BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Guy's Only (Membergroup Specific) => Topic started by: Aijalon on March 17, 2022, 10:41:24 AM
-
A thread for discussion, confession or prayer.
Preoccupied with thoughts of....[your vice here]
Could be Junk Food, Tobacco, Fantasy Sports..... Might be fun to argue about the official BF list of vices. :D (FWIW I endorse responsible substance use, including cannabis.... a discussion for another thread) Abuse of prescription narcotics, anti depressants, and over the counter drugs as forms of drug abuse are on the table too. ANYTHING that becomes habitual and harms your conscience or sound reasoning is on the table here.
I have had to deal with all of the issues mentioned above at one time or another, and not immune yet. As my body gives out and I crave release from the aches and pains, depression... it is a temptation to resort to prescription drugs, tobacco....
A guy story:
A friend is dying of incurable brain cancer. He formerly smoked a pipe. He took up the pipe smoking again because his time is short..... I got him a tin of tobacco, he didn't like it and he gave it back to me! So I dabble with smoking a pipe now!
-
We are instructed by Paul that we are to take every thought captive.
So, when we allow ANYTHING to preoccupy our thoughts without conscious effort, we sin.
TV, reading, facebook, TIkTok, whatever...
We are to redeem the time....
I strongly and highly recommend we give that consideration.
-
As the song goes:
But on the word 'vice', this suggests moral depravity. Is this meant as discussion towards the resolution of such depravity, or do we mean 'vice' colloquially, tongue-in-cheek, as it were? Though it seems not:
"ANYTHING that becomes habitual and harms your conscience or sound reasoning is on the table here."
But are the things already mentioned in the OP in fact vices necessarily? Hmm. And am I even meant to be here. :) Questions, questions.
But like RK was saying.
-
A thread for discussion, confession or prayer.
Preoccupied with thoughts of....[your vice here]
Could be Junk Food, Tobacco, Fantasy Sports..... Might be fun to argue about the official BF list of vices. :D (FWIW I endorse responsible substance use, including cannabis.... a discussion for another thread) Abuse of prescription narcotics, anti depressants, and over the counter drugs as forms of drug abuse are on the table too. ANYTHING that becomes habitual and harms your conscience or sound reasoning is on the table here.
I have had to deal with all of the issues mentioned above at one time or another, and not immune yet
Nobody is immune, and nobody has "arrived." However, the thing to do is to get out of the thing by lowering its attachment to you. You have to be able to walk away from the temptation.
Walking away is just a matter of obeying the moment. You could be rescued by a phone call, or by a need to get something to eat. The problem is when we get so attached to things that it controls us. If someone is getting to us, we need to be able to go read a book.
I find that if I just focus on the path in front of me, things can't distract me too much. But yes, I can get easily addicted to things. Today, I try not to let anything control me, although I'm fully aware that there are things in me I can't just throw out the door.
Some problems are perennial and are part of us, such as anger, jealousy, covetousness, and lust. These things are dealt with sometimes only a day at a time.
-
But are the things already mentioned in the OP in fact vices necessarily?
Vice is taken to mean an illegal activity, and in this case, spiritually. I mentioned the conscience because I don't believe in a hard and fast set of vices for Christians. Some things are dependent on your personal comfort level, there are grey areas. (1 Cor 8:12).
To put it bluntly.... if I see an advertisement that features a barely clothed super model... I don't close my eyes or feel ashamed that I may have committed adultery. But I'm over 40, married a while, and have teenage girls. A 15 year old may have a harder time erasing that imagery and being fixated on it and commanding his flesh. He might want to masturbate to clear his mind (won't work). Me, no, I go about my day and feel just fine with underwear commercials, spiritually that is (nuisance that they are). :o
-
Vice is taken to mean an illegal activity, and in this case, spiritually.
That's a fancy way of saying 'sin', but yes, I got that. Hence my question, which you replied to, which you get to below.
I mentioned the conscience because I don't believe in a hard and fast set of vices for Christians. Some things are dependent on your personal comfort level, there are grey areas. (1 Cor 8:12).
If only some things are dependent, and there are other things that aren't, then surely those speak towards a set of 'hard and fast ... vices'? Whatever those things may be. What I was getting at is that some of the things mentioned aren't sin necessarily, so how do those fit into the current discussion? I think probably we have things that depend on conscience, and things that aren't sin but aren't beneficial, and things that are sin, and things that qualify as a 'hard and fast set of vices', and so on.
To put it bluntly... if I see an advertisement that features a barely clothed supermodel... I don't close my eyes or feel ashamed that I may have committed adultery. But I'm over 40, married a while, and have teenage girls.
A 15 year old may have a harder time erasing that imagery and being fixated on it and commanding his flesh. He might want to masturbate to clear his mind (won't work). Me, no, I go about my day and feel just fine with underwear commercials, spiritually that is (nuisance that they are). :o
That's a bit of a random example, but yes, incredible the effect reduced/reducing testosterone levels can have on a person. Maturity too, I'm sure. Are there many advertisements with barely clothed supermodels? I haven't noticed. I'm my own moral dilemma, anyway.
So I suppose this is an instance of setting an example, avoiding things that aren't sin but aren't beneficial, being wise generally, and so on.
Hmm. How does this thread qualify as a distraction?
-
At any rate, I often find myself praying for the struggling brother. Not that I haven't struggled.
-
We are instructed by Paul that we are to take every thought captive.
So, when we allow ANYTHING to preoccupy our thoughts without conscious effort, we sin.
TV, reading, facebook, TIkTok, whatever...
We are to redeem the time....
I strongly and highly recommend we give that consideration.
Indeed.
As Christians we allow ourselves (by the new life that is planted in us) that our conscience is re-programmed by Biblical principles. I very well remember the battlefield the first years after my conversion dealing with my old life, what to drop (the things I liked) and the things I had to do as a Christian, things I disliked. But the new life overcame.
And yet while the years passed and knowledge increased I realized that certain things I dropped weren't sins at all and vice versa, I changed my mind about some of the things I had to do but that there actually wasn't a sound Biblical reason for that.
All in all, a re-programmed conscience is a must, it's not perfect, but it's all I have. I could be wrong on many issues.
As for the question in the OP, I would have done the same, let him smoke his pipe if it comforts him in his last days, love covers many sins and smoking isn't even a sin, just a bad habit.
-
Many years ago as a young Christian I was convicted of the music I was listening to. I was a 80's/90's metalhead. Was the music a sin? No, but God had plans that didn't include that music. I've come to find that the mind is a fertile field. What you plant there determines the fruit that it bears.
Years later, I now understand why that conviction was there. God speaks to me through music...which is odd that I am a non-musician. I can't sing or even clap my hands on beat. Still there have been many times that I've had a question or struggling with something and God speaks clearly through the music I have on. There's just been countless spiritual landmarks in my life of God moving in this way. I'm glad I listened those many years ago.
-
Many years ago as a young Christian I was convicted of the music I was listening to. I was a 80's/90's metalhead. Was the music a sin? No, but God had plans that didn't include that music. I've come to find that the mind is a fertile field. What you plant there determines the fruit that it bears.
Years later, I now understand why that conviction was there. God speaks to me through music...which is odd that I am a non-musician. I can't sing or even clap my hands on beat. Still there have been many times that I've had a question or struggling with something and God speaks clearly through the music I have on. There's just been countless spiritual landmarks in my life of God moving in this way. I'm glad I listened those many years ago.
Yes, Music is a big deal in Western culture. A part of my birth family were very musical, and the other part partly musical. I was in the part much less musical. And so, I loved music, but didn't perform it. You may not paint, but you'll still hang art work on your walls!
Much that is in Western culture now is post-Christian, so there is bound to be some conflicts in the Christian's conscience. When I recommitted to Christ, I had to dispose of some of the art and music that I had--it sent the wrong signals.
It's very troubling when you're raising children because they want to be accepted in public schools. I home-schooled one of my children, and she became somewhat deprived of cultural information that later was important for her to be accepted at work.
But basically, I like what you say. We need to surround ourselves with good material, or we may wander. And others need to decide for themselves what influences they need, whether to become informed about our culture or to be entertained for various reasons.
I sometimes listen to an old song because I find some value behind the corruption. Some listen because they are musicians developing new techniques and hope to follow new trends.
Some years back I actually took a fun class at the local community college on Rock N Roll, and that opened a door for discussions like the one we're having here. ;)
-
Speaking of questionable music, (the band) Ghost released Impera recently. There are some very well crafted songs, and I'll admit to listening. Obviously, they have songs I won't touch, and they have songs that could pass off as (Christian) worship music if you aren't paying attention. Well, the choir soundtrack to the game Far Cry 5 was good for that too.
Ghost for those who don't know is a faux-Satanic Swedish rock/metal band. I'm not convicted of that (I also wonder what analogies there are between something like this, and Alice Cooper back in the day), and I also don't go around listening to them in public. But I also don't go around listening to top 10 radio either, because there's plenty of arguably Satanic material there as well. The difference is one knows it's a shock act, the other doesn't.
I grew up in a home where all so-called secular music was thrown away when I was a few months old, and so with the exception of Neil Diamond, I grew up under the expectation that I would only ever listen to Christian music. And there's plenty of good Christian music, or there was. But I guess I'm the reaction. There is absolutely stuff I won't listen to (like actual, actual, Satanic music, and top 40 radio), but I think most of the time it falls under 'be wise'.
Christians of my parents age often talk about that conviction to get rid of music, and then they regret it, and their kids grow up with this idea that music isn't just music. It has to always be a spiritual battleground, and if it's not Christian it's a bad influence. Well if I want to listen to Jim Croce or Tommy Emmanuel then lacking any divine conviction I'm going to.
Also, music has helped me through a lot. I'm the kind of person that can put on headphones, sit or lie down, and get lost in the sound. I know very well the influence and the pull. I don't treat it lightly.
-
Ghost for those who don't know is a faux-Satanic Swedish rock/metal band.
I recently heard some songs from a Swedish...I think they're Swedish...band Sabaton. It was playing at the gym I go to. I liked it enough to lookup some of their songs. Even learned some history of that part of Europe I had never heard. Winged Hussars is a thing!
-
I grew up in a home where all so-called secular music was thrown away when I was a few months old, and so with the exception of Neil Diamond, I grew up under the expectation that I would only ever listen to Christian music. And there's plenty of good Christian music, or there was. But I guess I'm the reaction. There is absolutely stuff I won't listen to (like actual, actual, Satanic music, and top 40 radio), but I think most of the time it falls under 'be wise'.
I find and have discussed with my kids some secular songs that could be sung in a way that have Christian themes. Like Hoobastank's The Reason. If you watch the video it's obvious the band didn't intend it to be taken in a Christian context. The Reason is not Christ to them. But look at just these few lyrics...
I'm not a perfect person
There's many things I wish I didn't do
But I continue learning
I never meant to do those things to you
And so, I have to say before I go
That I just want you to know
I've found a reason for me
To change who I used to be
A reason to start over new
And the reason is you
We kinda like to do that with other secular songs as well.
-
Growing up I was taught a fairly black-and-white view of people, and it seems that still largely persists, especially in North American Evangelicalism. Christians are good, and everyone else is fundamentally bad. Which, of course, doesn't allow for the nuance of reality: a lot of those bad people, just like the Christians who forget they were, or maybe are, bad people too, are trying to figure their lives out. It's too easy to think that if someone isn't a Christian there's nothing of value on offer. Especially music. But why should that be the case? There are plenty of issues, for instance, that don't require a uniquely Christian perspective to speak on. It's also too easy to think that if someone is Christian everything is of value.
I can't stand 'The Reason'. :) Mind you, I'd listen to that over the largely Hillsongified Christian music scene. I blame CCM for that. I don't want to listen to persecution-porn worship music 24/7. Or like, at all. It's interesting where we've come, from Glenn Kaiser's view of the Christian musician to musicians who are Christian but don't describe their music as 'Christian music'. I like Flyleaf was the last overtly Christian band I really enjoyed. Maybe these days it's 21 Pilots, or NF.
Besides, most Christians these days look at me funny so the draw to conform for the sake of the local community isn't exactly paramount.
-
It's all about judgmentalism, or not. Christians cross the entire field, but without the advantage of having a majority anymore. Somewhat suppressed commercially, the offering Christians have would naturally be limited. That turned off my step-son.
But there's plenty there for the Christian who loves music and wants to use it for various reasons, worship, entertainment, art, background music, etc. There's a huge gap between Christian Rock Music and Worship Music.
But to ignore the fact the majority out there don't know Christ, and yet wish to express themselves through art, entertain others, or simply make a living, is ridiculous. They should be recognized for the legitimate reasons they have.
You don't have to buy the music or attend the concerts. But you can certainly get an earful wherever you go for your social input. And quality music is pretty easy to spot.
There's music that has less vocal and words, and it still reflects a Christian or a non-Christian feel. I tend to listen to jazz at times, while in the car, simply because I like the style, and it doesn't threaten me with evil messages.
When I'm on a flight, I might tune into an oldie that I liked in my more "pagan" days. It's called "nostalgia." But I'm careful to not get too carried away! ;)
-
It's all about judgmentalism, or not. Christians cross the entire field, but without the advantage of having a majority anymore. Somewhat suppressed commercially, the offering Christians have would naturally be limited. That turned off my step-son.
But there's plenty there for the Christian who loves music and wants to use it for various reasons, worship, entertainment, art, background music, etc. There's a huge gap between Christian Rock Music and Worship Music.
The thing is, I don't want to listen to only Christian metal or Hillsong worship redux #6099. There are still plenty of Christian metal bands putting out stuff, even if Christians are "suppressed commercially", which, I'm not sure is any more the case today than it was back in the day. (Glenn Kaiser and Dale Thompson used to talk about that; Neon Cross and DC Talk sang about it, etc. etc.) "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music"? Well, Larry...
Growing up I could listen to Rez, Bride, Deliverance, Neon Cross, Crashdog, Antestor, etc., or Newsboys, Audio Adrenaline, Delirious?, DC Talk, Jars of Clay, etc., without every song being a worship song. Today? Well, we have every non-metal group doing something like this:
You know, the guys who used to do...
And even when they were singing about being called fools (honestly, I don't remember the last time anyone called me a fool for being Christian) it wasn't to the tune of Sunday morning worship:
It probably doesn't help that I've grown tired of this "oh poor me I'm a Christian in the West oh boo hoo look people are calling me names and they're persecuting me see look I've broken out into hives". It's just too much of a surface level excuse to write worshippy sounding music without getting anywhere near existential enough.
Of course I realise that there are other Christian music groups and it's not really a strict either/or. I'm just being a little curmudgeon. Those groups just aren't doing it for me. And I've tried. I've even gone down the various Wiki lists for years looking for something.
When I'm on a flight, I might tune into an oldie that I liked in my more "pagan" days. It's called "nostalgia." But I'm careful to not get too carried away! ;)
Oh do be careful or else you might find yourself stomping your foot to CCR! Or... Queensryche :O
-
I think we should sing the Doobies “Takin it to the street” as our invitation song each week
-
The thing is, I don't want to listen to only Christian metal or Hillsong worship redux #6099. There are still plenty of Christian metal bands putting out stuff, even if Christians are "suppressed commercially", which, I'm not sure is any more the case today than it was back in the day. (Glenn Kaiser and Dale Thompson used to talk about that; Neon Cross and DC Talk sang about it, etc. etc.) "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music"? Well, Larry...
Growing up I could listen to Rez, Bride, Deliverance, Neon Cross, Crashdog, Antestor, etc., or Newsboys, Audio Adrenaline, Delirious?, DC Talk, Jars of Clay, etc., without every song being a worship song. Today? Well, we have every non-metal group doing something like this:
You know, the guys who used to do...
And even when they were singing about being called fools (honestly, I don't remember the last time anyone called me a fool for being Christian) it wasn't to the tune of Sunday morning worship:
It probably doesn't help that I've grown tired of this "oh poor me I'm a Christian in the West oh boo hoo look people are calling me names and they're persecuting me see look I've broken out into hives". It's just too much of a surface level excuse to write worshippy sounding music without getting anywhere near existential enough.
Of course I realise that there are other Christian music groups and it's not really a strict either/or. I'm just being a little curmudgeon. Those groups just aren't doing it for me. And I've tried. I've even gone down the various Wiki lists for years looking for something.
When I'm on a flight, I might tune into an oldie that I liked in my more "pagan" days. It's called "nostalgia." But I'm careful to not get too carried away! ;)
Oh do be careful or else you might find yourself stomping your foot to CCR! Or... Queensryche :O
I hear that. All good points. Sometimes CCM becomes a bit too generic, but you can expect spirituality to find creative new ways of expressing both art and spirituality. I don't find myself stomping my feet to Freddie Mercury and "We are the Champions."
In my personal life, I find an inherent revulsion towards some forms of spirituality simply because my carnal nature gravitates away from it. When I persist in being "odd and boring," I usually am glad I persisted.
Rich Mullen never shied away from churchianity in his poetic images, and laid out his spirituality in a very artistic, interesting style. Spiritual profundity need not be boring. But I never want to degrade a particular style or way of delivering the message because we are all different and at different places.
