during pregnancy, about 2 months apart. These events “dose” the baby with testosterone, the former event masculanizing the bodily development and the latter masculinizing the brain. If either of these do not occur correctly, then you have some form of intersex condition. if the former occurs and the latter does not, then you have a masculine body and a feminine mind. So technically speaking, it’s not so much that the brain is affected exclusively among all organs, but it has to do with the process having a function that specifically relates to the brain. ” It’s at least as likely that the observable structure and function of the brain is shaped by the way it’s used as the way it’s used is affected by its observable structure and function” The difference in question have been demonstrated even in those who have done nothing to confirm their… Read more »
Tammy/Tommy,
I cannot respond to your comment to me so I had to start a new comment thread.
First, I am not using a literary device in order to “keep from sullying” my hands as I type. I am merely trying to follow the wise advice that Dr. Moore has given. Something you agreed was wise advice. Thus, if you do not want me using the back-slash tell me what male name you would prefer.
Second, had you read Dr. Moore’s position paper you would find that I am not alone in my assessment.
Third, in reading your comments to me you are condenscending as if you are some absolute intellectual superior being over me. I will not debate from such a perspective.
Fourth, you are wrong and living in sin. That is not my decision that is God’s decision. The bible is clear that God created male and female. He did not mix up the genders. Your perspective is that you are a woman chromosomal but living in a male body. That is what sin does to one. It convinces them that God was wrong in His creative process and it must be changed the one in sin knows better than God himself.
While you desire to point to your “vague scriptures” you are absolutely wrong on those. Are there people born missing parts of their bodies, parts of their thinking processes, parts of their…..you name it? Yes that is the problem that results from sin entering the world. You are advocating sin in the creation. That is not the case with transgender, it is sin in the creature.
I agree completely with Tim Rogers, CB, and all those who agree with the Bible.
Tommy Rainey, we all struggle with sinful feelings and desires and thoughts…all of us….it’s called temptation. And, just because we may be tempted to commit adultery, or fornication, or homosexual sex, or to lie, or murder….we should not surrender to the temptation, but rather fight the temptation with the power of God. So, just because you may feel tempted to dress like a woman, and look like a woman, and act like a woman, doesn’t make it right for you to cave in to those sinful desires. The Bible clearly teaches that a man should look and act like a man, and a woman should look and act like a woman.
You really need to hear what Baptist Jim said above…..good, good stuff from a man, who has walked thru some very dark places. God bless you, Baptist Jim. And, Tommy, you need to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ….with all of your heart…truly….and put your faith in Jesus.
David
vandyfan/Dana (see how that sort of thing isn’t really cute at all?) – you are free, if you like, to answer the question that Tim et al are either unwilling or, more likely, incapable of answering:
you must FIRST demonstrate a given act IS a sin before you can then give advice about how to fight the sinful temptation.
let’s lay aside for a second my condition and use a more neutral example. some Christians (including a lot of Baptists) argue that ANY consumption of alcohol is sin. many others, including many Christians, disagree. holding only that it is drunkenness, not consumption, that is sinful.
now, let us suppose that you hold the former view – any consumption is sinful – and you say to your neighbor whom you have never seen to be even approaching intoxication but whom you know to indulge in a beer or two on the weekend “let me tell you how you must resist the temptation to that sinful activity” – is the man not within his rights to say “Before you give me that advice you must first prove to me that the bible says it IS sin”?
And if you cannot do that, do you really have the right to counsel him about how to avoid that sin?
Even so it is in this conversation – repeatedly I have said “If you are going to tell me i need to overcome this sin then the burden is upon you to demonstrate FROM SCRIPTURE that it IS sin.” to this point not one single soul has even ATTEMPTED to make that case. More and more it gives the appearance that no one CAN make that case – because it is not, in fact, in there.
I understand that many people are uncomfortable having one of their core beliefs challenged, but if you have never had your beliefs challenged and had to examine them to see WHY you believe what you claim to believe, then your position is empty. it is only the examined thought that is worth sharing. So by all means, rise above your peers and make the case, from Scripture, that transsexual transition is sinful. Otherwise, just joining the “me too” choir doesn’t really contribute anything to the discussion.
