Christians who are attracted to Transsexuals.

[Gor Gar]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Crutch vitriol?? Yes the medicine of TRUTH may be bitter to you lame people, but it is still the TRUTH!

Question: Do you believe the parable about the adultress who was to be stoned and Jesus supposably said "Let him without sin cast the first stone"?

Oh, so we're lame huh? That comment shouldn't surprise me, considering how I've seen you quoting the likes of Sam Harris in another post. You would think that a person in your shoes would understand a little something called TOLERANCE better than your average person. But then, I guess tolerance is only cool as long as it's not applied to Christians, right?

As for that parable, yes, I believe it happened, though I don't understand why you bring it up. But while you're paraphrasing Jesus, you might want to also consider what He said pertaining to judgment: "Before you see the splinter in another man's eye, remove the beam from your own."

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by Gor Gar

Oh, so we're lame huh? That comment shouldn't surprise me, considering how I've seen you quoting the likes of Sam Harris in another post. You would think that a person in your shoes would understand a little something called TOLERANCE better than your average person. But then, I guess tolerance is only cool as long as it's not applied to Christians, right?

As for that parable, yes, I believe it happened, though I don't understand why you bring it up. But while you're paraphrasing Jesus, you might want to also consider what He said pertaining to judgment: "Before you see the splinter in another man's eye, remove the beam from your own."

True words of wisdom from Gor Gar. Christians are lame? When does religion makes someone lame? That is like saying you like to eat Chicken so you are lame! That makes no sense what so ever. I think Jenae needs to read the first two sentences of this topic.

[franalexes]

Sigma,
stop by and see me some time. If I'm not at home, look for me at church.

[randolph]

Jesus said: "the kingdom of God is within you"
Christians tend to forget that.
Think about it!

[GRH]

Nowhere did Jesus condemn homosexuals, so I'd think that likewise, he wouldn't condemn your like of transexuals. For Red-letter Christians (those who follow the words of Jesus) this should be a non-issue.

[Bionca]

Matthew 19:12
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 authors of the Bible were very aware of what we would likely call "Transgenderd Women" today. The cults if Ishtar, Ashera, Innanna all had a class of Priestess who were castrated men. These goddesses were worshiped by The Hebrew's neighbors (Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria).

Later in Rome, the cults of Isis and Cybele also had "eunuch" priestesses. By the Victorian age in England, "eunuch" was used to describe the Hijra in Colonial India as well as the various "third sex" M2Fs in SE Asia, Native Americans, Maori, Samoans, Aboriginal Australians.

Today, various churches use this passage to advocate for celebacy and abstinence. However, given the highly sexual (and spiritual) nature of the neighboring priestesses, I find that to be an incorrect application of the verse.

As Gor Gar said, your own introspection needs to be your guide. Myself, I cannot support a faith so quick to condemn something so intrinsic to my own understanding of myself.

[The Conquistador]

We are all going to hell. Just thought I'd add that nugget.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Matthew 19:12
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.

Read before this and you will understand what is being said.

Jesus was talking about forgivness and how just as God showed forgivness towards our sins, we should likewise show our fellow man forgivness when he sins against us. Afterwards the Pharisees were trying to find fault with his teachings:

3 And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” 4 In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” 7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning. 9 I say to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him: “If such is the situation of a man with his wife, it is not advisable to marry.” 11 He said to them: “Not all men make room for the saying, but only those who have the gift. 12 For there are eunuchs that were born such from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him that can make room for it make room for it.”


In verse 9, Jesus is saying in effect "If all you care about is getting rid of your spouse due to petty things that can be solved, you are no better than someone who sleeps around with another mans woman."

In verse 10, His disciples then comment that if someone is so prone to infidelity, they should not bother getting married.

To which Jesus replies in verses 11 and 12: “Not all men make room for the saying, but only those who have the gift. For there are eunuchs that were born such from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him that can make room for it make room for it.”

