Intergender

[Columcille]

thanks for commenting. My post is a long one. So it is harder to break down.

I'll have to be more thoughtful next time. At any rate, it is rare. It is not the same as ****sexuality.

what is your thought to the intergender marrying?

Guess it depends on the type of syndrome. I am not as educated as far as specifics in this area. In general, I would say such abnormalities would fit Jesus's description for those celebates that were "born in" p***age and celibacy more favorable. Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages. Seems strange that I start with a maybe and end with a no. But again, I think the particular syndrome's capabilities to be corrected accurately comes into play with modern scientific medical practices and advances. It is unfortunate for intergender people, just as unfortunate for accidents, crippling deseases, and so on and so forth. This question should be more reserved for the priests that encounter in their parish such instances rather than to me. I should think that since the priest himself is celibate on a voluntary basis to please the Lord, that his example might be viewed more efficient to the Catholic intergender. It is a tough question to be sure, but one not imminent to the normal routine due to the various syndrome's rarity. I think the intergender, upon receiving communion and living a life of virtue will see a clearer path that God wants them to lead within the confines of the Catholic Faith.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by Columcille

thanks for commenting. My post is a long one. So it is harder to break down.

I'll have to be more thoughtful next time. At any rate, it is rare. It is not the same as ****sexuality.

Guess it depends on the type of syndrome. I am not as educated as far as specifics in this area. In general, I would say such abnormalities would fit Jesus's description for those celebates that were "born in" p***age and celibacy more favorable. Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages. Seems strange that I start with a maybe and end with a no. But again, I think the particular syndrome's capabilities to be corrected accurately comes into play with modern scientific medical practices and advances. It is unfortunate for intergender people, just as unfortunate for accidents, crippling deseases, and so on and so forth. This question should be more reserved for the priests that encounter in their parish such instances rather than to me. I should think that since the priest himself is celibate on a voluntary basis to please the Lord, that his example might be viewed more efficient to the Catholic intergender. It is a tough question to be sure, but one not imminent to the normal routine due to the various syndrome's rarity. I think the intergender, upon receiving communion and living a life of virtue will see a clearer path that God wants them to lead within the confines of the Catholic Faith.

Can I just say "**** you"? That seems by far the most appropriate response to this disgusting controlling authoritarian drivel.

TRiG.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by TRiG

Can I just say "**** you"? That seems by far the most appropriate response to this disgusting controlling authoritarian drivel.

TRiG.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Trig again".

[asdf]

Originally Posted by TRiG

disgusting controlling authoritarian drivel

That pretty much sums it up. Thanks, TRiG.

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by Columcille

thanks for commenting. My post is a long one. So it is harder to break down.

I'll have to be more thoughtful next time. At any rate, it is rare. It is not the same as ****sexuality.

Guess it depends on the type of syndrome. I am not as educated as far as specifics in this area. In general, I would say such abnormalities would fit Jesus's description for those celebates that were "born in" p***age and celibacy more favorable. Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages. Seems strange that I start with a maybe and end with a no. But again, I think the particular syndrome's capabilities to be corrected accurately comes into play with modern scientific medical practices and advances. It is unfortunate for intergender people, just as unfortunate for accidents, crippling deseases, and so on and so forth. This question should be more reserved for the priests that encounter in their parish such instances rather than to me. I should think that since the priest himself is celibate on a voluntary basis to please the Lord, that his example might be viewed more efficient to the Catholic intergender. It is a tough question to be sure, but one not imminent to the normal routine due to the various syndrome's rarity. I think the intergender, upon receiving communion and living a life of virtue will see a clearer path that God wants them to lead within the confines of the Catholic Faith.

the part highlighted in blue, I would like to discuss further if possible.

Without factoring in reason, and medical scientific knowledge, we are left with the conclusion, (using the stipulated guidelines you have place on marriage here) that an old guy having sex with a young girl, (pedophilia)
is okay, as long as they get married. (and as of yet can be legal in many states as long as they have parental signatures on the underage party).

And what of polygamy? Does the Bible ever say it is wrong or a sin?

And if you own a slave, (that's permissible too according to the scriptures)
by biblical law that ownership of the slave, trumps "marital vows"

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6

That's awful! The price of freedom is his family.

[Columcille]

You highlighted my comment in blue.

Since marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female, regardless of its procreative nature, it is prefered to not allow such intergender marriages.

Now, it seems quite clear that in the N.T. that bride Strong's #3565 and bridegroom #3566 numphios. Is only between female and male. The Scriptures, like in Revelations 21.9 "..., Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb," clearly shows an ****ogy of the marriage between husband and wife. The p***age as an ****ogy is oblivious to procreation. And even Paul in describing a husband's role to his wife uses the ****ogy of Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5.22-33. I suppose what set you to highlight this aspect is my reference about procreativity.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

And what of polygamy? Does the Bible ever say it is wrong or a sin?