and by the way, I find it very convenient how people who cannot support their views with evidence so easily resort to assuming the opponent lacks a relationship with Christ. Submitted for your consideration: ——————– Romans14 1.Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall [e]give praise to God.” 12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it… Read more »
Tim, the name I prefer is Tammy. if you wish to engage in a respectful conversation, you will use that name and quit trying to employ a passive/aggressive stunt. Second, I’ve read more than one item from Dr. Moore on this subject. I’ve yet to see him do the thing I’ve asked you to do – prove your claim FROM SCRIPTURE. That must be the FIRST task in making your case or you have no case. Dr. Moore makes some good points IF you accept the initial unproven assertion. I don’t. I have a vested interest in what the Bible says on the subject. i spent most of my life desperately WANTING to see something in the bible that said it was not approved of God because I trusted Him to sanctify me and remove from my heart anything displeasing to him. I WANTED it removed. When I read the Bible and DON’T find that condemnation, i am finding a result directly opposite to the result i would have preferred. you say “I am not alone in my assessment” as if that makes you right. That’s a fallacy called (in this case) “appeal to authority” or “appeal to popularity.” there was a time when the vast majority of learned Christian scholars were absolutely convinced that god had assured us that the sun moved around the earth. did that authority or popularity make their position scientifically accurate? (by the way, you might want to peruse Church history about what happened all too often when a scientific discovery contradicted a traditional doctrine – the results are in many cases very ugly and embarrassing to the church) Third, I have made no profession overt or implied of intellectual superiority. i do, however, claim to have exceeded you in this thread in my willingness to support my position with a better argument than “because i say so” look, I’m not asking you to change your mind because *I* say so – i’m asking you to explain WHY you believe the things you believe. ANY person, me, you, or Billy Graham, who can’t do that ought keep their mouth hut about what they believe – because all they are doing is parroting what someone else told them. Fourth, “you are wrong and living in sin” is – as in every other time it has been stated in this thread, an assertion based on facts not… Read more »
Re-post of questions…
Tarheel December 18, 2013 at 9:18 am
If I may interject a question…
Tammy Rainey contends that they have peace in thier soul about the decision they made to have a sex change…
My question to Tammy is….what does “peace in your soul” mean?
The reason I ask is that I’m not sure we’re operating on the same understanding regarding “peace of the soul”.
56 Tarheel December 18, 2013 at 9:31 am
Also, I haven’t read every word here so pardon m if I missed something…
but are you, Tammy, remaining celibate as a woman or do you seek out intimate relationships with another….and if so which sex?
Tarheel December 18, 2013 at 9:51 am
Another question here, to further discussion….
Dee,
You mentioned judging others based whether we see them “growing in honesty and character”.
Is having a surgery to change ones God given sex, and then living life that way – presumably not making announcements to people regarding the fact that one is a man living as a woman, living a life of honesty?
I’m not trying to be jerky…really I’m not…but I am having a hard time seeing how such things reflect a life of honesty….
I just mean it takes time to grow character. I want to watch for progression in discipleship. Did all your sin fall away ay once or did conviction and maturity take time?
Tarheel, I addressed your first two questions in reply to your previous posts.
Your third is not directed at me but since it’s ABOUT me i will indulge myself to weigh in.
One of the failings of those who are prone to judge the decisions of others is not bothering to take into consideration the other persons point of view. Try to put yourself behind my eyes for a second.
From early childhood I understood myself to be female in mind soul and spirit.
From that early age I also understood that the people around me would not sympathize with, understand, or accept that claim. Therefor, like my peers (at least those of my generation – increasingly it’s different for young people today) I understood that in order to not be rejected as a “freak” and a “pervert” I must create the false front of being a “normal” male.
THAT facade was the dishonesty. now, I reveal to the world the reality of my heart, knowing full well I’ll get the sort of reaction I got here, or worse, but nevertheless at peace knowing that i am – for the first time in my life – being authentic. While I do believe it is wise to not be intimate with anyone without disclosing your history (for the sake of your own safety if nothing else) I see no reason at all that the checkout clerk or the hairdresser needs to be informed of one’s private medical history, and I would disagree with the assumption that to allow that man or woman to assume they are dealing with a woman is dishonest because, as i see it, i AM a woman so the face i show them IS authentic.
now, I understand that if you start with the premise that the claim to womanhood is false, then all that follows after is dishonest – that’s your right. But if you wish to understand the claim of honesty -where that claim comes from – you can only do so by putting yourself in my shoes.