-
I think we should sing the Doobies “Takin it to the street” as our invitation song each week
I don't. I think there is always going to be something that is uncomfortable and "boring" about Christianity, and we should embrace that. Orthodox Jews never feel ashamed bowing their heads at the Wailing Wall, and we shouldn't feel ashamed lifting our hands in worship or bowing on our knees in prayer.
There's something inherently humbling about Christianity, largely because our eyes are wide open and we're looking at the Creator in the most respectful, submissive way possible. The world doesn't know it, and I don't expect them to act like it. But we are witnesses.
I've long pointed out what I read from Maureen Gaglardi's book on the Tabernacle, that the Tabernacle looked "boring" and "unimpressive." To the outside world, if it could even see into the courtyard, the Tabernacle was covered in badger skin, or something like that. It was unimpressive.
But inside, Maureen pointed out that the walls were lined with gold or pictures of angels. And the light was not natural, appearing to come from God alone. The bread was His own special provision to us, and unlike the world's trips to the supermarket.
We're going to be "weird" if we choose to "love one another," like Christ told us to. We might as well get used to being "weirdos?"
We're going to have to embrace all kinds of Christians, little ones, tall ones, popular ones, and unpopular ones, and ones of all stages of spiritual development. We need to openly encourage that kind of unity in diversity--family life across many cultures. The missionaries had a headache trying to figure out how to do that.
But I fully understand what you're saying. My brother was a pastor who set out to make the Gospel appealing in the world's language. That also is a big task. We need to communicate in a way that others--not just Christians--understand.
And we dare not treat the world's interests with contempt, knowing that they're only living in the light of what they know--not in the light of what they don't know. If we're to reach them with the message of Eternal Life, we won't do it by denigrating their music, art, and entertainment.
And we definitely need to keep our sense of humor....
-
Anything aside from 80's pop is not "real music" in my opinion. 8)
-
Anything aside from 80's pop is not "real music" in my opinion. 8)
That's a hot take from someone who just wants to have fuuuuunnnnnnn
-
We might as well get used to being "weirdos?"
The Christians I know - IRL - like to think so, but when faced with someone truly 'weird' they go a bit quiet and gets a bit shifty. Most of them, anyway. Too much talk, too little living.
-
I hear that. All good points. Sometimes CCM becomes a bit too generic, but you can expect spirituality to find creative new ways of expressing both art and spirituality. I don't find myself stomping my feet to Freddie Mercury and "We are the Champions."
I think most people do that to "We Will Rock You". :)
In my personal life, I find an inherent revulsion towards some forms of spirituality simply because my carnal nature gravitates away from it. When I persist in being "odd and boring," I usually am glad I persisted.
Oh yeah? Okay. You're anything but boring.
Rich Mullen never shied away from churchianity in his poetic images, and laid out his spirituality in a very artistic, interesting style. Spiritual profundity need not be boring. But I never want to degrade a particular style or way of delivering the message because we are all different and at different places.
The problem I've always had with singing worship on Sunday is that I knew how the people around me lived the rest of the week. Well, and then everyone likes to cut up Rich Mullins' songs anyway:
Judgement and wrath He poured out on Sodom
Mercy and grace He gave us at the cross
I hope that you have not
Too quickly forgotten that
Our God is an awesome God
But people don't really live like it, and Sodom wasn't the only place where God poured out his judgment and wrath. That happened at the cross, too.
I'm just not satisfied with the Sunday morning performance anymore. But it's not like I've been to church recently anyway.
-
I hear that. All good points. Sometimes CCM becomes a bit too generic, but you can expect spirituality to find creative new ways of expressing both art and spirituality. I don't find myself stomping my feet to Freddie Mercury and "We are the Champions."
I think most people do that to "We Will Rock You". :)
Well, just don't try to do it to Bohemian Rhapsody! ;)
But yes, I should've said, "Rock you."
The problem I've always had with singing worship on Sunday is that I knew how the people around me lived the rest of the week. Well, and then everyone likes to cut up Rich Mullins' songs anyway:
Judgement and wrath He poured out on Sodom
Mercy and grace He gave us at the cross
I hope that you have not
Too quickly forgotten that
Our God is an awesome God
But people don't really live like it, and Sodom wasn't the only place where God poured out his judgment and wrath. That happened at the cross, too.
I'm just not satisfied with the Sunday morning performance anymore. But it's not like I've been to church recently anyway.
One of my best friends was a pastor's son whose emotionally-troubled Mother was born of Jewish heritage. (Vernon was technically both a Christian and a Jew.)
Vernon had exactly the same attitude you do. He said, Randy, you just don't know. The travelling evangelists who came through my father's church were not what you think they were. I knew the whole story.
Well, I think people are just human, and they capitulate to the temptation to showmanship from the pulpit, including musical evangelists. But I don't hate fallen or weak ministers--I actually try to be a support for them to remain real, and be who they really are, imperfections and all.
That had the potential of speaking volumes more than a thousand stereotypical preachers. But I support them all just because--because they're fighting an invisible war that most people are too cowardly to fight.
But the world is fighting fights like that too. And they need to be recognized. It really does touch your soul sometimes.
That's one reason I gravitate towards the blues--I did a report on Eric Clapton in my Rock N Roll class. Quite an adventure he went thru! So music can not just imitate life, but be life too...as long as it stays real.
I loved Larry Norman's "blues" album. A great song was "Hard Luck and Bad News."
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=youtube+larry+norman+hard+luck&fr=yhs-iba-syn&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asb%2Crgn%3Atop&ei=UTF-8#id=2&vid=4c829dd774d7c21d93f5b8a84fc799e1&action=view
-
Well, just don't try to do it to Bohemian Rhapsody! ;)
But yes, I should've said, "Rock you."
Maybe one day I'll talk about a series of 'nightmares' I had for about a month. The same scenario, night after night, that built on the night before. More a lucid nightmare that wasn't of my own creation. Speaking of Bohemian Rhapsody.
Vernon had exactly the same attitude you do. He said, Randy, you just don't know. The travelling evangelists who came through my father's church were not what you think they were. I knew the whole story.
Maybe, maybe not. I understand all too well that people will never live up to the ideals they sing, and that life is messy and complicated. I've had my fair share of run-ins with travelling evangelists, so-called apologists, and purported exorcists of the worst kind. My issue is those who half-heartedly mutter "I believe" against the backdrop of a life that echoes something else back.
I think, having met Jesus, I'm looking for that in Christians that I've thought for decades would push me away if they really knew me, and who haven't yet proven me wrong.
-
I think, having met Jesus, I'm looking for that in Christians that I've thought for decades would push me away if they really knew me, and who haven't yet proven me wrong.
Do I sense recent changes going on? I do pray.
-
Do I sense recent changes going on? I do pray.
Thanks. :)
Well, I've had to give up keeping my experience of dysphoria a secret because the results of HRT now can't be hidden. So hey! Eyes up here...
Unfortunately, the Christians I know IRL aren't the amazing lot you all are, so if I'm not met with earnest curiosity it's accusatory suspicion, and the latter has been the case more than the former. You know, a destroyed relationship with my parents, pastors who've stopped talking to me, 'friends' who pull a "oh if it makes you happy I guess" then disappear. Just, people who make assumptions and don't seem interested in wanting to understand. Or my wife is approached as if I'm doing some terrible thing to us, or something. The aesthetics of that are... ahem.
It's that there are these examples I have in the back of my mind from when I was growing up in church, and someone was discovered to be gay, or something and that was it for them. Nasty things were said, they weren't treated well, and that's how I've always assumed the church would react to me. And in part that is how it's reacting to me. And those are just the Christians I knew.
I mean, aside from here the only Christians who haven't taken off or considered me the deceived spawn of Satan are a missionary, a psychologist, and an apologist. My church dynamic is forever changed. Better to have been just a regular old drunk or wife beater. Or glutton. Or gossip. Or I don't know, my parents would have preferred cancer. So it's just a lot.
-
A missionary, a psychologist, and an apologist walk into a bar…
Geez that’s the start of a horrible joke….
You are loved, “sibling “….
😱
-
So, the only thing that changed is the HRT, administered for health issues, resulting in unwanted physiological effects - and the judgments of others in the faith community.
Your family - wife and son - is okay(?).
(https://i.ibb.co/5vWhcQs/http-com-ft-imagepublish-upp-prod-eu-s3-amazonaws.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pZvjXH4)
-
The problem with many people is that they first have to experience themselves before they understand. From Christians one may expect: don't judge what you don't understand.
-
So, the only thing that changed is the HRT, administered for health issues, resulting in unwanted physiological effects - and the judgments of others in the faith community.
Your family - wife and son - is okay(?).
(https://i.ibb.co/5vWhcQs/http-com-ft-imagepublish-upp-prod-eu-s3-amazonaws.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pZvjXH4)
Well, let's say the physiological effects aren't entirely unwanted (ahem they're uh kinda quite wanted), just, not the desired ideal outcome. The mental effect of the HRT itself has been extraordinarily beneficial, especially contrasted with testosterone when I was on it. Even my wife will say that going on it - estrogen - was the right decision. It's just complicated. But it was always going to be HRT of some kind with me for other health reasons, and if we weren't dealing with this then we'd be dealing with my ever-worsening depression. At least in this case we have an actual quality of life, and I like, you know, smile from time to time. I haven't been depressed for almost a year now, and I mean that I've gone from moderate to severe depression to actually looking forward to life.
So everyone here is doing pretty well, including our son, yes. :) My wife and I are relationship counselling but again, we would have been anyway. And I'm not acting out of some commitment to a dubious metaphysic, and I'm not going full-bore with any kind of so-called 'transition'. It just is what it is, and it's better than the alternative.
-
Good to hear the quality of your life is improving. Can you explain the difference between HRT and TR (Testosterone Replacement)?
-
Good to hear the quality of your life is improving. Can you explain the difference between HRT and TR (Testosterone Replacement)?
TRT = Testosterone replacement therapy
ERT = Estrogen replacement therapy
HRT = Hormone replacement therapy (generally)
cross-sex HRT = TRT if you're female, or ERT if you're male. May also be called masculinising hormone therapy or feminising hormone therapy.
Mostly, people just say HRT.
-
Good to hear the quality of your life is improving. Can you explain the difference between HRT and TR (Testosterone Replacement)?
TRT = Testosterone replacement therapy
ERT = Estrogen replacement therapy
HRT = Hormone replacement therapy (generally)
cross-sex HRT = TRT if you're female, or ERT if you're male. May also be called masculinising hormone therapy or feminising hormone therapy.
Mostly, people just say HRT.
Could you please explain to me what makes these treatments controversial for you? It appears parents, pastors, and Christians generally have a problem with this? At least that's what it sounds like.
I have a friend whose birth family is a friend of our family. He is definitely a male, but has a lot of feminine-type characteristics, which is not odd in itself, since lots of women have masculine characteristics, and lots of men have feminine characteristics.
But he has a wife and two almost grown girls, and suffers a lot of anxiety, which has cost him his business. I'm wondering if he has problems like yours? I'd like to be able to understand better?
-
Could you please explain to me what makes these treatments controversial for you? It appears parents, pastors, and Christians generally have a problem with this? At least that's what it sounds like.
Oh, Randy. :)
Postmenopausal women might go on HRT to address decreased estrogen levels.
Older men, or in my case, someone with (primary) hypogonadism, might go on HRT to address decreased - or near non-existent - testosterone levels.
I don't think there's anyone who takes issue with HRT within this context. There is an underlying - er, acceptable - medical condition, and so, hormone replacement is offered as a treatment.
What's not so cool is cross-sex HRT, or in my case, feminising hormone therapy. I'm on estrogen, and my hormonal balance is female-typical: higher estrogen, lower testosterone. I'm considered to be medically transitioning, or more simply, I'm trans(gender), and thus most people who encounter me consider me to be a male-to-female trans woman.
Now, I hesitate with the 'trans woman' label as I approach my own circumstance from that of a medical perspective: (1) I have to address my hypogonadism, (2) something needs to be done about my worsening depression, and (3) I experience gender dysphoria to an ever-worsening degree the older I get. The reality is that I can affirm all the orthodox Christian doctrine, and I can come up with any number of arguments or philosophical insights into why I'm not justified in thinking the things I think are self-evident about myself. I can agree until I'm blue in the face with "God made us male and female" but at the end of the day, I still need to contend with a psychological condition that has prevailed against threeish decades of attempts to overcome, or cope, or find some way to live without going on HRT and similar.
But a lot of people don't get that far. They see a dude with breasts, think of whatever the hot button trans topic in the news is, and make assumptions and associations. I'm rebelling against God. I'm deceived by Satan. I'm under demonic oppression. I've been deceived by the world. I'm following my own lusts. I'm engaged in Gnosticism. And on, and on, and on. How about, I was failing myself, my wife, my son, my family, I was becoming suicidal, and I had tried everything else I and others could think of? The HRT was the last-ditch effort. It was a hail mary.
I made the choice to start HRT while thinking that what I was doing was quite possibly sin, and could cost me everything, including eternally. That's some perspective; it wasn't a decision made lightly. I tortured myself with that decision for almost three years. I've struggled with dysphoria, or something like it, for as long as I can remember.
So I'm now a happy aesthetic mess with serious, unresolved theological questions. What do the people around me see that you don't?
- 'Female skin'? Yep.
- Breasts? Oh, yeah. Yep, definitely.
- A female-typical body shape, fat redistribution, etc.? Yep.
- Did I get a bit shorter? Yep.
- Pelvic tilt? Yep.
- Did my carrying angle change? Yep.
And so on. So, keep this in mind. This big theological/philosophical brain of mine is within a body that is no longer ecclesiastically acceptable. Mine is a difficult question. I don't expect the majority of people I meet to understand, and I don't expect them to. I do expect them to exemplify the life of Christ and understand that I need Jesus, and they do too. I'm forced to confront myself, socially. I'm truly introverted, and I find that extraordinarily uncomfortable. The capital-C Church that I've been exposed to doesn't know how to handle me. I'm put the side, or given the trite advice to align my head with my body or else I'm in sin or something. I grew up thinking that I had a choice between salvation and misery, or happiness and damnation. The life of faith is to me deeply existential.
I have a friend whose birth family is a friend of our family. He is definitely a male, but has a lot of feminine-type characteristics, which is not odd in itself, since lots of women have masculine characteristics, and lots of men have feminine characteristics.
But he has a wife and two almost grown girls, and suffers a lot of anxiety, which has cost him his business. I'm wondering if he has problems like yours? I'd like to be able to understand better?
If he's dysphoric and that's causing anxiety then he will need to be open about it. That's no easy thing. But he could just be an anxious mess, and in either case, seeing a counsellor/psychologist/therapist would be a good idea.
As for myself, the experience itself is difficult to convey. It's like an inner-knowing at the level of being itself that I ought to have been female. It's the repetition of the thought that "I should have been like her", or "I'm not meant to be like him". It lay at the foundation of all the other psychological afflictions I experienced: depression and anxiety prime among them.
You'd have to really put your imagination to use, and imagine what it would be like if you woke up female tomorrow, knowing that you're actually male, and the profound implications that would have on not only your experience of the world but the world's experience of you.
-
Why do so many fail to grasp the significance and distinction of what is clearly, obviously, a physiological, medical issue?
-
Why do so many fail to grasp the significance and distinction of what is clearly, obviously, a physiological, medical issue?
I agree it's physiological, but there are theological overtones, as the brother said. I suppose as long as he doesn't wear a dress, and become a homosexual, he may indeed look physically like a she. As I said, I've known quite a few of these, and many today think they were born to be homosexuals because of this.
I don't. I think that we're saddled with what we're saddled with. It's part of the Fall, and we all suffer, physiologically, from the Fall in one way or another.
I wouldn't know why the depression, or why the thought that he is failing his family? Often, sacrifices have to be made in life. The loss of sexuality can be emotionally upsetting, but life is greater than sexuality. If the partner doesn't like it, have to let them go.
My stepson had an accident that did this to him. He's now divorced, and yes--that was the reason in part. The spirituality in the marriage was not great enough. Now my stepson wanders almost homeless through the UK.
It's a trial A. is faced with. It's respectable to bear up under trial, and not to lose faith. We can suffer things our whole lives, because it is God's will, and God will reward us for our endurance.
If I looked like a girl cause God made me that way, I wouldn't feel in the least guilty. I'd just act like its a medical condition, and not give any care to those who wish to argue it.
-
Could you please explain to me what makes these treatments controversial for you? It appears parents, pastors, and Christians generally have a problem with this? At least that's what it sounds like.
Oh, Randy. :)
Postmenopausal women might go on HRT to address decreased estrogen levels.
Older men, or in my case, someone with (primary) hypogonadism, might go on HRT to address decreased - or near non-existent - testosterone levels.
I don't think there's anyone who takes issue with HRT within this context. There is an underlying - er, acceptable - medical condition, and so, hormone replacement is offered as a treatment.
What's not so cool is cross-sex HRT, or in my case, feminising hormone therapy. I'm on estrogen, and my hormonal balance is female-typical: higher estrogen, lower testosterone. I'm considered to be medically transitioning, or more simply, I'm trans(gender), and thus most people who encounter me consider me to be a male-to-female trans woman.