And if you own a slave, (that's permissible too according to the scriptures)
by biblical law that ownership of the slave, trumps "marital vows"

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Ex.21:2-6

In regards to age requirements, the N.T. is clear that we must obey the laws of the land. Secondly, that if the laws of the land are unjust, we are to practice the higher law of God. Hence, a bishop is to be the husband of one wife in the N.T. standards states. Also, what concerns "appearance of evil" should it come down to the age difference, even though it might be lawful in a civilian status does not mean it is acceptable to practice by the Church, just as the Catholic Church does not allow "****sexual marrages." It is the perogative of the Faith in doctrine and morals to practice within their own limits. If the secular law makers take issue with it, it is better that the Church suffer the same persecution that it did in Pagan rome in the first four centuries and overcome by p***ive martyrdom than to always be chasing after every whim of the world.

In regards to O.T. law, as you suggested from Exodus 21, the law is based on prudence. The master cannot give what is not his own. The laws laid afterwards in regards to woman servants is concerned with the honor due every woman to be chaste. That is just the way in which that society operated and for the most part it worked for them. You should continue on with the p***age until verse 11. However, if male servant should be the master's servant for life, that is his own choice. It is not much different than a priest who takes holy orders, with the exception that he is celibate forever; the servant at least has a wife and children. I think it is a matter of prudence for the females under that society to find it more agreeable to be taken care of for life. Hence, when that care is not given by the master, as demonstrated in verse 11 "Should he cheat her of these three things (Food, Clothing, and Conjugal Rights v.10) she may leave, freely, without having to pay any money." This is of course related to the woman servant as a concubine, but as a matter of prudence, the spirit of the law, a master's care being unjust in any circumstance could be made aware of to the judges.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by Columcille

If the secular law makers take issue with it

Are you seriously trying to suggest that anyone, anywhere, would like to force the RCC or any other church to perform same-sex marriages?

There are plenty of churches around that refuse to perform interracial marriages. That's fine. A religion can be as restrictive as it wants to be. But those restrictions should not be encoded into civil law.

TRiG.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by Columcille

marriage in the bible is used specifically between male and female

The authors of the Bible make no mention of intergender or transgender conditions, and quite likely knew nothing about them. Why should they? They were Bronze Age goat herders.

TRiG.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by TRiG

The authors of the Bible make no mention of intergender or transgender conditions, and quite likely knew nothing about them. Why should they? They were Bronze Age goat herders.

TRiG.

Trig,

You just keep showing your ignorance of the Bible.

Jill

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by Jill

Trig,

You just keep showing your ignorance of the Bible.

Jill

Hello Jill, would you like to share exactly where the Bible does shed light on this?
It would be greatly appreciated. The only thing i have found and that i think both TRiG and I are aware of, is the mention of Eunuchs (which does not specify
someone born gender confused, or with both female and male anatomy)
and or, the idea of "cross dressing" (which imho is a cultural thing as Christians seem to have no problem with females now wearing pants, ball caps, and men's t-shirts).

There is also of course the mention of a male not being "effeminate" but my studies imply this is a term grossly misinterpreted into today's language...

Did you have something more specific?

thank you,
with love,
soms

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

Hello Jill, would you like to share exactly where the Bible does shed light on this?
It would be greatly appreciated. The only thing i have found and that i think both TRiG and I are aware of, is the mention of Eunuchs (which does not specify
someone born gender confused, or with both female and male anatomy)
and or, the idea of "cross dressing" (which imho is a cultural thing as Christians seem to have no problem with females now wearing pants, ball caps, and men's t-shirts).

There is also of course the mention of a male not being "effeminate" but my studies imply this is a term grossly misinterpreted into today's language...

Did you have something more specific?

thank you,
with love,
soms

I know you are asking Jill, but it seems to me that "cross dressing" is not related to "intergender." One can only "cross" when their sex is known. Secondly, what concerns us is the practice of Scripture during the time period. Practices of propriety are different in every culture, and the N.T. is most concerned with outreaching the message of the Gospel. We are not told to preach the American Gospel and go to Africa and force the tribes' women to put on blouses to fit American social norms. I see no Pentacostal rubric, nor no Amish rubric to apply such a strict standard. The verses they use in the O.T. (such as Deuteronomy 22.5) are general principles that men and women are to abide by. Unisex clothing is acceptable in our culture, so it by no means is offensive. Since the Torah's laws are meant to be prudent, I would ***ume that special needs children and those with deformities would be taken care of in the same manner as women. The only laws that seem to reference them at all is in the Levitical priestly duties in Leviticus 21:16-23. This does not exempt them from hearing the Torah or receiving the blessings from the priest. Since such conditions are rare, and the needs of every handicapped individual is different, it is up to the judges to decide the matter of their care should there be any gross negligence.