What Jesus is saying is that any man who is unable to commit to a woman that he pledges himself to over stupid shit that can obviously be sorted out, is a nutless little bitch. Some men have no drive to have a spouse, some follow the trends of their fellow man and think it is cool to sleep around(reference to modernday douchebaggery) and some have devoted their lives to a certain cause.

To sum up what he was trying to convey:

DO - Be honorable. If you have a girlfriend... treat her as such. If you want to go around banging all sorts of women... that is fine. Just be single.

DON'T - Be one of those guys who always has a girlfriend but it is always looking for something better. In other words, don't stick around a girl because you are afraid to be alone. That is what 16 year old girls do.

Be a man, not a metrosexual chump!

[Jenae LaTorque]

Originally Posted by Gor Gar

Oh, so we're lame huh? That comment shouldn't surprise me, considering how I've seen you quoting the likes of Sam Harris in another post. You would think that a person in your shoes would understand a little something called TOLERANCE better than your average person. But then, I guess tolerance is only cool as long as it's not applied to Christians, right?

As for that parable, yes, I believe it happened, though I don't understand why you bring it up. But while you're paraphrasing Jesus, you might want to also consider what He said pertaining to judgment: "Before you see the splinter in another man's eye, remove the beam from your own."

__________________________________________________ ________________

I set a trap for you and being the average ignorant Christian, you stepped right into it. It is a historical fact that the parable of which I spoke is not in the oldest surviving Bibles. It is something that was entered many hundreds of years later into the NT. Since this has been discovered, many Christian believers have come up with all kinds of explanations. I do not want to debate their explanations because no matter what they say about why it was so, the fact remains: There was an addition made to the Word of God by men. The Bible is a book written by men, and it has been altered, mistranslated, corrupted, and is for the most part based on hearsay. None of the accounts of Jesus and his life are a first hand account. What we do have that is firsthand, and some parts of it are deemed to be forgeries, are those parts attributed to Paul. Paul, a man who never knew Jesus as an alive man and by his own statements seems to know very little about him. You would almost think he never even read Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Oh, that's right. They were not even written until after Paul was dust himself.

[franalexes]

I wonder how many people get their religeous education off a porn site?
What's wrong with this picture?

But I will agree with Bionca. Once in a while I do feel an element of spiritual specialty wihin my own self. I can't tell you what it is. I can't define it. It's just there.

[Gor Gar]

Originally Posted by franalexes

I wonder how many people get their religeous education off a porn site?
What's wrong with this picture?

Unfortunately, I'm mostly to blame for this turn of events because I was dumb enough to go troll-feeding. Please allow me to apologize for my share of the blame, and to bow out of this penis waving contest. People like Jenae seem to think that it's their duty as internet warriors to argue endlessly over a system of belief that they supposedly feel is outdated, and giving them any credence at all is just throwing napalm on the forest fire.

Jenae, I know you're reading this, so please, get the last word in. Go ahead, I'm sure your hero Sam Harris, or any other of those reactionary alarmists such as Dawkins or Hitchens that have spearheaded this New Atheist "movement" will be proud.

[Mel Asher]

Now, now boys ( and girls - if it applies to you ) - Why generate so much heat ? One or two of you indeed sound like Pauline Crusaders of the Richard Dawkins ilk who seems to have made it his life's mission to sneer at, denigrate and dismiss religious belief, especially Judaic-Christian ones. In fact, so extreme is his approach, that it is almost as though he has made Anti-Religion his own personal religion ! ! !

It comes down quite simply to institutional faith versus personal faith.

I am a little astonished that a genuine enquiry about feelings of personal guilt should have resulted in such contemptuous outpourings.

thanks. No way to ease a in conflict with itself.

[Kimmy_t]

If Christianity makes you try to do good, help the weak, feed the hungry, be compassionate etcetera, embrace it with all your heart.