Now, I hesitate with the 'trans woman' label as I approach my own circumstance from that of a medical perspective: (1) I have to address my hypogonadism, (2) something needs to be done about my worsening depression, and (3) I experience gender dysphoria to an ever-worsening degree the older I get. The reality is that I can affirm all the orthodox Christian doctrine, and I can come up with any number of arguments or philosophical insights into why I'm not justified in thinking the things I think are self-evident about myself. I can agree until I'm blue in the face with "God made us male and female" but at the end of the day, I still need to contend with a psychological condition that has prevailed against threeish decades of attempts to overcome, or cope, or find some way to live without going on HRT and similar.
But a lot of people don't get that far. They see a dude with breasts, think of whatever the hot button trans topic in the news is, and make assumptions and associations. I'm rebelling against God. I'm deceived by Satan. I'm under demonic oppression. I've been deceived by the world. I'm following my own lusts. I'm engaged in Gnosticism. And on, and on, and on. How about, I was failing myself, my wife, my son, my family, I was becoming suicidal, and I had tried everything else I and others could think of? The HRT was the last-ditch effort. It was a hail mary.
I made the choice to start HRT while thinking that what I was doing was quite possibly sin, and could cost me everything, including eternally. That's some perspective; it wasn't a decision made lightly. I tortured myself with that decision for almost three years. I've struggled with dysphoria, or something like it, for as long as I can remember.
So I'm now a happy aesthetic mess with serious, unresolved theological questions. What do the people around me see that you don't?
- 'Female skin'? Yep.
- Breasts? Oh, yeah. Yep, definitely.
- A female-typical body shape, fat redistribution, etc.? Yep.
- Did I get a bit shorter? Yep.
- Pelvic tilt? Yep.
- Did my carrying angle change? Yep.
And so on. So, keep this in mind. This big theological/philosophical brain of mine is within a body that is no longer ecclesiastically acceptable. Mine is a difficult question. I don't expect the majority of people I meet to understand, and I don't expect them to. I do expect them to exemplify the life of Christ and understand that I need Jesus, and they do too. I'm forced to confront myself, socially. I'm truly introverted, and I find that extraordinarily uncomfortable. The capital-C Church that I've been exposed to doesn't know how to handle me. I'm put the side, or given the trite advice to align my head with my body or else I'm in sin or something. I grew up thinking that I had a choice between salvation and misery, or happiness and damnation. The life of faith is to me deeply existential.
I have a friend whose birth family is a friend of our family. He is definitely a male, but has a lot of feminine-type characteristics, which is not odd in itself, since lots of women have masculine characteristics, and lots of men have feminine characteristics.
But he has a wife and two almost grown girls, and suffers a lot of anxiety, which has cost him his business. I'm wondering if he has problems like yours? I'd like to be able to understand better?
If he's dysphoric and that's causing anxiety then he will need to be open about it. That's no easy thing. But he could just be an anxious mess, and in either case, seeing a counsellor/psychologist/therapist would be a good idea.
As for myself, the experience itself is difficult to convey. It's like an inner-knowing at the level of being itself that I ought to have been female. It's the repetition of the thought that "I should have been like her", or "I'm not meant to be like him". It lay at the foundation of all the other psychological afflictions I experienced: depression and anxiety prime among them.
You'd have to really put your imagination to use, and imagine what it would be like if you woke up female tomorrow, knowing that you're actually male, and the profound implications that would have on not only your experience of the world but the world's experience of you.
Thanks for your frankness and honesty. In a world where there is very little of this, your approach is refreshing.
That doesn't mean I have any answers for you. I think we've all been challenged by the gender confusion in our own generation.
I think many of us have had questions about possible homosexual inclinations in us. I just write it off to the Fall. We have, as the Jews say, an evil inclination. We simply have to say "No" to it.
Your trial is harder in this area than most. I don't know if you've had homosexual fantasies, but in your condition it seems likely.
If so, I wouldn't get confused. I'm rather conservative, but also open-minded. Theologically, you're either a guy or a girl. You can still be a morphodite. I think you should stick with who the doctor said you were at birth, and just live with the opposite sex tendencies.
Women become mechanics, and men become plane stewards. Some guys like flowers, and some women want to fight in the military. It doesn't matter, except that in the Law men were told not to wear women's clothing to send the homosexual signal to others. What matters is the message you're sending.
As I said, a close friend is dealing with this kind of thing, but I haven't been able to help him. Much of his birth family is Christian. But he seems less interested in religion, though a very respectable guy. I don't think he'll improve until he finds more spiritual peace in his life. I do think he has Christian convictions though, and I wouldn't judge him as a bad person or going to Hell.
For you, Get the Hell question out of your mind. You're not going to Hell. But you do want to enter the Kingdom of God feeling like you won the war. We're all in this battle together, and I don't see anybody here throwing you under the bus.
-
I'm thinking wisdom and caution might demand a less public
airing and display of these issues.
Ideally, my confession is to that of father and husband, thus a guy, regardless of complications or implications, that are neither understood or properly interpreted by the majority, however visible.
If my testimony matches my day-to-day actions, in spite of personal struggles, then it's time for folks to move on.
If my need is to be seen as something other than that, based upon unconventional physiological leanings, which must not supersede my identities as father, husband, guy, regardless of personal difficulties, then the role of Godly conscience is obscured.
This understanding between husband and wife is critical.
Beyond these considerations, it's nobody's biz-wax.
-
I agree it's physiological, but there are theological overtones, as the brother said. I suppose as long as he doesn't wear a dress, and become a homosexual, he may indeed look physically like a she. As I said, I've known quite a few of these, and many today think they were born to be homosexuals because of this.
If what we're - and I mean, I'm - dealing with is indeed a psychological malady, a disordering of my mental state, and so on, then simple moral pronouncements like "you can wear these clothes, but not these clothes" aren't going to cut it. Dresses are for whatever reason the go-to example, and I don't own any dresses, but even if I did, it's not as if we have in view someone who is acting freely, as it were. There's an underlying compulsion, if you will, that demands satisfaction. The moral/theological complications introduced by the underlying medical/psychological condition aren't trivial.
As it is, the dress example is also complicated by particular social values for a given social milieu. And like, do we forbid dresses but not bras? So, I understand the sentiment behind the "I suppose as long as..." but I think ultimately the clean distinction that's being sought isn't going to be possible. What matters here isn't the outward appearance, but inwardness and the heart and intentions of the individual before God. Notice I said appearance and not act, or behaviour.
I wouldn't know why the depression, or why the thought that he is failing his family?
Those things are a result of decades of self-denial, and by that I mean actual denial of my self. Accompanying this has been depersonalisation, disassociation, anxiety, depression, destructive introspection and abstraction of my personality, an inability to feel as if I'm genuinely connecting with others because "if they knew the real me", and so on. Severe depression alone qualifies as "failing ones family" I should think, insofar as to the ways that depression works itself out day-to-day, i.e., being miserable, not wanting to do anything, failing to live up to, say, the Pauline standards of husband and father.
You have to keep in mind that I'm struggling at the level of being, or the foundation of self, rather than some specific outworking of who I find myself to be. I don't experience a surety of self that others do; or at least, others don't experience the disruption of self-experience that I do. My entire epistemic position is wrapped up in a kind of doubt that Descartes could have only dreamed of. My experience of myself in relation to the world and vice-versa is essentially discordant. The incongruity is the stuff of Lovecraftian horror made real.
Often, sacrifices have to be made in life. The loss of sexuality can be emotionally upsetting, but life is greater than sexuality. If the partner doesn't like it, have to let them go.
While this entails questions of self-worth, "did God make me this way?", etc., the shortcoming of the comparison pertains to the core stability of self-identity. My identity isn't stable in that same way.
My stepson had an accident that did this to him. He's now divorced, and yes--that was the reason in part. The spirituality in the marriage was not great enough. Now my stepson wanders almost homeless through the UK.
If he's ever on the east coast of Scotland.
If I looked like a girl cause God made me that way, I wouldn't feel in the least guilty. I'd just act like its a medical condition, and not give any care to those who wish to argue it.
That's easy to say, but once you introduce a social dynamic, and especially a church context, it becomes difficult very quickly. The minute you want to engage with other Christians, it becomes difficult because of the presuppositions they bring to the conversation. One might find themselves engaged in a never-ending self-defence.
-
I'm thinking wisdom and caution might demand a less public
airing and display of these issues.
Yeah maybe.
-
Thanks for your frankness and honesty. In a world where there is very little of this, your approach is refreshing.
That doesn't mean I have any answers for you. I think we've all been challenged by the gender confusion in our own generation.
I think many of us have had questions about possible homosexual inclinations in us. I just write it off to the Fall. We have, as the Jews say, an evil inclination. We simply have to say "No" to it.
Your trial is harder in this area than most. I don't know if you've had homosexual fantasies, but in your condition it seems likely.
As a bit of an aside, I don't think there is a clean opposite-sex/same-sex attraction dichotomy that is often assumed. I think a person can be primarily attracted to X or Y but the possibility of acting in a different direction is never out of the question. Holding to strictly defined heterosexual and homosexual categories is probably an unhelpful way to create divisions among people, and indeed there are such divisions today. Of course, my perspective has been complicated.
I once did a podcast - as far as I know, unreleased - with a theologian who I had been emailing with. We were talking somewhat in-depth about the theological/philosophical considerations of dysphoria, particularly around the epistemological questions, and then also somewhat around the ontology or metaphysics generally. When the podcast started the first question I was asked was about my sexual orientation. Along with the thought of dresses, this is another thing people tend to go to first. It's too bad we didn't continue our theological/philosophical conversation.
The only thing I would say is that it's not helpful to assume or imagine X from Y given W.
If so, I wouldn't get confused. I'm rather conservative, but also open-minded. Theologically, you're either a guy or a girl. You can still be a morphodite. I think you should stick with who the doctor said you were at birth, and just live with the opposite sex tendencies.
I think the biological markers are significant, but therein lies the metaphysics.
For you, Get the Hell question out of your mind. You're not going to Hell. But you do want to enter the Kingdom of God feeling like you won the war. We're all in this battle together, and I don't see anybody here throwing you under the bus.
No, not yet anyway, but as I said, this place isn't my real life. Here I can write out what I'm thinking, and that opportunity isn't always present in the moment of a 'conversation'.
-
I wouldn't know why the depression, or why the thought that he is failing his family?
Those things are a result of decades of self-denial, and by that I mean actual denial of my self. Accompanying this has been depersonalisation, disassociation, anxiety, depression, destructive introspection and abstraction of my personality, an inability to feel as if I'm genuinely connecting with others because "if they knew the real me", and so on. Severe depression alone qualifies as "failing ones family" I should think, insofar as to the ways that depression works itself out day-to-day, i.e., being miserable, not wanting to do anything, failing to live up to, say, the Pauline standards of husband and father.
You have to keep in mind that I'm struggling at the level of being, or the foundation of self, rather than some specific outworking of who I find myself to be. I don't experience a surety of self that others do; or at least, others don't experience the disruption of self-experience that I do. My entire epistemic position is wrapped up in a kind of doubt that Descartes could have only dreamed of. My experience of myself in relation to the world and vice-versa is essentially discordant. The incongruity is the stuff of Lovecraftian horror made real.
Decades of self-denial (as you put it), wow, this is so essential. What's stopping you to turn that page? Isn't the answer not self-acceptance and stop fighting who you are? I know this is very simplistic put, apologies in advance if I am wrong.
-
Decades of self-denial (as you put it), wow, this is so essential. What's stopping you to turn that page? Isn't the answer not self-acceptance and stop fighting who you are? I know this is very simplistic put, apologies in advance if I am wrong.
Three things:
1) The possibility of sin.
2) The epistemic difficulty such that, as far as I can tell, I'm neither justified nor warranted in acting on my self-beliefs.
3) The loss of the relationships I hold most dear
That 2) can be a bit interesting because I think there's a difference between (a) starting HRT out of the belief that I actually ought to have been a woman, and so I'm going to pursue that and (b) starting HRT because I was becoming suicidal as a consequence of the dysphoria (primarily). That is to say that there is dysphoria as something to be experienced, but it is itself the consequence of tension between who I know myself to be and who I find myself to actually be. It's that "who I know myself to be" that is unjustifiable as far as I can tell.
This is to say that when I talk about self-denial I don't mean that I've tried to convince myself that I'm not actually dysphoric, or that I don't actually think the things I think about myself, and so on. I've always known that, and I actually like myself (so I must be insane). The question for me has always been: knowing who and how I am, how do I best live my life? When my self is saying do this thing!, or this is actually who you are you moron, it's to that that I've been saying no. And of course, I would, because that thing and that knowledge (let's call it) has always been fundamentally sinful according to the Christians I grew up around. And I'm not sure that they were wrong.
So had I engaged in self-acceptance when I was younger, I would have been shipped off to the pastor, told all about sin, how God made gender, how boys are boys and girls are girls, and on, and on, and on. Who knows, maybe that would have helped, but I doubt it.
Of course, I'm now not fighting with myself, and the question of sin looms over my head.
-
Decades of self-denial (as you put it), wow, this is so essential. What's stopping you to turn that page? Isn't the answer not self-acceptance and stop fighting who you are? I know this is very simplistic put, apologies in advance if I am wrong.
Three things:
1) The possibility of sin.
2) The epistemic difficulty such that, as far as I can tell, I'm neither justified nor warranted in acting on my self-beliefs.
3) The loss of the relationships I hold most dear
That 2) can be a bit interesting because I think there's a difference between (a) starting HRT out of the belief that I actually ought to have been a woman, and so I'm going to pursue that and (b) starting HRT because I was becoming suicidal as a consequence of the dysphoria (primarily). That is to say that there is dysphoria as something to be experienced, but it is itself the consequence of tension between who I know myself to be and who I find myself to actually be. It's that "who I know myself to be" that is unjustifiable as far as I can tell.
This is to say that when I talk about self-denial I don't mean that I've tried to convince myself that I'm not actually dysphoric, or that I don't actually think the things I think about myself, and so on. I've always known that, and I actually like myself (so I must be insane). The question for me has always been: knowing who and how I am, how do I best live my life? When my self is saying do this thing!, or this is actually who you are you moron, it's to that that I've been saying no. And of course, I would, because that thing and that knowledge (let's call it) has always been fundamentally sinful according to the Christians I grew up around. And I'm not sure that they were wrong.
I can not even imagine what gender dysphoria means in practice, not to know what you are, man, female or something in between, the latter not mentioned in Scripture, for millennia trampled, it's only since a year of 10 (or so) it has the attention of medical science and the media.
I am a 100% heterosexual man, when I see 2 men kissing on TV my stomach is turning, when 2 women are kissing I (oddly) suddenly have less problems (the hypocrite I am) and it takes a bit longer to zap. What I am saying is that gender (whether male or female) is so important and essential for a human being and that the slightest doubt on who and what you are is a receipt for trouble. Freud was right, man or female both are sexual beings, it's an identity thing. Many people don't realize it, the few times I said it (you are a sexual being) they look shocked with a look on their face: never mind, he was always a bit strange.
Regarding HRT, as you perhaps remember I am getting every 3 months a hormone injection which is giving me (so far 7) extra years on the planet. It's pure physical and I don't have any problem with it, despite (as I am told) have become a bit more social, which my case can't harm :) Of course your HRT is quite different but survival is also inborn and not sinful by definition. In your case I would have done the same.
So had I engaged in self-acceptance when I was younger, I would have been shipped off to the pastor, told all about sin, how God made gender, how boys are boys and girls are girls, and on, and on, and on. Who knows, maybe that would have helped, but I doubt it.
I doubt that too, I ran into my own limitations at the age of 38, unable to change myself, no matter how hard I prayed, no matter how many people prayed for me, no matter how hard I tried. I am at relative peace with it now, I wish it were different but I know the person I wanted to be is not in my reach.
Of course, I'm now not fighting with myself, and the question of sin looms over my head.
Would you say if you were not a Christian your life would be better? Better in the sense that as a non Christian sin would not be an issue.
-
Praying daily for you as it appears from your statements that these issues are consuming a great deal of your peace of mind, and somehow leading to fears of sin or worse.
Not sure how much or of what type of counseling you have been involved in but there is certainly a resolution in prayer.
Asking that the Lord gives you peace in this and greatly blesses your family and your continued service to His name.
Will be watching in prayer.
ADDED: Confident that you will go on to help others struggling in this area.
-
I can not even imagine what gender dysphoria means in practice, not to know what you are, man, female or something in between, the latter not mentioned in Scripture, for millennia trampled, it's only since a year of 10 (or so) it has the attention of medical science and the media.
That's the fun stuff. Clearly, I'm male, but just as clearly, to me, I'm not/shouldn't have been. The teleological language is interesting, and I think indefensible, on examination. Mind you, since DSDs exist and those unfortunate souls are the sole authority of their identity, despite the complications of their biology, then... that's interesting to think about.
I am a 100% heterosexual man, when I see 2 men kissing on TV my stomach is turning, when 2 women are kissing I (oddly) suddenly have less problems (the hypocrite I am) and it takes a bit longer to zap.
