02 Oct 2012, 10:26 pm
Ancalagon wrote:
Taverson wrote:
-"Well when someone accepts Christ, they become a new creation so... damn I don't know"
-"Damn I don't know."
-"Damn I don't know."
This is quite a reasonable response. The best answer to a question that you don't know the answer to is to say "I don't know."
Quote:
-"That's tricky."
I'm not sure it's that tricky, personally, but it isn't quite straightforward, so this is also a reasonable response. I think it's especially reasonable if they aren't particularly well acquainted with the facts related to this issue. Most people, BTW, would not be well acquainted with the facts.
Quote:
-"That's between the person and God."
Another reasonable response.
Quote:
-"There's more important religious issues than that."
This is my favorite of the ones you listed. It's quite true, and it keeps things in perspective.
Quote:
But, what do you think?
I have actually looked into the facts about this to some extent. Not deeply, but I have read up on it on the web a bit. There are some people born with indeterminate sex. People diagnosed with gender dysphoria are quite distressed by it. At least some of the people with indeterminate sex are quite bothered as well. I think society's answer (at least in America) is pretty good: surgery, but not trivially obtainable. Future medical technology might provide better answers, but this is what we have at the moment.
I think the best thing to do at the moment is just to more or less go by legal gender.
The way you phrased the question presumes a disapproval of homosexuality as a sin, which not all Christians do. For those that do, however, I doubt that they would come to the conclusion that "it's homosexuality both ways", which you seem to be suggesting.
I would give two specific bits of advice to your Jane Doe: if you think something is wrong, you should not do it; and you should let romantic partners know about your past, at the very least by the time things get serious, even if you normally keep it hidden.
Quote:
I do ask that you TRY to keep this civil.
I will, for my part. And kudos for attempting to start a civil discussion around here. We don't get enough of those.
I always hate when they say there's more important religious issues though, because to me it is one of those interesting theoreticals. Religious NTs in my experience get so rediculously confused or attempt to deflect from an issue that while theoretical, has fascinated me for ten years.
And even though I was mainly referring to those with definite sex at birth, I do appreciate the gender dysphoria comments - definitely adds another dimension to "Jane Doe's situation".
If I get to heaven and find out I'm going to hell, I won't make a fuss. I'll just ask God if he could answer this question before obliterating my soul out of existence.
As for your advice to Jane Doe, I agree that regardless of any moral truth (or lack thereof), he/she would have to be okay with themselves and who they are before attempting to pursue a relationship.
And I wanted the civility (for purely selfish motives!!) because I'd never get answers/opinions if we all started bashing, smashing, and mashing each other to bits.
02 Oct 2012, 11:23 pm
03 Oct 2012, 3:19 am
03 Oct 2012, 4:28 am
Taverson wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Taverson wrote:
But back in that time eunuchs were servants. They were made eunuchs by men to serve women but not be tempted sexually by them - a most efficient male servant.
Quote:
Do you ask, Panychus, why your Caelia only consorts with eunuchs? Caelia wants the flowers of marriage – not the fruit.
some eunuchs could get erections. Thus some women PREFERED them as lovers - no fear of pregnancy -and they lasted longer.
And I guess some husbands didnt care because these kind could not knock their wives up and mess up paternity of the kids.
Hense - the ladies could get "the flower, but not the fruit".
Some being the operative word. I would imagine the majority of them weren't "up" to the task though.
It depends on how and when in life it was done- But its not a pleasant thing mull over - so i forget the details. But yes it was some but not all.
But -okay- so christ said "eunuchs can go to heaven too"- or something to that effect.
So a transgender person is ok.
But that doesnt answer the question "is it ok to consumate a marriage to a transgender person who started out as the same gender as you, but is now outwardly the opposite sex from you- because wouldnt that be homosexuality?"
My guess is that if you are responding to the person emotionally as if they were of the opposite sex then you are exhibiting hetereosexual behavior. So its not gay sex. So... god would be ok with it. maybe ( assuming that there is a god, and that god indeed does not like gay sex).
Though its still kinda yucky-but that just me talkin. Not god.
03 Oct 2012, 7:31 am
04 Oct 2012, 2:43 pm
04 Oct 2012, 2:57 pm
04 Oct 2012, 3:07 pm