If Christianity makes you scared of change, narrow-viewed and judgemental, run the F away.



Now as to the original post's question, I'll try to give my view if it's of any comfort:
If the God of Christianity is truly as loving and benevolent as they say, he couldn't care less if t-girls do what they do. They don't hurt anyone with it, and it makes them happier, and it's much easier to make other people happy when you are happy yourself.
If the God of Christianity is not as loving and benevolent as they say and gets upset about t-girls living their life... it's time to go shopping for a better God.

's My take on it. ^_^

Kimmy

[The Conquistador]

If God gives you lemons, you FIND A NEW GOD!

[Jenae LaTorque]

As anyone who has followed this thread is aware, it started out as a Christian who was looking to resolve his inner conflicts regarding his attraction to Tgirls. Sigma said, "there is nothing in the Bible that refers to transsexuals." In answer, I pointed out a relevant passage that clearly refers to transgenderism: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an ABOMINATION to the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 22:5)

And what is his reply. "The Bible does not truly speak about transsexuals. It did mention clothing, but not the medical and psychological problems that transsexuals have. However transsexuals did not exist during those periods. Also transsexualism is being more viewed as a medical issue."
All he is doing here is quibbling. The Bible does not contain essays on the medical and pschological aspect of murder either; shall we quibble if murder is allright then? He then states another factual error that transexuals did not exist then. Obviously they did, or there would not be a proscription against the wearing of the clothing of the other sex. History is full of instances of trangenderism and/or cross-dressing. I also directed him to a site that goes into much greater detail on the issue of transgenderism and religion. Note here-Sigma never says whether he visited the site, I do know that he never expressed any appreciation for my effort in finding it for him.


Now, we get to the crutch part. A crutch is a means to supply support where it is needed. A lame man may use one to make his way through the world. Some would describe drugs and alcohol as crutches for people who need them to face life. When Alcoholics Anonymous cure people; what is one of the most successful treatments they use? They have had a lot of success with Replacement Therapy. They replace the alcohol crutch with the religious crutch. If religion is not a crutch, then why do most people turn to it when they have a big problem. I will tell you about a guy named George. He used to have a big drinking problem. Then he turned to religion and some time later he got to be President of the USA. So there is no doubt about it; religion can be a very effective crutch. Some people use it a great deal, while others turn to it only in times of crisis. Sigma has found that his crutch does not fit right and needs some adjustment. I simply said for him to throw away his crutch and walk down the road of life without it. I suspect that they found the allusion somewhat discomfiting.


Now enters Gor Gar. Here we have a Christian who has been able to reconcile his religion with his Tgirl attraction. OK, nothing new there. Christians have been doing that since day one of the Christ belief. If they all really believed in Jesus, why then we would be over run with people running around doing good for others. Let's look at Georgie again. Here is a man who has a personal net worth of over 20 million bucks. And yet he says he is a believer. And what is crazy is that people believe him People have a habit of rationalizing their own behavior and if needed, will alter their creed to serve their purpose(s). This is why there are so many differant denominations of Christian churches who have such widely varying beliefs. And then you have the Muslims and the Jews who all worship the same God of Abraham. OK I guess it's just "diferant crutches for differant folks". So Gor has done the rationalization and does not feel anymore that he is attracted to those "abominations." Worked for him, so he urges Sigma to seek the same solution. So basically, he is saying to whittle on that crutch until it fits, while I am saying to throw the crutch away, you don't need it.

And of course being the good Christion that he claims to be, Sigma is receptive to his fellow Christian cripple, and hostile to the idea of walking on his own two feet. Heaven forbid !!!!!!!!!!

As for the parable of the adultress, I was just curious to see if I was contending with an informed Christian or not. By his answer, I would judge that he was ignorant about that issue and probably a great deal more concerning his religion. I am not saying he is stupid; no, far from it. His use of words indicate that he isn't. However, I do assert that he is intellectually lazy when it come to religious issues. Of course that places him in the majority of Christians. Most of them are content to be just sheep and follow wherever their shepard leads them.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

People have a habit of rationalizing their own behavior and if needed, will alter their creed to serve their purpose(s).