I mean, two of a thing you like doing a thing you like.
What I am saying is that gender (whether male or female) is so important and essential for a human being and that the slightest doubt on who and what you are is a receipt for trouble. Freud was right, man or female both are sexual beings, it's an identity thing. Many people don't realize it, the few times I said it (you are a sexual being) they look shocked with a look on their face: never mind, he was always a bit strange.
Yes, and also the determiner of one's foundational experience of the world.
Regarding HRT, as you perhaps remember I am getting every 3 months a hormone injection which is giving me (so far 7) extra years on the planet. It's pure physical and I don't have any problem with it, despite (as I am told) have become a bit more social, which my case can't harm :) Of course your HRT is quite different but survival is also inborn and not sinful by definition. In your case I would have done the same.
I think you did mention that yeah. I was also on injections every 3 months when I was doing TRT, except, I was miserable. On ERT I'm apparently quite more socially aware, chatty, able to successfully tell stories, happy, etc. But yes, very much a survival consideration.
I doubt that too, I ran into my own limitations at the age of 38, unable to change myself, no matter how hard I prayed, no matter how many people prayed for me, no matter how hard I tried. I am at relative peace with it now, I wish it were different but I know the person I wanted to be is not in my reach.
Yeah, it's not an easy thing. ;\
Would you say if you were not a Christian your life would be better? Better in the sense that as a non Christian sin would not be an issue.
I don't know that it would be better (surely not), but there's a good chance I would be ignorant of the weight of the question of sin, and so, not so psychologically troubled. So what you're getting at, yeah. I'd rather struggle with the weight of that question, though.
-
Praying daily for you as it appears from your statements that these issues are consuming a great deal of your peace of mind, and somehow leading to fears of sin or worse.
Thank you. :) Existence is weighty, yes. For everyone, it's just that I have had to confront myself/am confronted by myself, and maybe others haven't. But it's also true that this issue/question/concern has consumed me for a long time. As I think it would anyone if they were told their identity was fundamentally sinful (in a different way beyond the usual Augustinian view).
Not sure how much or of what type of counseling you have been involved in but there is certainly a resolution in prayer.
~20 years of counselling, therapy, psychologists, you name it. Prayer all that time too, and more. Then there are my own educational pursuits. The issue is that I'm the result of an imperfect Christian upbringing, one which was too black-and-white, and far too extreme in its moral pronouncements and sin judgments. I wouldn't hesitate to take a pill for depression (those didn't work by the way), and no one would reasonably claim depression is sinful (ahem, well...), but gender dysphoria? A recognised medical condition? Different story.
ADDED: Confident that you will go on to help others struggling in this area.
Slowly, very slowly writing. :)
-
To be very blunt, I have to go with Scripture, and reject the whole idea of opposite gender hormone treatments. For me, the thing that causes the dysphoria is the strong presence of opposite gender hormones. We all have some male/female imbalance, but some have it far greater than others.
Our society is telling us that we are "women" in men's' bodies if we find ourselves with high estrogen levels, that we are "men" in women's bodies if we find ourselves with high testosterone levels. But the fact is, we are determined by God to be men or women at birth, and the presence of strong hormones of the opposite gender doesn't change that and doesn't justify our pursuing becoming the opposite gender.
I could give a personal testimony to why I believe as I do, apart from Scriptural standards, but that would compromise people who are close to me. I'm glad you bring up your own condition because it needs to be discussed, particularly when there are other religious beliefs fighting for our attention. To appeal to our lowest common interests is something we need to fight, and not capitulate to.
Let me just say that I've seen strict Christian families not be perfect, but still establish Christian ground rules for the family. The fact the parents are flawed does not mean they've been abusive and cause rebellion in the children. Pastor's kids are notorious for being rebellious.
The fact is, the presence of the Law of God in any family brings out the worst in the kids, because they are more aware of God's demands. This brings out an internal, psychological revulsion to being controlled. The reaction should be to avoid this inward revulsion, and find a way to embrace God's Law.
I've seen this process make a terrible mess of individuals. They just have to persist through this and do the right thing. Letting ourselves be spiritually conquered by God, and by His rights over us, is, I believe, the answer. It creates a spiritual change--yes, even for those already Christian. And the power so released can enable anybody to overcome any psychological tendencies, albeit imperfectly.
Just my thoughts on the matter--not to make A. more depressed, but just to express the thoughts of my own conscience. This is hopefully how I would handle it if it was me in this condition. Quite frankly, we all have conditions like this we struggle continually with, and I need not name them.
-
What about dysphoria not caused by too many of the opposite sex hormone?
-
To be very blunt, I have to go with Scripture, and reject the whole idea of opposite gender hormone treatments.
We would all be at greater ease if scripture did actually address this, or perhaps I couldn't find it.
"Matthew 19:12, KJV: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"
The Bible does cite instances of men interfering with the human sex apparatus for specific purposes, including service to the faith.
If what we are discussing here is a physiological condition that is causing great frustration in the life of a believer who has opted to live a Godly life as a male, for the sake of conscience and testimony, and a proven medical procedure provides relief in spite of several changes to the body, in direct approval of his understanding spouse, I, for one, would opt for mercy.
Having served for nearly 38 years in the mission field where this type of struggle often arises to various degrees of severity, I see nothing here that would suggest a deliberate affection for what is wrong or perverse, but rather, a need for the freedom to function in good conscience.
I have a certain confidence in overcoming, persistent prayer and am determined to see the ravages of this persistent issue laid largely to rest.
-
I write stuff not to be "pals." I write stuff that I think will help someone spiritually, which is a greater form of love for someone than being their "pal."
I don't love X any less if he is a sinner, and not a saint. I do empathize with conditions, and we all have them--some suffering much worse than others.
I think there is a special place in heaven for those who overcome very difficult circumstances, and I think God has great patience and long-suffering towards those who suffer in ways others don't understand.
Still, I'm a slave to *my understanding* of the Scriptures. I'm more loyal to that than to anything else.
-
Still, I'm a slave to *my understanding* of the Scriptures. I'm more loyal to that than to anything else.
Citing the pertinent scriptures would be immensely helpful. Thanks.
-
To be very blunt, I have to go with Scripture, and reject the whole idea of opposite gender hormone treatments
Scripture doesn't speak on gender dysphoria as a psychological condition and the treatment of it thereof, just as it doesn't speak on depression as a psychological condition and the treatment of it thereof. This is a different consideration from, say, prohibitions against cross-dressing in light of neighbouring pagan religious customs.
You're also free to reject the idea, but it's the only thing that's worked for me, so unless you have an alternative - and I'm all ears - I'm going to file this away with the other rejections that are accompanied by a suspicious lack of alternative solutions.
For me, the thing that causes the dysphoria is the strong presence of opposite gender hormones. We all have some male/female imbalance, but some have it far greater than others.
No, we don't all have a 'male/female imbalance'.
And no, dysphoria is not caused by 'the strong presence of opposite gender hormones'. I can speak on this personally, because my dysphoria was worse when I was on TRT, meaning that my hormonal levels were well within the normal male range, while my dysphoria is much better on ERT, now that my hormone levels are within a normal female range. Also, prior to either form of HRT I had male-typical estrogen levels, and low testosterone. My dysphoria was worse than on ERT but not as bad as when on TRT. If there is a biochemical element at play - and I think there is - then it's linked to higher levels of testosterone, not higher levels of estrogen.
For me, at least.
Our society is telling us that we are "women" in men's' bodies if we find ourselves with high estrogen levels, that we are "men" in women's bodies if we find ourselves with high testosterone levels. But the fact is, we are determined by God to be men or women at birth, and the presence of strong hormones of the opposite gender doesn't change that and doesn't justify our pursuing becoming the opposite gender.
If society emphasises anything it's stereotypical play, habit, interests, etc., and not hormone levels. That said, I am fully aware of what I'm doing, my agency hasn't been compromised, and I haven't been subject to the deceptive wiles of society. Or, 'society' appeals to brain/sex studies such as Zhou et al, and so on.
I could give a personal testimony to why I believe as I do, apart from Scriptural standards, but that would compromise people who are close to me. I'm glad you bring up your own condition because it needs to be discussed, particularly when there are other religious beliefs fighting for our attention. To appeal to our lowest common interests is something we need to fight, and not capitulate to.
Why would you be compromising the people close to you, given you could easily convey information anonymously? Well, you'd be placing my experience vs. the experience of others, so I don't think it really matters what you know from the people around you, given that I'm in question.
This is hopefully how I would handle it if it was me in this condition.
Being misinformed is not a good way to handle things.
-
I write stuff not to be "pals." I write stuff that I think will help someone spiritually, which is a greater form of love for someone than being their "pal."
I don't love X any less if he is a sinner, and not a saint. I do empathize with conditions, and we all have them--some suffering much worse than others.
I think there is a special place in heaven for those who overcome very difficult circumstances, and I think God has great patience and long-suffering towards those who suffer in ways others don't understand.
Still, I'm a slave to *my understanding* of the Scriptures. I'm more loyal to that than to anything else.
I have no idea what you thought was helpful about your previous reply.
-
I have worn leg braces for 66 years now and without them life would be nearly untenable to say the least.
Without the blessings of medical technology, I would be in an awful condition and no amount of overcoming could change that. And this is in no way a matter of personal choices.
God has provided the means for me to cope in an otherwise very limited situation.
While gender dysphoria is relatively new as far as the medical world is concerned, it is an increasing reality, likely based on the growing disarray of the human genome, environmental toxins etc. and should be understood in those terms lest we begin to condemn folks for things beyond their control.
A few years on and we will have a greater depth of understanding where it concerns this medical issue and how to deal with it, even within the community of faith.
-
While not being particularly helpful, I feel that life is complicated. That sometimes we're forced to make decisions where there aren't really any good choices and we have to pick the one that seems least bad. Being a religious person and a bible reader isn't necessarily helpful because the situation one faces my not have a clear biblical analogue. To wit, there's a giant field in Jewish law called "medical ethics" where the leading rabbis of any generation debate the finer points of what is or isn't permitted in a given situation. For example, DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate orders). When is it ok to sign one and when would signing one be akin to suicide? (or murder in the case of a proxy). And the answer isn't simple.
And of course the so called "faithful" who give the knee jerk reaction, point a finger, and say "you're wrong" are being both completely unhelpful and also completely insensitive.
Just my two cents.
-
Still, I'm a slave to *my understanding* of the Scriptures. I'm more loyal to that than to anything else.
Citing the pertinent scriptures would be immensely helpful. Thanks.
I know the Law of Moses proscribed the use of crossover dress--not to argue whether kilts were "ungodly," not to argue whether women can "wear pants," but rather, to disallow gender confusion with a homosexual purpose. This is why I think that hormonal treatments that cause gender transition to be ungodly, though it does not necessarily infer homosexuality.
It's just that causing the gender confusion itself appears to be a homosexual act in itself to God, who seems to want us to remain firmly in the gender we were given at birth. In other words, it is not just "sexual," ie fornication, to God, but rather, a defiance of gender roles He personally determined for us.
I have no medical expertise in this, and am open-minded as to the health value various treatments may have. But if the dysphoria is purely "psychological," then these treatments are satisfying the wish for gender transition, and as such, has to do more with mental health than with bodily health, though these two things can indeed be related.
And mental health can be determined by obsessions that are disallowed by God. For example, a kleptomaniac may have an obsession for stealing things, and a pyromaniac may have an obsession for starting fires. Some people have an inordinate amount of sexual urges, and fighting these urges may cause stress. People may have opposite gender impulses, and it may cause stress to resist this. Resisting evil impulses may indeed cause a sense of confusion over identity.
Nevertheless, the point I'm making is that it is a noble thing to endure hardship for the sake of God's Kingdom, to endure identity crisis and confusion over our personal impulses. I'm just trying to stay true to God's word the best I can, and take care not to encourage someone in the wrong direction--one that may appear helpful for now, but later, will produce bad fruit in family and country, as well as before God.
-
To be very blunt, I have to go with Scripture, and reject the whole idea of opposite gender hormone treatments
Scripture doesn't speak on gender dysphoria as a psychological condition and the treatment of it thereof, just as it doesn't speak on depression as a psychological condition and the treatment of it thereof. This is a different consideration from, say, prohibitions against cross-dressing in light of neighbouring pagan religious customs.
The Scriptures do speak to the issue of gender confusion, and that's what I draw upon--not your personal experience. You have to live by your conscience, and I have to live by mine. This area appears to be vague for you, based on your experience, and yet you have spiritual/ethical concerns about it.
My experience is different, and I come to different conclusions than you do. We just have to follow God for ourselves. I don't hate you regardless--God's grace and long suffering is among His qualities. The whole idea of a "Gospel" indicates He desires us to know and to understand things. And I do believe it's a *process.* So I truly do appreciate your willingness to discuss this, along with your honesty.
Your medical condition did seem to suggest hormonal issues, eg low testosterone, which for me indicated a hormonal imbalance. But I don't believe physical substances alone account for our physical and mental health issues, although I would disagree with you on the ubiquity of hormonal imbalances in us all.
There is also a social/spiritual component that impacts our health. As I said, God's Law can be introduced into our lives in a way that elicits a negative reaction. It is our duty to process God's word in the form of obedience, instead of arguing with the agency through which that word comes into our lives.
The instrument of God's word is often flawed. But instead of fighting the messenger, we can obey the message, as painful as it feels in our native condition.
Some definitely have trials more difficult than others, based on what they were saddled with hereditarily. But God has the right to inflict upon us whatever tests He has determined for us in creating us. It may be *extremely painful,* physically or psychologically. We just have no choice but to obey the voice of God.
But you have to decide for yourself. As far as I'm concerned even if gender transitions were legal with God, it is just as important, spiritually, not to throw stumbling blocks in front of others. So why pursue a course that will bring a hostile reaction from fellow Christians who believe such a practice is ungodly?
I leave you to decide for yourself what you wish to do. I'm just addressing a topic that I think is worthwhile to discuss. I have no wish to add to your suffering.
-
I know the Law of Moses proscribed the use of crossover dress--not to argue whether kilts were "ungodly," not to argue whether women can "wear pants," but rather, to disallow gender confusion with a homosexual purpose. This is why I think that hormonal treatments that cause gender transition to be ungodly, though it does not necessarily infer homosexuality.
This is confusing. You think Deuteronomy 22 specifically disallows 'gender confusion with a homosexual purpose', and for the same reason think hormonal treatments are - not can be - ungodly, even if this doesn't infer (do you mean, imply?) homosexuality. What are you hiding in that "this is why I think" that better connects these two thoughts?
Deuteronomy 22:5 is the go-to for most Christians I come across. What about Deuteronomy 22:5 do you think is applicable to my circumstance, such that you can say with warrant that I'm acting in an ungodly way?
The Scriptures do speak to the issue of gender confusion, and that's what I draw upon--not your personal experience. You have to live by your conscience, and I have to live by mine. This area appears to be vague for you, based on your experience, and yet you have spiritual/ethical concerns about it.
What Scriptures do you think speak to gender dysphoria?
It does no good now to defer to "live by your conscience" as the charge of ungodliness has been made, so what's your support for that charge? And I think I've been exceptionally articulate, so I have no inkling of an idea where you think I've been vague.
My experience is different, and I come to different conclusions than you do. We just have to follow God for ourselves. I don't hate you regardless--God's grace and long suffering is among His qualities. The whole idea of a "Gospel" indicates He desires us to know and to understand things. And I do believe it's a *process.* So I truly do appreciate your willingness to discuss this, along with your honesty.
You haven't said anything about your experience, so I'm going to doubt that you have that experience until you say something more about it.
You're talking about different conclusions, but I've been clear that I'm not acting out of conclusions, but survival. The questions that I have are still outstanding, so what conclusions do you think I've made?
I haven't suggested that you hate me, but you have suggested that I'm acting in an ungodly way, so again, where's your support for that assertion?
It's just that causing the gender confusion itself appears to be a homosexual act in itself to God, who seems to want us to remain firmly in the gender we were given at birth. In other words, it is not just "sexual," ie fornication, to God, but rather, a defiance of gender roles He personally determined for us.
I thought you said it wasn't necessarily an issue of homosexuality?
I don't think God personally created me in any special way that the procreative process He established couldn't have handled. So, the facts of my being are somewhat accidental, philosophically speaking. But again, even if I agreed with this until I was blue in the face I'd still be struggling with the psychological phenomenon, so what do you suppose I should do other than what I've now ultimately done?
Your medical condition did seem to suggest hormonal issues, eg low testosterone, which for me indicated a hormonal imbalance. But I don't believe physical substances alone account for our physical and mental health issues, although I would disagree with you on the ubiquity of hormonal imbalances in us all.
Two things: (1) plenty of men, including all older men, experience issues with lower/low testosterone and don't develop gender dysphoria; (2) my dysphoria has been around since childhood, so hormones aren't the cause.
Well, three things: (3) I've been on treatment to correct my low testosterone and the dysphoria became worse, not better.
You can continue to think dysphoria stems from hormonal imbalances, but the data just isn't there, and my experience directly contradicts the suggestion. Since we're talking about my experience, you might want to look elsewhere for potential causes.