I could believe myself, with all my mind and soul, to be a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater. I could believe it with all I am. Yet if I were to have surgery to remove one of my eyes, and center the other on my face, graft a “horn” on my forehead, and then believing I could fly, jumped off a bridge, people would rightly label me as nuts, and if I survived, I would be committed to a mental hospital. Why? Because in reality I am a human male, not a make-believe monster from an old song. Scripture does not deal with “transgender” issues, thus to conclude that it must be ok is a fallacy. Scripture does not talk about drunk driving, but we can extrapolate from scripture that to do so is wrong, that it is a sin. Scripture is clear that homosexuality, a man sleeping with a man as he would a woman, and vice versa, is a sin. Scripture is also clear that things such as cross dressing is a sin. We can thus extrapolate that surgically modifying your body to change your gender, is sinful. Just because you “believe” yourself to be a different gender does not make that true. Several people on this board have tried to communicate with you in love. But, you don’t see that, you see them calling your actions sin, and take it as an attack. In a way, that is true. It is an attack on your sin nature that is incompatible with life and service to Christ Jesus. Just as an alcoholics continued drinking is not, just as a homosexual’s continued sleeping with same sex people, just as a heterosexual continued sleeping outside of the bonds of marriage, just as people who continue to consume pornography even when they know it to be wrong. I would say that not confronting you would be LESS love towards you, as it would leave you in a state in which you cannot serve Christ Jesus, and may not truly know Him. Those who are saved, while they will still stumble, have a passion and drive to overcome their sins. A Christian is not perfect, but they try to be. And that means recognizing the sin in your life. Living as a woman, when God created you as a man is sin. You need to see that, you need… Read more »
Well said, SVMuschany.
“people would rightly label me as nuts” Excerpt from the big book of analogy fail? I’m sorry, i do not mean to be rude but if i’ve heard one attempt to engage in a creative analogy, I’ve hear a thousand and each and every time they fail on one simple point. which is this: there are naturally occurring biological processes which operate on every human fetus ever conceived which determine the extent of their maleness or femaleness – over 99% of the time resulting in a clearly male or clearly female result. On the other hand, there is NO biological process which may result in a human mother giving birth to a cat, or an alien, or a table, or a mythological creature. Thus, there is no conceivable possibility that a delusion that one is any of those things might be credible, but by contrast their is a logical, rational, scientifically supported, process whereby one may have what they claim to have when they say they have a brain that does not align with their genitals. “Scripture does not deal with “transgender” issues, thus to conclude that it must be ok is a fallacy. ” Assuming that’s the only premise supporting your position, it is indeed. likewise, assuming it must be impressionable based only on that would be a fallacy. ” Scripture is clear that homosexuality, a man sleeping with a man as he would a woman, and vice versa, is a sin. ” not every Christian agrees with that, but even if we assume this is true, it fails to support your view because it is not a given that one who transitions will engage in intimate relations with people of the same sex which they appeared to be at birth. “Scripture is also clear that things such as cross dressing is a sin.” Based on ONE verse, from the same book (the same chapter?) that says you should not wear clothing of mixed fabrics. why doe the crossdressing rule apply and not the fabric rule? Moreover, if a woman puts on her husband’s shirt to do yard work, is she an abomination before God? ” We can thus extrapolate that surgically modifying your body to change your gender, is sinful. Just because you “believe” yourself to be a different gender does not make that true. ” Logically you cannot make that leap and the desire to do so… Read more »
Once again your eisegesis is terrible. Just because scripture does not speak to an issue, does not mean we cannot determine from other scripture what is sin and what his not. Moderationists and abolitionists can disagree over whether it is right or wrong to drink alcohol in moderation. BOTH however can agree that driving after drinking IS wrong, IS sin. And yet the bible DOES NOT talk about driving, or driving drunk or anything close to that. So how can we determine that drinking and driving is wrong! By your logic we cannot because it is not addressed in scripture. That assumption is wrong. There are many morality items we deal with today in society that are not addressed in scripture. But we CAN use similar and related issues in Scripture to come to firm and biblical positions.
But it is clear you don’t care. You accuse us of being close minded, yet you are yourself. Otherwise you would listen to our arguments. You don’t want a debate, you want to puff yourself up and pat yourself on the back when your preformed assumptions based on faulty biblical eisegesis (note eisegesis not exegesis) are affirmed because we did not address the issues as YOU decide they should be addressed. And now you will go back to your page and your friends who support your views and look back and use this experience to promote your views on the “close-minded” SBC folk, all the while you never gave a view that contradicted your own a chance.
Can you say “drinking and driving is wrong”?
Absolutely!
What you CANNOT say is that “The bible clearly teaches that drinking and driving is wrong.”
If you want to say transsexual transition is wrong based on human reasoning, then state your case – but the word “sin” won’t be relevant to that case.
