Being politically correct harms Transgenders?

[Arthur Brain]

What is it with you and false accusations?

Do you think that if you spew enough of them, you will win an argument?

What false accusation? You think if you keep repeating the same silly mantras they'll magically become true?

 

[Stripe]

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

Darwinists hate dealing with facts.

 

[ok doser]

I reckon if one of these guys who pretends to be on her side told her off, she might.

it would be nice to see town discuss this with her:

It's okay to be gay.

in fact, it would be a miracle :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

Agreed.
Two or three members on this thread do show that they would force their religion on others if they could.

my religion tells me that murder is wrong
my religion tells me that rape is wrong
my religion tells me that molesting children is wrong
my religion tells me that adultery is wrong


others disagree with me - murderers, rapists, child molesters, adulterers

should i force my religious views on them?

 

[eider]

I appreciate your definition of "sin", at least in terms of the OT laws of Moses, which were handed down from God. I have gout flare-ups, which are also caused sometimes by shellfish (certainly of lesser concern than your example, but painful enough to incapacitate me at times).
And in light of your definition of "sin", what about transvestitism was so harmful back then that it needed to be prohibited? Surely you wouldn't expect some overwhelming disease to come upon the people due to wearing the wrong clothes, would you?

Yes...... breaking that law could have flooded sickness amomgst the community in those times, just as Lev.18:6 could have opened the 'gates' to serious in-breeding weakmesses. They were potentially destruction of the whole people, back then.
Every single law was seriously important, including laws such as: Not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together (Deut. 22:11). This may have been about segregation and status. Wool was the main clothing material for the five peasant classes. There was no middle class. Linseed/flax/linen was made for high class persons. And so maybe garments showed status and position? This is not new.
So if anybody wants to cling to old laws for old times and circumstances now, then it might be better for them to disband modern legislation and accept the whole lot, chapter and verse. All of them!

And I can ask the same thing about homosexuality: what about it back then was so dangerous for the people that those that participated were to be stoned? Apparently you think that homosexuals back then carried some kind of dread disease that if left alive, it would spread to the rest of the people, yes?[/QUOTE}
Not just homosexuals! ....... all people, and all creatures, which is why marriage...... no adultery, no homosexuality, no sodomy, no fornication, not eating of carnivores and carrion eaters ..... NOTHING... could be tolerated which could lead to mass infections. The punishments were there to hammer home the law...... dreadful but absolutely necessary.

That being your theory, what do you think changed by the time Jesus came that made it ok to allow the practice in the nation--where it didn't endanger other people anymore?

All the above was still unnacceptable in Jesus's time. The risks had not reduced. Trouble was, the Priesthood, Levites... the upper ruling class had mostly turned 'quisling', excuse that Nordic 20th century term to describe Greedy, Hellenised, corrupted, hypocritical turncoats who were copying invader fashions, cultures and bad habits and forgetting about the old ways and laws which had protected everybody for eons. John the Baptist put it very nicely.
But some laws were changing. Jesus took the Passover meal a day early and he did not eat it in a Temple refectory (hall) as the law required, since half a million folks now needed to be 'fleeced' and got away, so visitors took rooms around the city to take that meal and probably not all during the same day. 2000 priests, 6000 Jewish Temple guards plus the Roman garrison which patrolled the Temple outer wall-tops (only). No wonder every satellite town around Jerusalem was booked up solid at major feasts. We know that count from a census taken by Augustus which counted the kidney pairs of sacrificial lambs, important since Rome took a cut of Temple bureau-de-change rates, a corrupt system which infuriated Jesus. No wonder he demonstrated in and picketed the Temple Courts two days running.
Old laws were being changed or ignored, and the upper-class was ignoring the lot when possible. Hypocrites.
But today any couple should have the right to happiness, regardless of their sexuality. But if you want redundant laws back, take them all........ and surely only Jesus's word should have the authority to change a line?

I hope, too that we can be friends, as that is the best way for us to compare ideas, and hopefully find the better ones. But if we are basing the goodness of laws on our own understanding, and not on the greater understanding of God, we run the risk of missing important information about the effects of sin. Surely we would not have autonomously come up with the idea that the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be bad to eat from, would we?

Ah...... I see Genesis as beautiful metaphor, and I do know that this can irritate some Christians ......... I once asked a Christian (Unitarian) if in a World dominated by his church, did he want to see mass executions, stonings and burnings in public every week. He answered,'Oh we wouldn't stone them anymore..... it would probably be by injection.' And I know people who would like to see Sharia law in localities where the elected council is Muslim. There are people out there who would take OT laws and terrify even your followers with the consequences.
I recently asked some Christians if homosexuality is a mental condition, and they mostly answered 'yes' and still believed that hanging, stoning or any slow painful death would be a suitable sentence. So now some Christians are telling me that they would kill mentally disabled people. That won't help the expansion of Christianity. Let's try for any common ground. I don't want a world where religion, creed, nationality, colour, race, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status is discriminated against, let alone mass executions taking place at half-time during soccer matches............. Well that's what happens in some mid-East countries as the norm, and their laws are exactly the same ones which we debate here, with a few additions sent by God to their prophet, or so they say........