I have no medical expertise in this, and am open-minded as to the health value various treatments may have. But if the dysphoria is purely "psychological," then these treatments are satisfying the wish for gender transition, and as such, has to do more with mental health than with bodily health, though these two things can indeed be related.
No one said it was purely psychological. Mental health is bodily health is mental health. There's no dichotomy or opposition between the two. I feel significantly worse with healthy male levels of testosterone and I feel significantly better with healthy female levels of estrogen. Explain.
And mental health can be determined by obsessions that are disallowed by God. For example, a kleptomaniac may have an obsession for stealing things, and a pyromaniac may have an obsession for starting fires. Some people have an inordinate amount of sexual urges, and fighting these urges may cause stress. People may have opposite gender impulses, and it may cause stress to resist this. Resisting evil impulses may indeed cause a sense of confusion over identity.
Is this some confused appeal to brain plasticity?
There is also a social/spiritual component that impacts our health. As I said, God's Law can be introduced into our lives in a way that elicits a negative reaction. It is our duty to process God's word in the form of obedience, instead of arguing with the agency through which that word comes into our lives.
The instrument of God's word is often flawed. But instead of fighting the messenger, we can obey the message, as painful as it feels in our native condition.
What are you trying to say?
Nevertheless, the point I'm making is that it is a noble thing to endure hardship for the sake of God's Kingdom, to endure identity crisis and confusion over our personal impulses. I'm just trying to stay true to God's word the best I can, and take care not to encourage someone in the wrong direction--one that may appear helpful for now, but later, will produce bad fruit in family and country, as well as before God.
Similar thinking led me towards suicide. If not HRT, what's your alternative?
But you have to decide for yourself. As far as I'm concerned even if gender transitions were legal with God, it is just as important, spiritually, not to throw stumbling blocks in front of others. So why pursue a course that will bring a hostile reaction from fellow Christians who believe such a practice is ungodly?
As a reminder: I've pursued the course I've pursued because I was becoming severely depressed and suicidal. I don't think my death would have been worth keeping petty, ignorant so-called Christians from acting with hostility. Maybe I'll make it my task to educate them.
Unless those Christians have any ideas, I've tried everything I could think of, and others could think of, over 20+ years. I'm pretty sure I've written this already.
-
This is confusing. You think Deuteronomy 22 specifically disallows 'gender confusion with a homosexual purpose', and for the same reason think hormonal treatments are - not can be - ungodly, even if this doesn't infer (do you mean, imply?) homosexuality. What are you hiding in that "this is why I think" that better connects these two thoughts?
Deuteronomy 22:5 is the go-to for most Christians I come across. What about Deuteronomy 22:5 do you think is applicable to my circumstance, such that you can say with warrant that I'm acting in an ungodly way?
Although Gay Christians normally refer to the laws against homosexuality as an attack on aggressive and violent homosexuality, conservative Christians normally feel that *any form* of homosexuality is being opposed in the Bible.
The example used of cross-dressing serves as an example of any kind of gender confusion, even if it is not explicitly stated. It could be wearing long fingernails if in a particular culture only women wore long fingernails, and some men choose to do the same. In this case, it is the attempt at gender confusion that is being out-lawed--not just cross-dressing.
What I said sounds a little confusing because normally homosexuality is thought of as a sexual preference, in terms of intercourse. It isn't just favoring a particular gender in terms of friendships or sharing in similar interests of the opposite gender.
So when I say that cross-dressing is, biblically, a form of homosexuality, I'm *not* talking about intercourse--rather, I'm talking about gender confusion, and on what the Bible views as a form of homosexuality apart from intercourse. After all, the Bible opposes cross-dressing, and it is *not* intercourse.
Nor is it, I think, talking about fashions that change over time, from dresses to pants to dresses, etc. It is the *gender-confusion* that is at issue, in which a person wishes to be perceived as being the opposite sex, and thus attracting others to homosexual lust.
What Scriptures do you think speak to gender dysphoria?
It does no good now to defer to "live by your conscience" as the charge of ungodliness has been made, so what's your support for that charge? And I think I've been exceptionally articulate, so I have no inkling of an idea where you think I've been vague.
As I said, you admit to being conflicted in terms of your eternal destiny based on your decision to "transition." The Scriptures I refer to include, as you indicated, Deut 22, which prohibits *all forms* of homosexuality. It may not affect you sexually, but it certainly tempts others who are so inclined due to the assumed base nature of Man after the Fall.
The biblical story begins with the Fall, after which Man murders and then descends into mass violence and sexual corruption, which is a form of covetousness and violent lust. The insinuation is that we are all weak to our base natures, and that God wishes for us to avoid anything that elicits this kind of behavior.
Even if a Hebrew, under the Law, has a statue of an idol, which he didn't worship or think of as a god, he was not supposed to keep it inasmuch as it gives others the false impression that there are other religious options out there. This was, of course, in a very religious culture in which they were all supposed to worship a single God.
Deut 7.25 The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the Lord your God.
You haven't said anything about your experience, so I'm going to doubt that you have that experience until you say something more about it.
We're all creatures of the breakdown of Christian morality post WW2. I've never been part of the Gay Movement, although what Gays have done is no more despicable than things I've done.
At one point in my backsliding I think I was capable of almost anything. And though I've had no illusion about who I am, gender-wise, I certainly have some feminine characteristics, as many guys do.
You're talking about different conclusions, but I've been clear that I'm not acting out of conclusions, but survival. The questions that I have are still outstanding, so what conclusions do you think I've made?
I haven't suggested that you hate me, but you have suggested that I'm acting in an ungodly way, so again, where's your support for that assertion?
"Ungodly" does not translate into mean-spirited or violent or unlikeable--obviously, people here seem to like you. "Ungodly" refers to ignoring God's word on a particular subject, whether fully aware or not.
I've been "ungodly" in my attitude at times, thinking I was just defending the truth, whereas I was actually mistreating others in my approach. So ungodliness is something we all experience. You have to be convinced personally before you acknowledge something like this as "ungodly."
Two things: (1) plenty of men, including all older men, experience issues with lower/low testosterone and don't develop gender dysphoria; (2) my dysphoria has been around since childhood, so hormones aren't the cause.
As I said, there is the matter of inheritance, as well as spiritual influence, which is difficult to pin down. When you combine these things with low testosterone, yes, hormonal imbalance can become, I think, a larger issue than with most.
Well, three things: (3) I've been on treatment to correct my low testosterone and the dysphoria became worse, not better.
That should discourage typical testosterone treatment. It obviously is not the cure in and of itself. You cannot correct who you are, or your actual condition, short of a creative re-make from God. And this is not likely.
You can continue to think dysphoria stems from hormonal imbalances, but the data just isn't there, and my experience directly contradicts the suggestion. Since we're talking about my experience, you might want to look elsewhere for potential causes.
As I said, I believe hormonal imbalance is in all of us, and some have it worse than others due to other extenuating factors, such as physical and spiritual inheritances, as well as spiritual influences from our environment. Your own pressures appear to come from your family background, which may have affected your spiritual state of mind.
Though these things may seem obscure, they aren't for me personally. I've seen the mind-set of both my father and my mother affect me personally. Though they were both life-long Christians, both had their weaknesses. And in the area of their weakness I seem to have been impacted.
Early in life my Mother opened the door, for a time, to pornography. In my rebellious teen phase I got into pornography without any sense my Mother had also done so.
My father had a strict Christian father, and was naturally musical from his Mother, and appeared to indulge his desire to play very worldly kinds of music, which he was very good at. Oddly, he taught us to avoid Rock Music and Folk Music, which he considered to be rebellious music.
At the same time, he led our church in the choir and in playing the organ. And he performed piano at any number of functions, perhaps free of charge. He was very generous with his gift, as far as I know. And yet he opposed my own wish to get into a Rock Band.
From him I think I found a stubborn streak and pride, wishing to rebel against conventions, suffering a basic confusion between what is godly and what I felt are my natural impulses.
I think this is a spiritual thing, and something children of parents like this have to deal with for themselves. And it can be a life-long process, in my opinion.
I feel significantly worse with healthy male levels of testosterone and I feel significantly better with healthy female levels of estrogen. Explain.
Your base inclinations are against your perception of religious oppression, causing you to feel better "in your own skin." I did this myself, thinking my parents' religious discrimination against my pagan friends were a form of prejudice and a lack of religious compassion. I felt more comfortable being "real," hanging out with pagan girlfriends and pagan guy friends.
You should rather fight against natural inclinations that are "ungodly." But as long as you feel religiously oppressed, you would rather feel more comfortable "being real." You can, however, teach yourself to feel better fighting a war against your own base inclinations, rather than justify them as a war against religious oppression.
Similar thinking led me towards suicide. If not HRT, what's your alternative?
For one, stop taking hormonal treatments period. And then enter into the fight of your life, to be an example of how others should be fighting base inclinations. You've inherited the tendency from the spiritual failings of your predecessors--if not your parents, perhaps their parents?
Though it's dangerous to do, drugs that simply make you feel better and less preoccupied may do you well. These are addicting, however, and you have to manage your doses. I don't wish to be specific.
As a reminder: I've pursued the course I've pursued because I was becoming severely depressed and suicidal. I don't think my death would have been worth keeping petty, ignorant so-called Christians from acting with hostility. Maybe I'll make it my task to educate them.
I'm well aware that you've been suicidal. It deeply concerns me--I don't want you to die. I had an alcoholic friend call me every weekend into the wee hours of the night. I finally had to put a stop to this enablement.
Eventually, I had to have nothing to do with him, and I still remember his eerie stare at me--he was a Christian, but one hopelessly addicted--so addicted that he had committed crimes and had been jailed.
One day I was told he died, while doing a fire-watch on newly-constructed houses. He had lived with me for a short time, and had caught my own rented house on fire while in a drunken stupor.
I lost another close friend to what I think was a heroin overdose. I could go on. I don't want you to die.
But if I enable you to go on the wrong course you're going to end up both dead and a failure in your spiritual life. I think if you succeed in your spiritual life, death won't matter.
Thanks for the conversation. All the decisions are yours. And all of your own personal experiences are yours, and I respect that.
-
I'm not going to reply to most of what you wrote because it's a bad take, and instead, I'm going to focus on just a few items.
The example used of cross-dressing serves as an example of any kind of gender confusion, even if it is not explicitly stated. It could be wearing long fingernails if in a particular culture only women wore long fingernails, and some men choose to do the same. In this case, it is the attempt at gender confusion that is being out-lawed--not just cross-dressing.
This is a core concern of mine, but I think my bioethical dilemma transforms the contextual considerations such that I'm not in a circumstance, personally, where Deuteronomy 22:5 applies as it would to another who didn't experience the same dilemma. If you think it does anyways, then why? I'm interested in an exegetical treatment of the text that takes into account something like a mental disorder. Catholic bioethicists are particularly good at this sort of thing, so I'm not particularly poorly read on the subject. But I'm not as well-read as I'd like to be, so what's your take?
So when I say that cross-dressing is, biblically, a form of homosexuality ... I'm talking about gender confusion, and on what the Bible views as a form of homosexuality apart from intercourse. After all, the Bible opposes cross-dressing, and it is *not* intercourse.
This is an awful syllogism (and that's putting it nicely, to call it a syllogism). What it also fails to account for are other circumstances not under discussion, like highly creative individuals who don't particularly care for gendered labels on clothing and wear what they want to wear. There's nothing inherently sexed about any piece of clothing, and I'd hesitate to imbue clothing itself with moral significance given what's valued changes over time and from one society to another.
Problematically, your argument is that the bible opposes cross-dressing as a violation of sexed norms (the male/female distinction) necessarily, but if what is problematic is a violation of sexed norms, then cross-dressing, per your examples and the above, won't always be a violation of those norms. By norms I mean norms that are God-ordained, and not merely socially valued. The prohibition then is against violating God's intentions for men and women as sexed creatures.
...But then you'll need to walk back the claim about cross-dressing always and necessarily being an example of such, and you'll also need to go further and demonstrate the application of this to my bioethical dilemma. To give you a concrete scenario (keep in mind that it's an example), in recalling what Fenris wrote earlier, consider this:
- I experience intense anxiety as a result of gender dysphoria
- Wearing women's socks is the only thing that relieves that anxiety
- Do I wear women's socks or do I continue to experience intense anxiety?
What would you do? And those are the only two options, so don't go trying to find an alternative. Do you subject yourself to intense anxiety, or do you wear women's socks?
As I said, you admit to being conflicted in terms of your eternal destiny based on your decision to "transition."
I haven't decided to transition. I wrote that I'm in effect, medically transitioning as a consequence of starting cross-sex HRT, but I only decided to start HRT. In other words, I'm transitioning by definition, not intention. It's a consequence, where the desired primary effects were to mitigate my depression and relieve the experience of dysphoria. Socially transitioning is something else in addition.
And having questions about my eternal destiny isn't me being vague. It's me working out my salvation with fear and trembling.
"Ungodly" does not translate into mean-spirited or violent or unlikeable--obviously, people here seem to like you. "Ungodly" refers to ignoring God's word on a particular subject, whether fully aware or not.
I've been "ungodly" in my attitude at times, thinking I was just defending the truth, whereas I was actually mistreating others in my approach. So ungodliness is something we all experience. You have to be convinced personally before you acknowledge something like this as "ungodly."
I know what you meant, and I'm going to push this one. Present your argument that I've acted in an ungodly way. I want to hear it, first of all, but if you can't make the argument then why offer the claim? As IMINXTC has been asking: let's see the Scriptural argument. Let's tie that into the bioethical consideration and the day-to-day dilemmas that follow (such as the example above). I'm not acting to violate the distinction between sex categories, even if that's the misperception. So, what's the argument?
And instead of just explaining to me why I'm acting in an ungodly way, offer me an alternative, godly course of action. I've been looking for one for a long time, so make it something I haven't heard before.
-
Getting on with life as husband, father and witness for Christ, in the face of physical challenges and ever-present stereotyping and judgments.
Much to deal with.
-
Words fail.
-
Deuteronomy 22:5 is the go-to for most Christians I come across. What about Deuteronomy 22:5 do you think is applicable to my circumstance, such that you can say with warrant that I'm acting in an ungodly way?
The rabbis understood the prohibition of crossdressing as being forbidden specifically because it was presumed that the intent was to go amongst the opposite gender and behave immorally. An easy way to "hook up" or whatever. It wasn't so much the act itself as what it could lead to.
-
Deuteronomy 22:5 is the go-to for most Christians I come across. What about Deuteronomy 22:5 do you think is applicable to my circumstance, such that you can say with warrant that I'm acting in an ungodly way?
The rabbis understood the prohibition of crossdressing as being forbidden specifically because it was presumed that the intent was to go amongst the opposite gender and behave immorally. An easy way to "hook up" or whatever. It wasn't so much the act itself as what it could lead to.
Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited. Unless the person is incapable of understanding the difference, putting on female clothes for a man was an intentional act of wanting to identify as a female, which was prohibited.
Now we may argue that someone wishes to identify as a female for health reasons, for psychological reasons. But that does not supersede the need to avoid intentional identification with the opposite gender. To do so in the matter of clothing is prohibited, and by extension, any kind of obvious identification with the opposite gender would be prohibited--not just cross-dressing.
And I would agree that those who do so wish to identify with the traits associated with the female, which is sexual relations with men. With a reduced sexual urge, that desire for intimate relations with men may assume a less-blatant form, but could include things like kissing, touching, etc.
These things are prohibited along with the notion that men should not lie with other men as though a woman. I should think any kind of foreplay and sexual intimacy would be prohibited as well.
Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother! ;)
Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have. Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.
Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.
-
Has the issue here shifted to one of cross-dressing?
-
Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.
No ridicule, just disappointing.
-
Has the issue here shifted to one of cross-dressing?
Not really. It has the appearance of a 'discussion' on cross-dressing, but it's actually more about (1) nonsensical concepts and (2) "one true believer"™ syndrome.
Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited. Unless the person is incapable of understanding the difference, putting on female clothes for a man was an intentional act of wanting to identify as a female, which was prohibited.
For example, here we're introduced to the concept of 'homosexual dressing', which is nonsense, and who is going to put this on their salad anyway? We're also once again treated to the idea that cross-dressing/homosexual dressing is necessarily the 'intentional act of wanting to identify as a female', but we'll just kinda sorta never mind that the word "identify" rather than "act" was used. No attempt has been made to account for what I said in my earlier reply, so this is really just Randy reasserting himself as if to say, "sure, but..."
Now we may argue that someone wishes to identify as a female for health reasons, for psychological reasons. But that does not supersede the need to avoid intentional identification with the opposite gender. To do so in the matter of clothing is prohibited, and by extension, any kind of obvious identification with the opposite gender would be prohibited--not just cross-dressing.
Here Randy fails to account for the bioethical question. He also seems to be confused over the motivations of my actions, despite my spelling them out. We're told that 'psychological reasons' don't impact our understanding of Deuteronomy 22:5, but why? We're not told, we should just trust Randy because he said so. Fenris says different, as do most commentators on Deuteronomy 22:5.
We'll notice at this point that Randy hasn't produced his own Scriptural argument. For the moment he's latched onto my mention of Deuteronomy 22 and is running with it.