As for the rest – you seem to be growing more and more hostile. Are you disappointed that I didn’t live down to your predictions? you seem to be committed to assigning motivations and positions to me that are not true (and by the way, attacking the character of your opponent is a logical fallacy)
I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that I never gave your views a chance when i HELD those views myself – and preached them! – for 20 years. I’m not sure how much more of a chance they need to have.
But hey, let’s lay that aside and look at this – you attempted a case from Scripture, I offered counterpoints…out of direct affirmation and respect for the fact that you did attempt to make your case.
did YOU respect MY rebuttal enough to take up the points i made and show why they were inaccurate? did you even acknowledge them?
Nope – you just shout “closed minded!” and attack my motives.
Bad form preacher. do you wish to have an exchange of ideas, or do you wish to belittle me until I fulfill your prediction and run away? If it’s the latter i should go ahead and give you a heads up, making me “run away” from any debate, particularly one I feel passionately about, is virtually impossible. I’m not entirely certain it’s ever been done. I’m like a dog with a bone, I’ll hold on to it LONG after everyone has given up trying to take it from me – and by “it” i do not mean my conviction that i am right, I mean my willingness to stay in the arena of ideas and find out who’s right. So if it is your motivation to browbeat me off this discussion, all i can say is gird up your loins and pack a lunch.
In response to your previous post i met hostility with grace – I shall endeavor to continue to do that, but I will also continue to point out weak argumentation when it appears..
” Scripture is clear that homosexuality…” Not all Christians agree even on that, just as a point of order. It never gets old to watch people say “Scripture is clear that…” about something other Christians do not find there. To repeat a previous point, some Christians argue that “Scripture is clear that you must be baptized in order to be saved” but obviously if it were clear, there would be no dispute. “but we can extrapolate from scripture…” Then do so. Invoking homosexual acts, even if you are right on that, does not qualify because (a) the post-op woman can choose to be celibate; or (b) the post op woman can happen to interact with the sex you approve of them interacting with (whichever that would be). Citing crossdressing doesn’t do it because it derives from the assumption that it is a MAN who is dressing as a woman, or vice versa (and yet, our culture has NO problem if a woman puts on a pair of overalls to go to work, or a man’s shirt to go out and wash the car which provokes a question i don’t have time to get into) but if the starting point is that one’s brain defines one’s sex (which is the scientific and logical reality) then there’s no man there and the crossdressing point loses relevance, to the extent it ever had it. also, by the way, the same book which says “a man shall not wear the clothes of a woman” also says “you shall not wear garments of mixed fabrics (the same chapter even, IIRC) – why do we cling to the former and ignore the latter? how is that “clear”? “have tried to communicate with you in love. But, you don’t see that ” On the contrary – I absolutely do. i wonder if you consider my comments also to be offered in love, just as much in effort to lead a brother or sister out of doctrinal error as theirs are? We disagree. for the most part (with a few exceptions, though the number is growing) we have discussed respectfully and in Christian love. is it required that i surrender my views, though unconviced, in order to prove that I see love and concern? “your sin nature that is incompatible with life and service to Christ Jesus.” Again. Y’all can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact… Read more »
You have in this very post made it clear that if I, or anyone here were to present the verses that CLEARLY speak against homosexuality, you would say, just as you did, that that is just “one interpretation” and ignore what we say. You don’t really care for scripture, you are using it as a prop because you know no one can show you anything that you already have not developed an opinion on. You have closed your mind and your heart. But seeing as you will puff yourself up against us silly conservatives because we are “not providing scripture”, lets do this. Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” I assume, sir, that you, now in your persona of a woman, wear dresses? When we make clear about cultural differences in dress (i.e. Scottish Kilts are NOT skirts or dresses), a man wearing, in his culture, garb that is clearly defined as for a woman, it is wrong, it is sin. There is no other interpretation of this verse. Romans 1:24ff “Therefore God gave them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” And if you follow Paul for the rest of the chapter, you see that he clearly associates homosexuality with other sins. Seeing then as he puts them all together again in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 and in 1st Timothy 1:8-11. Now in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, that no matter what you think, is a slam dunk, after you read and look at the greek. Paul uses 4 DIFFERENT words here to refer to sexual perversion. (Forgive me as I don’t know how to format this to use Greek type so it will be transliteration). pornos – one who… Read more »