 

[eider]

You seem to be looking at the laws as if each one is only for the protection of individuals.
I see the laws with punishment specified for breaking them as protection of the society as a whole.

To protect the whole group, and also to allow for I individuals. A reach lender could not force a poor debtor to pay up, for instance. If a landowner farmer left a sheaf of wheat by accident, he was not allowed to return for it. Farmers were not allowed to harvest the corners of fields. Even an ox had the right to graze as it worked.

The laws were brilliant.

 

[Ktoyou]

What would one of God's spokesmen do when confronted by a man in high heels? What do you think he would say to him? Or Peter when full of the Holy Spirit?

He would not paddle them because that would be reinforcement.:rotfl:

 

[shagster01]

my religion tells me that murder is wrong
my religion tells me that rape is wrong
my religion tells me that molesting children is wrong
my religion tells me that adultery is wrong


others disagree with me - murderers, rapists, child molesters, adulterers

should i force my religious views on them?

Those crimes harm people beyond the person doing it. Who else gets hurt if you dress like a woman?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Those crimes harm people beyond the person doing it. Who else gets hurt if you dress like a woman?

It hurts the society.

 

[genuineoriginal]

To protect the whole group, and also to allow for I individuals. A reach lender could not force a poor debtor to pay up, for instance. If a landowner farmer left a sheaf of wheat by accident, he was not allowed to return for it. Farmers were not allowed to harvest the corners of fields. Even an ox had the right to graze as it worked.

The laws were brilliant.

Poe's law

 

[eider]

Poe's law

POE: Not me, mate!

I repeat:
The OT laws were brilliant.
There is not one there that did not help to support and protect the Israelites AT THAT TIME.
Many hold up well today.

You cannot refute that, imo.
You cannot debate against it, and maybe you just cannot bring yourself to agree with me?

 

[eider]

It hurts the society.

How?
It cannot hurt a loving and understanding society, only a prejuduced and self-righteous one, surely?
Jesus was loving and understanding, not self-righteous nor prejudiced.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I repeat:
The OT laws were brilliant.
There is not one there that did not help to support and protect the Israelites AT THAT TIME.
Many hold up well today.

You cannot refute that, imo.
You cannot debate against it, and maybe you just cannot bring yourself to agree with me?

I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or if you really felt that way.

I agree with what the Bible says about it.

Deuteronomy 4:6-8 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?​

 

[genuineoriginal]

It cannot hurt a loving and understanding society

There is no such thing as a loving and understanding society.

only a prejuduced and self-righteous one, surely?

The law against cross-dressing would not be able to live in a prejudiced and self-righteous society, as shown by the way transgender rights laws are flourishing in the USA.

Jesus was loving and understanding, not self-righteous nor prejudiced.

Maybe you should read Matthew 23 again.

The law against cross-dressing was one of the laws created to protect the society of the children of Israel from sexual perversions.
The children of Israel were almost destroyed when they turned to sexual perversions in Numbers 25.

 

[Derf]

Yes...... breaking that law ... with a few additions sent by God to their prophet, or so they say........

Eider, I'll have to do the thinking part this time, and will try to get a response done soon.

 

[eider]

I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or if you really felt that way.

I agree with what the Bible says about it.

Deuteronomy 4:6-8 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?​

.....so you just assumed...., about me.

If you agree with what is written, then that is easy, all you have to do is obey every single law. No cherry picking. That will be a wonderful thing to see, someone abiding by every single law, even when it does not suit them.

 

[eider]

There is no such thing as a loving and understanding society.

Speak for your own.
In fact I can think of some, some are Christian.

 

[eider]

Maybe you should read Matthew 23 again.

Maybe you should?
Jesus wanted to cause the upper-class, the priesthood, to return to the old laws that supported and defended the rights of the peasant classes, which it had spurned in favour of Hellenic ways, values and practices. Hypocrites all, while the five peasant orders were suffering greatly with extreme licensing and taxation, and their old benefits ignored.
Oh well, at least you quoted Matthew.

Jesus stood for his own ......

My turn to assume. Do you ignore the laws that you don't like, and just focus on those that you can force onto others who do not live by those laws? Jesus was angry about hypocrite leaders, not the private sexual orientations of individuks. You will need to quote others if you want to pick on lgbtqia folks. That seems to be the main focus here, look at all the threads about such matters!

 

[ok doser]

Agreed.
Two or three members on this thread do show that they would force their religion on others if they could.

my religion tells me that murder is wrong
my religion tells me that rape is wrong
my religion tells me that molesting children is wrong
my religion tells me that adultery is wrong


others disagree with me - murderers, rapists, child molesters, adulterers

should i force my religious views on them?

eider's response?

Spoiler

 

[Crucible]