And I would agree that those who do so wish to identify with the traits associated with the female, which is sexual relations with men. With a reduced sexual urge, that desire for intimate relations with men may assume a less-blatant form, but could include things like kissing, touching, etc.
We're instead told that only the gayest of gay homosexuals would ever possibly want to identify as female. The world has legitimately moved beyond this (as it should have). Why Randy feels it necessary to start talking about 'less-blatant'<sic> forms of sexual urges is known only between him and Cthulu.
Anyway, notice the subtle movement from 'mere' cross-dressing to same-sex sexual activity. For Randy, the two are one and the same.
Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother! ;)
And so we arrive at "one true believer" syndrome. In this case, it's the idea that those on this forum are supportive of same-sex sexual activity, or cross-dressing as a necessary expression of homosexual dressing, and similar. But of course, this isn't what anyone is saying, and Randy is simply out of his depth or has significantly misunderstood the discussion at hand. Both, I would say.
Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have.
Thus, my concrete example has been entirely ignored because... stumbling blocks. I don't think I need to explain to anyone how ridiculous this appeal is. What I will say is that this betrays a failure to understand the condition in question, as if my acting is something arbitrary, and I could simply do X or Y differently. Having done many variations of X or Y, in fact, as many as I and others could think of, I know this isn't the case.
Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.
This is a return to Randy's epigenetic argument, although I'm not sure he's aware he's making it. This is ignorable as the comparison of my situation to homosexuality is unwarranted, and I've already stated that hormonal imbalance isn't the cause of my dysphoria.
Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.
No one was ridiculing Randy, but this is the only way Randy can justify his position to himself.
Unfortunately for Randy, I'm not going to let it go. Randy, you suggested that I've acted and am acting in an ungodly way, which is to act sinfully, which is to be in sin. I take this very seriously. "Deuteronomy 22 says what it says" isn't an argument, so support the claim or retract it. If you're going to support it, also let me know what you think I can do to act in a godly way, and don't just say "follow Deuteronomy 22" because that's not helpful, and has already been tried in the way you understand the text (for 30+ years).
-
Looking for scripture verses that might seem to support one's opinions is "proof texting" and rarely actually does much in the way of contextual evidence, regardless of how many words one attaches to the text.
Might even be a completely different topic.
Just saying.
-
Looking for scripture verses that might seem to support one's opinions is "proof texting" and rarely actually does much in the way of contextual evidence, regardless of how many words one attaches to the text.
Just saying.
And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.
Unless Christians specifically are able to offer a workable solution, then I've done my ~30 years of tries and this is the point I'm at. Throwing Scripture at me, that I've studied for 20+ years, is to miss the point entirely of what I'm asking. As Fenris was saying, sometimes we have to act in ways we would have preferred to avoid because there are no better options. This is a 'no better options' scenario. I know, because I've exhausted all of them.
-
Looking for scripture verses that might seem to support one's opinions is "proof texting" and rarely actually does much in the way of contextual evidence, regardless of how many words one attaches to the text.
Just saying.
And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.
Unless Christians specifically are able to offer a workable solution, then I've done my ~30 years of tries and this is the point I'm at. Throwing Scripture at me, that I've studied for 20+ years, is to miss the point entirely of what I'm asking. As Fenris was saying, sometimes we have to act in ways we would have preferred to avoid because there are no better options. This is a 'no better options' scenario. I know, because I've exhausted all of them.
Genesis also introduces us to the conditions of the fall and gradually reveals a broken system, laden with weaknesses, sickness and death, the common denominator for all us humans.
We learn about what is deliberate sin and what is, in effect, a fractured natural system, subject to weakness.
-
Maybe I'm just slow, but I'm still stunned by the proposals that (even though homosexuality has NEVER been raised as an issue of either desire or conduct in this thread...)
~~~ homosexual preferences are sin
~~~ homosexual conduct is the result of a hormonal imbalance
~~~ some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female
~~~ that "cross dressing" -- whatever that is -- is homosexual conduct
~~~ that the be damned "weaker brother" is the ultimate fall back for supporting any position we wish that is used as a cudgel against that which we fear
I'm also flummoxed at the illogical leap that "the Bible addresses gender dysphoria". Not in Deut. 22, not even in Romans 1. Of course, it doesn't address menopause, erectile dysfunction, or air conditioning and indoor toilets either, but, there you go.
The effort to separate the psychological from the physiological is inherently a false flag. Our brains are biochemical factories. The incorporeal part of us still resides within the meat suit. Struggle is not sin; to the contrary, struggle is acknowledged as a stark reality of faith in a fallen world.
And the idea that I'm not conservative enough for the taste of some is rather humorous. "And I, only I, am left among the faithful prophets of Israel."
-
Maybe I'm just slow, but I'm still stunned by the proposals that (even though homosexuality has NEVER been raised as an issue of either desire or conduct in this thread...)
~~~ homosexual preferences are sin
~~~ homosexual conduct is the result of a hormonal imbalance
~~~ some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female
~~~ that "cross dressing" -- whatever that is -- is homosexual conduct
~~~ that the be damned "weaker brother" is the ultimate fall back for supporting any position we wish that is used as a cudgel against that which we fear
I'm also flummoxed at the illogical leap that "the Bible addresses gender dysphoria". Not in Deut. 22, not even in Romans 1. Of course, it doesn't address menopause, erectile dysfunction, or air conditioning and indoor toilets either, but, there you go.
The effort to separate the psychological from the physiological is inherently a false flag. Our brains are biochemical factories. The incorporeal part of us still resides within the meat suit. Struggle is not sin; to the contrary, struggle is acknowledged as a stark reality of faith in a fallen world.
And the idea that I'm not conservative enough for the taste of some is rather humorous. "And I, only I, am left among the faithful prophets of Israel."
You seem to be expressing nothing biblical--only claiming the Bible cannot touch issues that are modern or beyond the reach of God's written word. I'm trying to apply the Bible, conceptually, to issues that are similar to those explicitly referred to in the Scriptures.
Yes, you do appear to be leaning towards the more liberal side of things. I don't wish to label you, as such, but the position you're taking appears to be right out of a liberal's handbook.
You also sound like a cheerleader for your "friend." Why not make your own arguments, instead of doing some kind of color commentary? Snide remarks can be funny, but not always. If the above is an argument, it sounds more to me like an attempt at marginalizing my own arguments, or trying to portray them as weak and irrelevant. Where's the argument?
Yes, homosexual preferences are sin.
Yes, homosexual conduct is the result of a hormonal imbalance, plus our inherited and environmental spiritual influences, when we choose to act on this. Some homosexual appearances are just that, and not actual homosexuality.
Yes, some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female. Intercourse is the obvious example.
Yes, "cross dressing" is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so. Confusing cross dressing with "fashions" is a digression, or worse, a misdirection. We are only talking about cross-dressing in the sense of intentional identification as the opposite gender.
Yes, the "weaker brother" is the biblical example exhorting us to avoid certain behaviors that afflict him in his weakness. This could conceivably include a man wearing female clothing in the presence of an ex-homosexual believer. It would be like drinking alcohol in front of a converted ex-alcoholic.
-
Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited.
Thank you for explaining Jewish law to me. :o
It wasn't homosexuality that concerned the rabbis, but heterosexuality outside of wedlock. A man would not dress like a woman to have sex with a man. A man would dress like a woman so that he could infiltrate a woman's group (as it were) and have sex with the women there.
Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother! ;)
Yes. If only we had the Christian Theocracy that you so long for. Then you could criminally prosecute people for engaging in behavior that you, personally, find un-biblical.
Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have. Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.
I thought salvation was via faith, yet you appear to be a Judaizer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers#:~:text=The%20Judaizers%20were%20a%20faction,still%20binding%20on%20all%20Christians.)
Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.
So disagreement is now "ridicule"? One can only imagine what it would be like to live under a theocracy where "ridiculing" "Christian beliefs" would be punishable by law.
-
1 Corinthians
13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Reading through this thread has left me very sad and disappointed. To read that someone, and I assume his wife as well, has been treated so poorly by the Christian communities he's come in contact with is disheartening to say the least.
Our relationships with others is only secondary to our relationship with God. So, where's the love?
Randy, in no way shape or form do I condone or excuse willful sin, however, scriptures in context are far more important and effective than opinions and pseudo judgments.
Love includes empathy and at least an attempt to understand.
-
And the idea that I'm not conservative enough for the taste of some is rather humorous. "And I, only I, am left among the faithful prophets of Israel."
This is pure gold.
For expressing that Elijah felt like he was the last monotheist, God removed him from his mission. Perhaps he could no longer preach to the Jews after slandering them?
As an aside, as Elijah the prophet ascended to heaven while still alive, he is said to come back to earth at time for some reason or another. Two of those things are Jewish circumcisions and the Passover Seder. As if to let him know that he isn't the last believer, here are Jews following the covenant of Abraham and remembering the Exodus when they became a nation.
-
Love includes empathy and at least an attempt to understand.
Amen. Preach!
-
Yes, "cross dressing" is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.
Where?
-
We learn about what is deliberate sin and what is, in effect, a fractured natural system, subject to weakness.
In the bible there are three different words for "sin", and this matters.
The highest level of sin is called "Pesha" פשע . This is an intentional, rebellious sin against God.
The next level of sin is called "Avon" עָוֺן . This is a lower level sin that happens when a person is weak and succumbs to their desires.
The lowest level of sin is called "Chait" חַטָּא . This is when one sins accidentally.
They are not the same thing and do not have the same punishments, whether by an earthly court or by a heavenly one.
-
Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited.
Thank you for explaining Jewish law to me. :o
I would distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and the Scriptures themselves. Bible Commentary is not always accurate, and includes a lot of opinions based on certain preconceptions, such as, Jesus is *not* the Messiah.
It wasn't homosexuality that concerned the rabbis, but heterosexuality outside of wedlock. A man would not dress like a woman to have sex with a man. A man would dress like a woman so that he could infiltrate a woman's group (as it were) and have sex with the women there.
There may be more than one intent in cross-dressing. My concern is the Scriptures' explicit prohibition against cross-dressing in the mode of gender confusion.
So disagreement is now "ridicule"? One can only imagine what it would be like to live under a theocracy where "ridiculing" "Christian beliefs" would be punishable by law.
I rest my case.
-
Yes, "cross dressing" is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.
Where?
It is said in the prohibition itself, forbidding cross-dressing as a homosexual act. Gender confusion, in other words, is a homosexual act by biblical definition.
-
And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.
Then contend with the psychological reality, but don't ignore the biblical order. The psychological reality is that Christ rules over our will, and denial of that simply means we are retaining control over our lives, instead of yielding them up to the Spirit.
I'm not going to say I have a compulsion to murder, and simply must point a gun and shoot to get over the confusion of whether I'm a murderer or not. Getting rid of compulsions towards violence, theft, or addictions of many kinds is no different than dealing with "gender dysphoria," as I see it. And yes, I don't walk in your shoes.
I'm not judging you--you have to let the Bible judge you based on your own understanding of it. I'm just giving you my understanding.
-
Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited.
Thank you for explaining Jewish law to me. :o
It wasn't homosexuality that concerned the rabbis, but heterosexuality outside of wedlock. A man would not dress like a woman to have sex with a man. A man would dress like a woman so that he could infiltrate a woman's group (as it were) and have sex with the women there.
Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother! ;)
Yes. If only we had the Christian Theocracy that you so long for. Then you could criminally prosecute people for engaging in behavior that you, personally, find un-biblical.
Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have. Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.
I thought salvation was via faith, yet you appear to be a Judaizer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers#:~:text=The%20Judaizers%20were%20a%20faction,still%20binding%20on%20all%20Christians.)
Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.
So disagreement is now "ridicule"? One can only imagine what it would be like to live under a theocracy where "ridiculing" "Christian beliefs" would be punishable by law.
Brilliant.
-
Yes, "cross dressing" is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.
Where?
It is said in the prohibition itself, forbidding cross-dressing as a homosexual act. Gender confusion, in other words, is a homosexual act by biblical definition.
You have heterosexual tendencies. That is, you like the idea and are attracted to the thought have having sex with women. Are your heterosexual tendencies and proclivittes to have sex with women outside of marriage sinful a priori or are they merely temptations until you act on them?
-
Yes, "cross dressing" is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.
Where?
It is said in the prohibition itself, forbidding cross-dressing as a homosexual act. Gender confusion, in other words, is a homosexual act by biblical definition.
You have heterosexual tendencies. That is, you like the idea and are attracted to the thought have having sex with women. Are your heterosexual tendencies and proclivittes to have sex with women outside of marriage sinful a priori or are they merely temptations until you act on them?
Good question! I think the operation of God's grace in our lives is a testament to God's willingness to work with those afflicted with sinful tendencies who choose rather to follow their good inclinations. Those sinful tendencies are sinful and unclean. But they become problematic only when we act on them, because otherwise, God's grace enables us to dispose of them.
Our created nature, from the beginning, was a moral heterosexual nature. That is, being made in the image of God, we did not want something outside of the boundaries God set for us. We did not wish to impose on someone else. We did not covet. We did not lust.
However, we had heterosexual tendencies meant to be fulfilled in proper relationships. We only know what happened since the Fall, and our heterosexual tendencies were corrupted by self-desire, separated from God's revelation.
We took it upon ourselves to create law for ourselves, to live by our own appetite and desire, rather than walk in fellowship with God, pursuing the right mind in everything. And so, we began to have sexual desires outside of the bounds of divine guidance, wanting our own way against the wishes of others.
We wanted sex without commitment, adulterous sex, homosexual sex, bestiality, and a host of corruptions, depending on where we've been. Having heterosexual desire was pure at the beginning, but being separated from fellowship with God, and no longer living by the counsel of God's word, our normal human desires became corrupted by a false spirituality, by selfishness.
We can now return to God's word, and be forgiven for our previous lapses. But we are still beset by a Sin Nature, as I understand it and as I experience it. I'm still tempted, constantly, to go my own way, to get what I want ahead of the wishes of others.
This temptation is indeed a form of sin. But God's grace allows me to successfully deal with it, and dispose of it, if only until the next temptation. ;)
-
Tendencies are not sinful and unclean.
Unless Paul was lying in Romans 7.
I could easily be a glutton. Is my desire for over indulgence sinful in itself, or is it a fleshly desire that I must deal with by crucifying my flesh daily.
One person's natural heterosexual tendency is absolutely no different from another person's homosexual tendency, no how much one may sexually excite you or how much the other may sexually disgust you.
I know many Christians who to this day would describe themselves as having a natural desire toward homosexual behavior, and in fact, have in their pre-Christian lives been active, practicing homosexuals. Since being redeemed, however, they abstain from all homosexual activity. They are celibate. They do not engage in heterosexual activity either, and tell me that the thought of having sex with a woman is absolutely disgusting to them.
Tendencies, proclivities, dispositions toward, desires for... etc. anything, whether sexual or not, is not sinful.
It is what we do with those desires that determines sinfulness.
-
Yes, some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female. Intercourse is the obvious example.
The obvious example of what, exactly? Intercourse is an activity that both of the sexes engage in (with each other, at that!), but beyond anatomical differences what part of it is inherently male, and what part is inherently female? (Oh, you're not going to appeal to submission/dominance are you?) But more the point, why has this discussion taken on a sexual angle at all?
Somehow we've gone from my struggle with dysphoria to talk about those nasty homosexuals, and why?
-
Then contend with the psychological reality, but don't ignore the biblical order.
Bravo :slow-clap: you've killed me.
(I am contending with the psychological reality, and I'm not ignoring the biblical order. At least, not when properly understood. All of this is quite clear, but it doesn't seem you've read what I've written -- or have failed to grasp it.)
The psychological reality is that Christ rules over our will, and denial of that simply means we are retaining control over our lives, instead of yielding them up to the Spirit.
No one is denying any such thing, and to suggest as much is to fail to appreciate what's at hand.
I'm not going to say I have a compulsion to murder, and simply must point a gun and shoot to get over the confusion of whether I'm a murderer or not. Getting rid of compulsions towards violence, theft, or addictions of many kinds is no different than dealing with "gender dysphoria," as I see it. And yes, I don't walk in your shoes.
Which raises the question: why offer an opinion on something you clearly don't understand or have an interest in understanding?
"I have no stable sense of identity as a consequence of significant and persistent epistemic uncertainty"
lololol u no how like u dont steal? Ya like u shuld jus do that lololol It ez
I'm not judging you--you have to let the Bible judge you based on your own understanding of it. I'm just giving you my understanding.
That's to make a judgment, Winston.
But is that it, then? I'm not acting in an ungodly way necessarily, just in what you understand to be an ungodly way? Well, you've failed to convince.
-
But they become problematic only when we act on them, because otherwise, God's grace enables us to dispose of them.
Then either you have never dealt with anything serious, or have forgotten what it's like because no, God's through His grace doesn't always take away or allow for some struggle to be disposed of. Sometimes the struggle has to be lived with, and perhaps there's a purpose in that. But to suggest that the struggle persists because of ungodliness, or not believing hard enough or in the right way, etc., is to make the same error that Job's friends made.