“You have in this very post made it clear that if I, or anyone here were to present the verses that CLEARLY speak against homosexuality, you would say, just as you did, that that is just “one interpretation” and ignore what we say.” Not at all. Rather I would repeat to you what i said in my first post – being transsexual is a wholly different thing than being homosexual, and a transsexual transition does not correspond one to one with ANY sexual act at all. You have, in your first sentence, assumed a fact that is not only not in evidence, but is clearly demonstrable to be untrue. it’s a shaky foundation upon which to begin to build your case. That said, it is objectively true that not all Christians agree with your doctrine on that point. But since homosexuality is not the issue on the table, that’s not relevant. “You don’t really care for scripture, you are using it as a prop because you know no one can show you anything that you already have not developed an opinion on. You have closed your mind and your heart.” my mind and my heart were indeed closed, once in my life, for decades on end. here’s the point you are overlooking – only ONE person in this thread has been able to testify that they opened their Bible and studied the issue with the acceptance of the possibility that what they had always believed to be God’s truth MAY have been in error. Have you EVER done that? on ANY doctrine? the reason i am not on your side of this debate this very hour is precisely BECAUSE i opened my mind and put my traditional views on the chopping block and said “let me seek the actual truth, not the “truth” I want. In plainer terms – i WANT to be a “normal” man, not a pariah; I WANT to be able to walk into a church and receive love and acceptance, not scorn ridicule and rejection; I WANT to avoid $40k or more in expenses to complete a physical transition when I do very darn well to pay my electric bill every month; I WANT to be able to use the degree which I owe $18K for to teach school or minister in the church, both of which are impossible to me now; I WANT to not… Read more »
let me throw a fresh train of thought out there for consideration: Here are some objective facts about the subject at hand: 1. no one who hasn’t experienced can relate to it. I don’t just mean not UNDERSTAND it, I mean they have no frame of reference, no proper analogy even, to wrap their head around what it must be like. Not only in the gender identity itself. but what having that condition implies for us in the context of a culture which completely rejects you. Let’s admit it – it is very easy to dismiss the reality and validity of a thing you can’t comprehend on even the most basic level. A persons sense of self, including their sense of their sex, is pretty much the most intrinsic reality in their experience – if you don’t know from experience what it is to have conflict between your inner sense of self and your outward appearance, you don’t have anything in your experience that you can refer to and say “it must be something like this” 2. until the last half century, science hadn’t bothered to give us any sort of research on the condition and it wasn’t until the last 20 years or so that we’ve begun to get a handle on the biology of it. For all of human history previous to that, there was no evidence to support the conclusion that it was anything more than a mental dysfunction (I recognize many still believe it to be, but the overwhelming majority of trained professionals acquainted with the science find the evidence which supports a biological origin credible. 3. it is self evident, and has been conceded by those who disagree with me that the Bible contains no overt reference to transsexuality and any doctrinal statement (pro or con) on the subject must be based n inference from other principles. As with all such doctrinal debates, the discussion is informed by the collective wisdom of the church down through the centuries. the church is prone to stick with the traditional views unless strongly motivated to do otherwise. This sort of thinking leads to silly debates about the order of worship even, let alone real doctrinal shifts (as was necessary in reaction to the civil rights movement, for instance). Logical inference: Given then, that the church is prone to allow their pre-assumptions to be informed by the traditional views… Read more »
“no one who hasn’t experienced can relate to it.”
That dog just won’t hunt, Tammy. That is like saying that no one who has not been set on fire can relate to it. The truth is, that any person who knows anything about fire in any form can relate to it without ever being set on fire.
The same is true with your situation. The truth is, that any person who knows anything about sin in any form can relate to your situation without ever being in the same situation.
You see, Tammy. Once a person has truly been convicted, by the Holy Spirit, of the realities of sin and its consequences, that person can relate to the terrible reality of sin no matter what form it takes.
Again, you may rationalize all your want, ’til the sky falls from the heavens and the mountains turn to jell-o, but you will still be in an alien position to revealed, biblical truth.
this is the last time I’m going to repeat this correction to those who are repeating the error over and over again. You do not advance your argument one millimeter by declaring it is sin without demonstrating it is sin. If you have a mustache and a preacher comes up to you and says “Mustaches are sinful! Shave it off!” will you say “”gosh, i had no idea!” and grab your razor? or will you want to see some evidence?
“That is like saying that no one who has not been set on fire can relate to it.”
I would agree with that. You can intellectualize the idea of it but if you haven’t felt the pain of it, you can’t imagine what it must be like. So say those who have been anyway. i certainly can’t imagine it.