This is true of all people; not just religious folk. As with any human institution, religion is not infallibe.

[Jenae LaTorque]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

This is true of all people; not just religious folk. As with any human institution, religion is not infallibe.

So true, we have all done it. When I was young and dumb, and full of cum, I too believed there was a God. After all, that was the consensus of those around me. As I grew up, I began to notice that what people said were their beliefs and what their actions showed were sometimes polar opposites. By the time I reached college age, it was pretty obvious to me that the prime reason that people believed in God was because they wanted to. For most of them it was not because they had read the Bible. No, most people were actually pretty ignorant of what was contained between the covers. Outside of what they had picked up from the movies they really were pretty much in the dark concerning the main body of Scripture that they believed in. There were a surprising number of them that thought Ben Hur (movie) was a story from the Bible. I kid you not! I encountered people who would not believe that Ben Hur was a fictional account written by the ex govenor of New Mexico. They were so sure it was from the Bible. This ignorance of the Bible was understandable several centuries ago when many people were illiterate and depended on their local priest, pastor, preacher etc. for his reading. But there have been translations available in contemporary language for quite some time now and the literacy rate has never been higher.

So why do they believe? One of you good Christians had better explain it to me.

And to Mel Asher, if anybody is being contemptuous, you lead the pack. First you come on like you are an adult talking to children. A fine example of Christian humility you are.Then you characterize Dawkins using the word "ilk" which has negative connatations. Then you portray him as some negative person whose main aim is to put down religion. I realize that you have never read his books because that is so obvious from your tone. All you are doing is parroting what your shepards have said, you silly sheep! Then you make a totally ambiguous statement that it comes down to institutional faith versus personal faith. What a non-statement! Perhaps you had better expound on that by defining each and explaining the conflict between them and what the hell it has to do with the subject here.

While you are at it, please explain what "pauline crusaders" are in your use of the term. Your ready use of the term indicated that it must have some kind of relevance. So I consulted several referances and went to Google on it, but turned up nil.

[Gor Gar]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

__________________________________________________ ________________

I set a trap for you and being the average ignorant Christian, you stepped right into it. It is a historical fact that the parable of which I spoke is not in the oldest surviving Bibles. It is something that was entered many hundreds of years later into the NT. Since this has been discovered, many Christian believers have come up with all kinds of explanations. I do not want to debate their explanations because no matter what they say about why it was so, the fact remains: There was an addition made to the Word of God by men.

Average and ignorant? Thanks...it's nice to know I'm thought so highly of by yet another New Atheist that tries to turn every internet forum and/or comments section they visit into a place to make conversions. Time was, you had to worry about Bible-thumpers using any opportunity they could imagine to get pushy with their beliefs and give obnoxiousness all new levels of meaning...now things have come full circle. How does it feel to become what was probably the very thing that helped push you into dropping your beliefs in the first place? Make no mistake, you're just as bad as a Bible-thumper, you just come at it from another angle.

But please, before you give yourself any more pats on the back and mentally masturbate over how much more intelligent you like to think you are than all of us Christians, keep in mind that I said I BELIEVE it happened. I didn't claim to KNOW that it did. Every so often so-called "NEW AND AMAZING HISTORICAL FACTS" about supposed discrepancies in the Bible bob up to the surface, and anti-theists like yourself grab them and run with them, no matter how absurd or laughable. What about all of the supposed parallels between Jesus Christ and Mithra? What about this mysterious book of Judas? Why isn't the book of Enoch included in the Bible? Why not try to bring some of those up? Believe me, I've heard a fair share of these *snicker* "historical" facts, and more often than not they're shot down by people more educated than you and me put together. Consider that particular little bubble of yours busted.