It is to say to me, "I don't believe you, even though I have no inkling of an idea what you're going with. In fact, I'm going to tell you what I think is actually going on." To hold that attitude with someone who can tell you what it's like is, I think, to prefer the shadows on the wall of the cave.
-
Because we hates thems, we doess....we hatesss nasssty homosssexxxxxualsssssses... and anytime we can label something as being nasssssssstier than our stuff we do so.
Because we as Christians, especially in the North American evangelical culture, have largely lost the ability to grapple with difficult issues that affect actual human beings and more importantly, our actual brothers and sisters (not in the same person, mind you!) in Christ, without resorting to cliche, fear, or "there but the grace of God go I" type arguments.
Life in a fallen world is complicated. As you certainly know, issues related to gender dysphoria are primarily non-corporeal in nature as opposed to physiologically/biologically based, although as with all thing occurring in the meat suit, there is a certain about of biochemistry that moves all the pieces around the board.
-
And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.
Then contend with the psychological reality, but don't ignore the biblical order. The psychological reality is that Christ rules over our will, and denial of that simply means we are retaining control over our lives, instead of yielding them up to the Spirit.
I'm not going to say I have a compulsion to murder, and simply must point a gun and shoot to get over the confusion of whether I'm a murderer or not. Getting rid of compulsions towards violence, theft, or addictions of many kinds is no different than dealing with "gender dysphoria," as I see it. And yes, I don't walk in your shoes.
I'm not judging you--you have to let the Bible judge you based on your own understanding of it. I'm just giving you my understanding.
And herein lies the problem, you don't.
Ever been suicidal?
-
It will be edifying and encouraging (finally) to prayerfully watch the Lord deliver in this as in many difficult circumstances.
-
And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.
Then contend with the psychological reality, but don't ignore the biblical order. The psychological reality is that Christ rules over our will, and denial of that simply means we are retaining control over our lives, instead of yielding them up to the Spirit.
I'm not going to say I have a compulsion to murder, and simply must point a gun and shoot to get over the confusion of whether I'm a murderer or not. Getting rid of compulsions towards violence, theft, or addictions of many kinds is no different than dealing with "gender dysphoria," as I see it. And yes, I don't walk in your shoes.
I'm not judging you--you have to let the Bible judge you based on your own understanding of it. I'm just giving you my understanding.
And herein lies the problem, you don't.
Ever been suicidal?
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
-
And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.
Then contend with the psychological reality, but don't ignore the biblical order. The psychological reality is that Christ rules over our will, and denial of that simply means we are retaining control over our lives, instead of yielding them up to the Spirit.
I'm not going to say I have a compulsion to murder, and simply must point a gun and shoot to get over the confusion of whether I'm a murderer or not. Getting rid of compulsions towards violence, theft, or addictions of many kinds is no different than dealing with "gender dysphoria," as I see it. And yes, I don't walk in your shoes.
I'm not judging you--you have to let the Bible judge you based on your own understanding of it. I'm just giving you my understanding.
And herein lies the problem, you don't.
Ever been suicidal?
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
NO [!]
A suicidal person has tried everything, can not do better, is unable, can not stand the immense inner pressure much longer and thoughts of suicide start to develop. Not that the person hates life, on the contrary, everyone wants to live but the ongoing and never ending inner pain, the impotence to change, the prospect there is no future, and for Christians perhaps also, the guilt, all of that toxic cocktail has exhausted a person up to a point there is no strength left any longer. It's not something of a couple of weeks but often a process of years of immense suffering. You have no idea.
And I can tell you from personal experience that the last thing a suicidal CHRISTIAN person needs is criticism, worse told that he is ungodly. He needs comfort, empathy, love, to be heard and understood. Tell you my story, try to understand.
Been there, the year is 1988. Severely depressed for years, taking ~10 pills a day, a walking zombie. At church we had rotating preachers and sometimes preachers spoke prophecies and on a given sunday I got such a personal prophecy which was negative. And for my vulnerable state of mind that was too much, the Lord condemning me was the last drop, I could not stand it and it was very very close if you know what I mean.
Bottom line, don't judge what you don't understand because you don't. Show compassion with those who suffer, they need it, heck, it's a commandment.
-
NO [!]
A suicidal person has tried everything, can not do better, is unable, can not stand the immense inner pressure much longer and thoughts of suicide start to develop. Not that the person hates life, on the contrary, everyone wants to live but the ongoing and never ending inner pain, the impotence to change, the prospect there is no future, and for Christians perhaps also, the guilt, all of that toxic cocktail has exhausted a person up to a point there is no strength left any longer. It's not something of a couple of weeks but often a process of years of immense suffering. You have no idea.
And I can tell you from personal experience that the last thing a suicidal CHRISTIAN person needs is criticism, worse told that he is ungodly. He needs comfort, empathy, love, to be heard and understood. Tell you my story, try to understand.
Been there, the year is 1988. Severely depressed for years, taking ~10 pills a day, a walking zombie. At church we had rotating preachers and sometimes preachers spoke prophecies and on a given sunday I got such a personal prophecy which was negative. And for my vulnerable state of mind that was too much, the Lord condemning me was the last drop, I could not stand it and it was very very close if you know what I mean.
Bottom line, don't judge what you don't understand because you don't. Show compassion with those who suffer, they need it, heck, it's a commandment.
/thread. For real, this is excellent.
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
Indeed:
Surviving cancer.
Demonic attacks.
Not for the faint of heart.
You been through it.
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
Despair, hopelessness, depression--these make for suicidal thoughts. When you wait it out, and ultimately things change, then yea--you can say, "I'm stronger than you know." If it doesn't make you feel good, it does me. But I know my strength comes from the Lord.
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
Despair, hopelessness, depression--these make for suicidal thoughts. When you wait it out, and ultimately things change, then yea--you can say, "I'm stronger than you know." If it doesn't make you feel good, it does me. But I know my strength comes from the Lord.
Typical.
As if sever depressed Christians don't fully have put their trust on the Lord for a way out. I know the examples and I am not speaking of myself only. And some of them did not made it.
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
Despair, hopelessness, depression--these make for suicidal thoughts. When you wait it out, and ultimately things change, then yea--you can say, "I'm stronger than you know." If it doesn't make you feel good, it does me. But I know my strength comes from the Lord.
And what, I don't know that? You've clearly never been suicidal. 'When you wait it out', as if. This is the old "trust Jesus" or "you don't trust Jesus enough" tripe that's brought out by Christians regarding any mental health issue. Telling me - or anyone with a mental health issue, for that matter - that they're not strong enough, or they don't trust Jesus enough, or in the right way, is to utterly fail to grasp the reality of what's happening.
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
Indeed:
Surviving cancer.
Demonic attacks.
Not for the faint of heart.
You been through it.
And that's not even everything. I haven't yet met a psychologist, counsellor or therapist who quite knew where to begin after I've explained all the 'major' events in my life. There's a lot, and I started young. I've lived a life, I like to say.
-
As if sever depressed Christians don't fully have put their trust on the Lord for a way out. I know the examples and I am not speaking of myself only. And some of them did not made it.
I should not actually be here. More than once. Cannot take credit for my having survived.
-
Yes, "cross dressing" is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so.
Where?
It is said in the prohibition itself, forbidding cross-dressing as a homosexual act. Gender confusion, in other words, is a homosexual act by biblical definition.
The bible doesn't say it's a homosexual act. In fact, a woman cross dressing as a man can't be prohibited as a homosexual act, because female-female sex isn't prohibited in the bible.
-
I would distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and the Scriptures themselves.
The scriptures themselves don't say what you are saying.
Bible Commentary is not always accurate, and includes a lot of opinions based on certain preconceptions, such as, Jesus is *not* the Messiah.
Jesus being the messiah or lack thereof is not a Jewish legal matter, it's a theological one.
There may be more than one intent in cross-dressing. My concern is the Scriptures' explicit prohibition against cross-dressing in the mode of gender confusion.
According to who? You mock rabbinical interpretation yet include your own personal interpretation and present it as binding. Who gave you that authority?
I rest my case.
-
I would distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and the Scriptures themselves.
The scriptures themselves don't say what you are saying.
I disagree.
Bible Commentary is not always accurate, and includes a lot of opinions based on certain preconceptions, such as, Jesus is *not* the Messiah.
Jesus being the messiah or lack thereof is not a Jewish legal matter, it's a theological one.
A distinction without a difference.
There may be more than one intent in cross-dressing. My concern is the Scriptures' explicit prohibition against cross-dressing in the mode of gender confusion.
According to who? You mock rabbinical interpretation yet include your own personal interpretation and present it as binding. Who gave you that authority?
I wasn't aware that I "mocked" Rabbinic Interpretation--I simply disagree with it. I don't cite it as authoritative. If that's "mocking" to you, so be it. But I don't consider that mocking at all.
-
I disagree.
You've asserted a view and failed to interact with counter-perspectives. When presented with considerations against your view, you merely reasserted yourself. That's disagreement, sure, but it's obstinant and not rigorous. Well, maybe it's more refusal than disagreement.
I wasn't aware that I "mocked" Rabbinic Interpretation--I simply disagree with it. I don't cite it as authoritative. If that's "mocking" to you, so be it. But I don't consider that mocking at all.
Remember when you said this?
Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.
Pot, kettle.
-
I disagree.
You disagree? Great. Show me where the verses say that cross dressing is homosexuality. Because you just invented that.
A distinction without a difference.
No, it's actually a big difference. Theological debates are not a big feature in Judaism, because it's a rules based religion. One does not become a rabbi by learning theology, but by becoming expert in Jewish law. But for you, because the fundamentals of Christianity are more belief than action, you see everything through that lens. But it doesn't apply to other religions. Just making you aware.
I wasn't aware that I "mocked" Rabbinic Interpretation--I simply disagree with it. I don't cite it as authoritative.
Ok, so it's not "authoritative". What makes your views any more authoritative? Why should anyone listen to you? Why should *I* listen to you?
-
I disagree.
You disagree? Great. Show me where the verses say that cross dressing is homosexuality. Because you just invented that.
No, that is the obvious suggestion of the law.
Lev 18.22 22 ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Deut 22.5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Lev 18 is quite explicit in its denunciation of *homosexuality.* Wearing women's clothing is obviously a kind of gender confusion leading to a man, acting as a woman, pursuing sexual relations with another man.
What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.
You obviously disagree with this. And so, there is nothing more to be said.
But for you, because the fundamentals of Christianity are more belief than action, you see everything through that lens. But it doesn't apply to other religions. Just making you aware.
You're making me aware about what Christianity teaches? ;) Nice try. Some Christians, it is true, assume there is some kind of dichotomy between faith and reason, between what one wishes to believe and explicitly stated laws of God.
But other Christians, like myself, including Christians all down through the centuries, have believed, as you do, that the laws of God were fairly clearly rendered. Again, fulfillment of the laws in Christ were not an abrogation of *law* itself. There is an intelligent design to this fulfillment that does not ignore fundamental laws of morality given in the Law of Moses.
Ok, so it's not "authoritative". What makes your views any more authoritative? Why should anyone listen to you? Why should *I* listen to you?
Because I've died to my own interests and have chosen to serve the interests of God. It is, I believe, God's wish to reach out to Fenris, apart from human religion, whether Jewish or Christian. It is meeting God spiritually that is fulfilling to our lives. And I believe He would have you enter into a greater level of spirituality. That is, I believe, found in Christ.
Is this a "belief?" Of course. But is it based on the righteousness displayed in the Law of Moses? Yes. It is a system that circumvents what the Law was not intended to do, which was to bring final redemption to the Jewish People. The Law could not do that, and never tried to do that. Messiah could and did do that.
But yes--it is a matter of personal conviction. It just will never be popular with those who have an axe to grind, or some kind of code of loyalty to a particular class of people.
-
No, that is the obvious suggestion of the law.
It "suggests" nothing of the sort. You're inventing a connection that does not exist in the text.
Lev 18.22 22 ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Deut 22.5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Lev 18 is quite explicit in its denunciation of *homosexuality.* Wearing women's clothing is obviously a kind of gender confusion leading to a man, acting as a woman, pursuing sexual relations with another man.
Two chapters in different books of the bible talking about two different topics are not the same thing. Again, lesbianism is not prohibited by the bible, so why is a woman crossdressing as a man to have sex with another woman prohibited?
What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.
You obviously disagree with this. And so, there is nothing more to be said.
Yes, because you're inventing things. And when challenged, rather than presenting evidence in support of your viewpoint, you say "there's nothing more to talk about."
You're making me aware about what Christianity teaches?
No, I'm making you aware of what other religions teach. Because you seem completely oblivious.
Because I've died to my own interests and have chosen to serve the interests of God.
What a coincidence! So have I! So now my view is authoritative and you must accept it!
Is this a "belief?" Of course. But is it based on the righteousness displayed in the Law of Moses?
Unlike you, I actually uphold and follow the bible's laws. So my view is authoritative x9000!!!
Yes. It is a system that circumvents what the Law was not intended to do, which was to bring final redemption to the Jewish People.
Actually the bibles laws are a condition of the Sinai covenant and have nothing to do with any final redemption. But you're on a roll here so why bother.
But yes--it is a matter of personal conviction.
You have personal convictions. Just like every other human being on the planet. So again, what makes your any more compelling? Even your fellow Christians don't agree with you, so why should I?
-
Lev 18 is quite explicit in its denunciation of *homosexuality.* Wearing women's clothing is obviously a kind of gender confusion leading to a man, acting as a woman, pursuing sexual relations with another man.
Do you know who gay men don't want to have sex with? Women. This idea that gay men dress up as women to have sex with other gay men is... odd. Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't say anything about same-sex sexual activity, and Leviticus 18 doesn't say anything about cross-dressing. And what's the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 anyway? Donkeys, ox and birds nests. What did men and women wear in the ANE? They didn't have the dress and trousers distinction that we have today, that's for sure.
It's not only odd, but I am explicitly telling you that "wearing women's clothing" doesn't necessarily lead to men acting as women with the intent of having sex with men. It can, but it doesn't always, and for whatever reason, we've moved beyond the specifics of my circumstance to things no one was discussing. I'm wearing women's socks if you can believe it, and I guess that counts as "cross-dressing" despite the gendered label being entirely arbitrary, but you know what? No one is coming around my stinky feet.
Although the internet is full of weirdos.
As much as I'm critical of the current metaphysics (to be generous), there is a valid distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation. You're treating the two as if they're one and the same, and they're not. You could have, for example, men dressing up as women to have sex with women, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to describe that, as kinky as it is, as homosexual activity.
And so we return to the necessity game, except this time...
P1. Leviticus 18 denounces homosexual conduct
P2. Wearing women's clothing is homosexual conduct
C. Therefore, Leviticus 18 denounces cross-dressing
But P2 isn't true necessarily, and so the conclusion doesn't follow.
What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.
You obviously disagree with this. And so, there is nothing more to be said.
Sure there is.
Do you really think Deuteronomy 22:13 - 21 is beneficial for society? Ours today, I mean? In this portion of scripture, we read about virginity testing, and if proof of the woman's virginity cannot be found, then she's to be stoned to death. But what about those women who really are virgins, and no proof can be found because their hymen tore for some reason other than sex?
But God said it, right?
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found
21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
And don't worry, if the husband besmirches the wife and proof of virginity can be found then he gets stoned instead. Oh no wait, he's fined a hundred shekels of silver. Why do you think Dawkins and others get away with talking about the capriciousness of God?
Or you know, how about v28 - 29, where women are forced to marry the men who raped them?
Now obviously these things are said because - I would imagine - they corrected social wrongs at the time. v28 - 29 is awful, but it's not as awful as what was happening. But just because they're less awful doesn't mean they're examples to us today of how we ought to organise society. We've moved on. We've actually bettered our moral understanding. Some of us, anyway. And we know that these societies lead to female infanticide and honor killings because that's what we see in history and today.
Of course, we all ignore the biggest sin of Deuteronomy 22, which is the wearing of clothes that blend wool and linen together.
I think Deuteronomy 22:5 is being plucked and proof texted. There is a whole lot that we don't follow in this portion of Scripture, so what makes 22:5 especially morally binding? Because it affects the institution of marriage? You'd think that this would be mentioned, given marriage is discussed. But it's not. If a man raped a woman and the hymen was already broken, despite her being a virgin, and thus it's assumed that she's been immoral, then I guess they both die?
You did add tassels to the four corners of your cloak, right?
-
You did add tassels to the four corners of your cloak, right?
Ooh ooh, I did! :)
-
Do you know who gay men don't want to have sex with? Women. This idea that gay men dress up as women to have sex with other gay men is... odd.
Boy George acted like a woman, as do many gay men. And yes, they wanted to play the female role in a relationship with the same sex. Role-playing is very normal, but in this case, the Bible calls it "sinful." Even if the gay guy wants to act like a woman, and isn't "advertising" for sex, he is still putting a temptation out there for ex-gays who wish not to be tempted.
And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing, as something that should serve others by not putting a stumbling block in front of them. This is like going out of your way to help someone when you don't have to, such as when you find your neighbors animals straying--vs 1. Or, like when a neighbor's animal has stumbled--vs 4.
Or, like doing something that only has the appearance of something cruel, like recognizing the value of reproduction in animals as something inherently good--vs 7.
Yes, cross-dressing doesn't inherently do harm to anybody. If, for example, it happens as a dramatic act in a play, it may be harmless. But in context, it is when something of value, like a social institution, is being threatened, cross-dressing may be very harmful!
Or, like taking precautions so that someone does not get hurt due to your failure to anticipate conditions in which an accident may happen--vs 8.
Or, like failing to recognize the need to distinguish between plants before they are mature, so there is no confusion as to what is being produced--vs 9. Or, like failing to recognize essential differences in nature that don't work so well together--vs 10.
Do you think this last failure to differentiate would apply to cross-dressers? Or to gays? At any rate, the chapter goes on to list sexual perversions, indicating some decidedly different relationships, which may include the homosexual or the bestial relationship, do not belong in the category of sexual compatibility.
Much of this has to do with recognizing divine design in nature. We shouldn't even give the appearance of trying to challenge the thought processes of Deity. Those who turn to a pure Naturalism simply want to claim there is no inherent morality in Nature, giving justification for people to live as they want, and not as they ought.
Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't say anything about same-sex sexual activity, and Leviticus 18 doesn't say anything about cross-dressing. And what's the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 anyway? Donkeys, ox and birds nests. What did men and women wear in the ANE? They didn't have the dress and trousers distinction that we have today, that's for sure.
It's not only odd, but I am explicitly telling you that "wearing women's clothing" doesn't necessarily lead to men acting as women with the intent of having sex with men. It can, but it doesn't always, and for whatever reason, we've moved beyond the specifics of my circumstance to things no one was discussing. I'm wearing women's socks if you can believe it, and I guess that counts as "cross-dressing" despite the gendered label being entirely arbitrary, but you know what? No one is coming around my stinky feet.
Although the internet is full of weirdos.
We just discover what people are really like inside the privacy of their own homes, and with a degree of anonymity. Perhaps our own hang-ups are not so unusual after all? However, we need to do better than the lowest common denominator--you think?
As much as I'm critical of the current metaphysics (to be generous), there is a valid distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation. You're treating the two as if they're one and the same, and they're not.
I'm aware of that. But I was in the mode of justifying the cross-dressing rule as something that has sexual connotations, whether it is intentional or not. It has a bad impact, I think, on a normal marriage society, whether a person is aware or not.
And so we return to the necessity game, except this time...
P1. Leviticus 18 denounces homosexual conduct
P2. Wearing women's clothing is homosexual conduct
C. Therefore, Leviticus 18 denounces cross-dressing
But P2 isn't true necessarily, and so the conclusion doesn't follow.
What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.
Do you really think Deuteronomy 22:13 - 21 is beneficial for society? Ours today, I mean? In this portion of scripture, we read about virginity testing, and if proof of the woman's virginity cannot be found, then she's to be stoned to death. But what about those women who really are virgins, and no proof can be found because their hymen tore for some reason other than sex?
But God said it, right?
God isn't stupid. He knew the Law of Moses was for an ancient culture, and He was laying down ground rules--not exceptions. He understood Hebrews were smart enough to distinguish between the intent of the Law and exceptional circumstances. For example, David ate the holy bread in a time of desperate need, simply by asking the priest to arbitrate.
Many rules under the Law contained eternal principles, but were contained in time-limited circumstances. The biggest example was the law of animal sacrifice. The principle was that God accepted observance of an illustration that we confess having done violence to others through the act of sacrificing an animal.
But the time limitation on this is the act of Christ's forgiveness for the failure of Israel to keep the Law properly, including the law of animal sacrifice. Internal corruption to a high degree delegitimized all of the animal sacrifices as a flawed repentance, a false confession, or an inadequate form of worship.
Since Christ sacrificed himself for Israel, they need not offer animal sacrifices any more. They only need to confess his death on behalf of all human sin.
There were time limitations on things like avoiding tattoos, because in ancient times pagans may have practiced this. Avoiding pagan practices had an inherent spiritual value, though it was time-limited.
In the modern world, this is not a major issue, even if the principle of avoiding appearances of paganism still applies. God gave the Law of Moses to demand eternal principles be recognized, and be acknowledged as evident in the nature of our own conscience. Today, the circumstances have changed, but the principles are unchanging.
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
Indeed:
Surviving cancer.
Demonic attacks.
Not for the faint of heart.
You been through it.
And that's not even everything. I haven't yet met a psychologist, counsellor or therapist who quite knew where to begin after I've explained all the 'major' events in my life. There's a lot, and I started young. I've lived a life, I like to say.
How did I not list Autism - perhaps key or crucial in said issues(?).
Prayers are current
-
Boy George acted like a woman, as do many gay men. And yes, they wanted to play the female role in a relationship with the same sex. Role-playing is very normal, but in this case, the Bible calls it "sinful." Even if the gay guy wants to act like a woman, and isn't "advertising" for sex, he is still putting a temptation out there for ex-gays who wish not to be tempted.
... Let me get a drink.
No, I was talking about dressing up as a woman, which isn't what you're talking about here, which is '[acting] like a woman' -- I think most people would regard that as a particular kind of gay flamboyance rather than an attempt to emulate women. Of course, this goes back to the kinds of distinctions you don't want to entertain, namely, that one could wear women's clothing without attracting men (I gave socks as a nice easy example). To think that ex-gay (?) men would be tempted by men acting like women is strange. I think at this point in the discussion it's mostly just a kind of ignorance.
I'm not sure about this implied equation between, presumably, submission and the 'female role in a relationship'.
And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing, as something that should serve others by not putting a stumbling block in front of them. This is like going out of your way to help someone when you don't have to, such as when you find your neighbors animals straying--vs 1. Or, like when a neighbor's animal has stumbled--vs 4.
To bring this back to my own real-life experience, (1) gay men want nothing to do with me, and (2) ex-gay men don't find me to be a stumbling block. This entire appeal to 'stumbling blocks' is absurd, as if it excuses a person from their own responsibilities. If my clothes are triggering someone else that's on them, not me. (If I have to say this, does that mean I've made it?)
Of course, to argue from the notion of 'stumbling blocks' ends up arguing for too much anyway.
But in context...
Oh, in context.
Those who turn to a pure Naturalism simply want to claim there is no inherent morality in Nature, giving justification for people to live as they want, and not as they ought.
We're not talking about 'those' nebulous people. We were talking about me.
We just discover what people are really like inside the privacy of their own homes, and with a degree of anonymity. Perhaps our own hang-ups are not so unusual after all? However, we need to do better than the lowest common denominator--you think?
Were you planning on replying to what I wrote?
I'm aware of that. But I was in the mode of justifying the cross-dressing rule as something that has sexual connotations, whether it is intentional or not. It has a bad impact, I think, on a normal marriage society, whether a person is aware or not.
Do you find socks to be sexually arousing, Randy? Jeans, maybe? Not skinny jeans, just normal old straight cut whatever. Sweaters? You aren't in the mode of justifying anything, you're in the mode of asserting. You're in the mode of failing to interact with opposing views while mutating this discussion from something specifically about the experience I was conveying and into to a discussion that no one was all that interested in discussing, because it wasn't relevant.
He understood Hebrews were smart enough to distinguish between the intent of the Law and exceptional circumstances.
Oh, exceptional circumstances. And my circumstances are...?
-
Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see
I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"
If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.
Indeed:
Surviving cancer.
Demonic attacks.
Not for the faint of heart.
You been through it.
And that's not even everything. I haven't yet met a psychologist, counsellor or therapist who quite knew where to begin after I've explained all the 'major' events in my life. There's a lot, and I started young. I've lived a life, I like to say.
How did I not list Autism - perhaps key or crucial in said issues(?).
Prayers are current
Actually the impact of HRT on my ASD has been intriguing, but yes, I don't doubt that the ASD has had a significant impact on specifically my experience of the world, and view of self in relation to others.
I've actually gained a sense of social awareness, empathy, etc. Apparently, I'm a much more caring, invested person. So, there's actually some sense where I can naturally engage socially without calculating everything in real time. And you know, when people tell me their dog has died I don't just blankly stare at them and kind of shrug.
-
And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing
I'm interested in why you think that some aspects of Deut 22 are in effect today and some aren't. Verses 11 and 12 are in the same chapter as verse 5 is, yet verse 5 is super important to you and I'm guessing you don't keep 11 and 12. Religious Jews do, by the way.
-
And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing
I'm interested in why you think that some aspects of Deut 22 are in effect today and some aren't. Verses 11 and 12 are in the same chapter as verse 5 is, yet verse 5 is super important to you and I'm guessing you don't keep 11 and 12. Religious Jews do, by the way.
The rationale goes like this. God's eternal principles of holiness existed in the Law of Moses, and it was given "for all your generations," ie on a continuous basis.
However, written into the Law, as well, was the inevitable failure of that system to bring Israel back to the tree of life, to experience eternal life and eternal bliss. The Law was only for mortals, and could not bring about immortality.
And so, the Law was a confirmation of what the story of the Garden of Eden meant, which is that Man, in his mortal state, could not obtain Eternal Life and Eternal Righteousness. There would always be failure, which is why the Law was chalk full of purification and cleansing ceremonies, and offerings of contrition.
And there were all kinds of symbols of separation between a holy God and a people who were kept near only by the grace and mercy of a patient God. There was a division between the temple and the people, between the priest and the people, and between God and the priests.
But contained in the Law was a spirit of prophecy, hoping for a return to Eden--a Messianic hope. The Prophets later made this clear.
And so, the temporary nature of the Law had to yield up symbols of separation to symbols of unity, like the Communion of Jesus. We now directly partake of God, rather than find ourselves speaking to God through a wall of purification ceremonies.
Having been forgiven by the death of Christ, we no longer need all of the purification and redemption festivals and ceremonies. Seasons are no longer important since the ultimate season of redemption has already arrived. Sabbath is no longer necessary since our works are no longer viewed as unclean and in need to rituals of the Law being done year after year.
The principles contained in the many laws are eternal--principles like the need to separate from paganism. Citing specific pagan practices under the Law were time-limited, because Israel at that time was the only chosen nation, the only nation following the true God. And they had to remain distinct from the pagans, including even looking like they were following them or their impure ways.
So now that Christians view the separating wall between Israel and the nations has come down through Christ, it is a matter of choosing to avoid paganism in other countries or even in our own country, regardless of the practices. Times have changed, and the Law is no longer applicable in its ancient setting, as Christians see it.
-
And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing
I'm interested in why you think that some aspects of Deut 22 are in effect today and some aren't. Verses 11 and 12 are in the same chapter as verse 5 is, yet verse 5 is super important to you and I'm guessing you don't keep 11 and 12. Religious Jews do, by the way.
The rationale goes like this. God's eternal principles of holiness existed in the Law of Moses, and it was given "for all your generations," ie on a continuous basis.
However, written into the Law, as well, was the inevitable failure of that system to bring Israel back to the tree of life, to experience eternal life and eternal bliss. The Law was only for mortals, and could not bring about immortality.
And so, the Law was a confirmation of what the story of the Garden of Eden meant, which is that Man, in his mortal state, could not obtain Eternal Life and Eternal Righteousness. There would always be failure, which is why the Law was chalk full of purification and cleansing ceremonies, and offerings of contrition.
And there were all kinds of symbols of separation between a holy God and a people who were kept near only by the grace and mercy of a patient God. There was a division between the temple and the people, between the priest and the people, and between God and the priests.
But contained in the Law was a spirit of prophecy, hoping for a return to Eden--a Messianic hope. The Prophets later made this clear.
And so, the temporary nature of the Law had to yield up symbols of separation to symbols of unity, like the Communion of Jesus. We now directly partake of God, rather than find ourselves speaking to God through a wall of purification ceremonies.
Having been forgiven by the death of Christ, we no longer need all of the purification and redemption festivals and ceremonies. Seasons are no longer important since the ultimate season of redemption has already arrived. Sabbath is no longer necessary since our works are no longer viewed as unclean and in need to rituals of the Law being done year after year.
The principles contained in the many laws are eternal--principles like the need to separate from paganism. Citing specific pagan practices under the Law were time-limited, because Israel at that time was the only chosen nation, the only nation following the true God. And they had to remain distinct from the pagans, including even looking like they were following them or their impure ways.
So now that Christians view the separating wall between Israel and the nations has come down through Christ, it is a matter of choosing to avoid paganism in other countries or even in our own country, regardless of the practices. Times have changed, and the Law is no longer applicable in its ancient setting, as Christians see it.
The problem Fenris and I have raised is this:
If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be taken as concrete instruction for Christians today, then the whole of Deuteronomy 22 ought to be taken as concrete instruction for Christians today.
If Deuteronomy 22 is to be understood as expressing eternal principles, then the whole of Deuteronomy 22 ought to be taken as the expression of eternal principles. Deuteronomy 22:5 can't be concrete, while Deuteronomy 22:11 - 12 is not.
If you want to argue something like:
P1. Deuteronomy expresses eternal principles
P2. Deuteronomy 22:5 is a particular example of a more general eternal principle
C. The eternal principles of Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to Christians today
Then fine, that can be examined. You can't take Deuteronomy 22:5 concretely and argue something like, 'cross-dressing is homosexual dressing' while appealing to another book entirely that doesn't speak towards Deuteronomy 22:5. I mean, you can, but it's a poor argument. It means arguing that one verse is an expression of an eternal principle but not concrete, while another is concrete and also an expression of an eternal principle.
...to say nothing of your mentions of context and Jews not sticking to the law (apparently) for 'exceptional circumstances' that you don't seem to have considered at all in the context of this discussion. It seems that your position is informed by the axiomatic idea that God will either (1) heal or (2) provide a way to cope with life's challenges. Okay, well, this is the way God has provided for me to cope. If you want to launch an argument from Deuteronomy 22:5, make it a good one, then provide a good holy alternative. As it is, you're just making stuff up by appealing to shallow grandiose sounding pseudo-academic abstractions of the text.
-
The rationale goes like this. God's eternal principles of holiness existed in the Law of Moses, and it was given "for all your generations," ie on a continuous basis.
However, written into the Law, as well, was the inevitable failure of that system to bring Israel back to the tree of life, to experience eternal life and eternal bliss. The Law was only for mortals, and could not bring about immortality.
And so, the Law was a confirmation of what the story of the Garden of Eden meant, which is that Man, in his mortal state, could not obtain Eternal Life and Eternal Righteousness. There would always be failure, which is why the Law was chalk full of purification and cleansing ceremonies, and offerings of contrition.
And there were all kinds of symbols of separation between a holy God and a people who were kept near only by the grace and mercy of a patient God. There was a division between the temple and the people, between the priest and the people, and between God and the priests.
But contained in the Law was a spirit of prophecy, hoping for a return to Eden--a Messianic hope. The Prophets later made this clear.
And so, the temporary nature of the Law had to yield up symbols of separation to symbols of unity, like the Communion of Jesus. We now directly partake of God, rather than find ourselves speaking to God through a wall of purification ceremonies.
Having been forgiven by the death of Christ, we no longer need all of the purification and redemption festivals and ceremonies. Seasons are no longer important since the ultimate season of redemption has already arrived. Sabbath is no longer necessary since our works are no longer viewed as unclean and in need to rituals of the Law being done year after year.
The principles contained in the many laws are eternal--principles like the need to separate from paganism. Citing specific pagan practices under the Law were time-limited, because Israel at that time was the only chosen nation, the only nation following the true God. And they had to remain distinct from the pagans, including even looking like they were following them or their impure ways.
So now that Christians view the separating wall between Israel and the nations has come down through Christ, it is a matter of choosing to avoid paganism in other countries or even in our own country, regardless of the practices. Times have changed, and the Law is no longer applicable in its ancient setting, as Christians see it.
I can't believe you took so much time, and typed so much, yet couldn't explain why some verses in the chapter are binding and some are free to be ignored.
-
I can't believe you took so much time, and typed so much, yet couldn't explain why some verses in the chapter are binding and some are free to be ignored.
It's a big subject. If you can't see the big picture, the little details will make no sense. Again, the laws were designed only for ancient Israel, since God knew the Roman Empire would eventually take the Law away, speaking of *all* the Law, including the Priesthood, the Temple, and the Sacrifices.
Many of the laws were designed to get Israel to refrain from even looking like the pagans, whose ceremonies and practices were devoted to corrupt gods. The principle of separation from paganism is the eternal part of many of these laws, which symbolized evil. Some laws may have prohibited practices that caused deception in the market place. The value in prohibiting injustice of any kind would be an eternal principle.
So the answer is short and sweet. You keep eternal moral principles, but you don't keep antiquated laws that pertain to only a limited time in history and to a limited covenant of Law that no longer exists in the form of Priesthood, Temple, and Sacrifices.
-
So the answer is short and sweet. You keep eternal moral principles, but you don't keep antiquated laws that pertain to only a limited time in history and to a limited covenant of Law that no longer exists in the form of Priesthood, Temple, and Sacrifices.
The bible says nothing of the sort. You literally just invented that. Laws you want to keep are "moral problems" but laws you find uninteresting are swept under the rug as "Priesthood, Temple, and Sacrifices."