As far as "gender confused" I think your terminology is shady. Are you going to use this term to apply to ****sexuals or just to intergender? You are after all always trying to tie the two together when they are completely seperate. I am trying to scale the language barrier here. If that is your intention to tie the two together with such terminology, it is only going to confuse the issue at hand.

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I know you are asking Jill, but it seems to me that "cross dressing" is not related to "intergender." One can only "cross" when their sex is known. Secondly, what concerns us is the practice of Scripture during the time period. Practices of propriety are different in every culture, and the N.T. is most concerned with outreaching the message of the Gospel. We are not told to preach the American Gospel and go to Africa and force the tribes' women to put on blouses to fit American social norms. I see no Pentacostal rubric, nor no Amish rubric to apply such a strict standard. The verses they use in the O.T. (such as Deuteronomy 22.5) are general principles that men and women are to abide by. Unisex clothing is acceptable in our culture, so it by no means is offensive. Since the Torah's laws are meant to be prudent, I would ***ume that special needs children and those with deformities would be taken care of in the same manner as women. The only laws that seem to reference them at all is in the Levitical priestly duties in Leviticus 21:16-23. This does not exempt them from hearing the Torah or receiving the blessings from the priest. Since such conditions are rare, and the needs of every handicapped individual is different, it is up to the judges to decide the matter of their care should there be any gross negligence.

Ah, yes, I should have clarified...
I meant to say verses that are commonly "used" in reference to transgender/intergender/intersex. I think sometimes these verses are the "grabbed straws" when trying to find something to address a subject that
I think we can agree is not covered in "black and white" in the Bible.

(It does not mean that i agree they are meant to be used that way...they are just the only verses i have heard used on the subject.)

As far as "gender confused" I think your terminology is shady. Are you going to use this term to apply to ****sexuals or just to intergender? You are after all always trying to tie the two together when they are completely seperate. I am trying to scale the language barrier here. If that is your intention to tie the two together with such terminology, it is only going to confuse the issue at hand.

I understand your question here, and completely agree, that it is much more complicated, and indeed I,myself have problems locating the correct terms
on this subject.

Let me begin with a preliminary that will allow you to see what page I am on, on this subject.

For the most part, in our society, we have the common notion (and have so been taught) that there are two genders, and one sexual orientation (that is normal, and acceptable)

They are as follows:

Since at least the 1970s, anthropologists have described gender categories in some cultures which they could not adequately explain using a two-gender framework. At the same time, feminists began to draw a distinction between (biological) sex and (social/psychological) gender. Contemporary gender theorists usually argue that a two-gender system is neither innate nor universal. A sex/gender system which recognizes only the following two social norms has been labeled "hetero-normative":

* female genitalia = female iden***y = feminine behavior = desire male partner
* male genitalia = male iden***y = masculine behavior = desire female partner

found HERE

What instead, science and medicine will tell us, (and reality) is that there are more...many more, who do not fit into these iden***ies, with a large variety of combination's.
I was taught (within evangelical Christianity) that anyone that does not fit into the previous categories:
male/masculine/heterosexual or female/feminine/heterosexual

was "choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct, and by doing so, sinning against God and mankind, and themselves.

What I believe now, is that it is not so simple. For facts and evidence
tell me that there are conditions affected by many things (including the amount of estrogen or testosterone /or lack thereof, in the womb) that do indeed cause a different "natural born" scenario then the above mentioned "accepted" gender/sex.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

was "choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct, and by doing so, sinning against God and mankind, and themselves.

The main issue I take with is mostly within this sentence. ""Choosing" to go against their natural born God given instinct" is to me problematic in that 1) our natures our corrupted. God's gave us a nature uncorrupted state of immortality within Adam and Eve. It was by ancenstral sin of Adam and Eve that caused a problem, and if they disobeyed under the circumstances of not understanding death and experiential experience, we all would have suffered the same. As such deformities exist in the corruption of nature, and our response to that will either be virtious or vicious both within the person itself and those that come into contact with them. There is a higher spiritual matter to be addressed here in that we are more than just our sexual impulses. 2) the second problem I take issue with this is your point is circular. God gave them instincts to sin against God. This is not the orthodox view of Christianity; this is your idea of what orthodox Christianity believes. Big difference. The distinction I think is partly addressed in #1. Which is the root of vice? Pride or sexual p***ion? I think the serpent's example most vile.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by Jill

Trig,

You just keep showing your ignorance of the Bible.

Jill

So, are you going to enlighten me, then?

TRiG.

[Columcille]

I addressed the comment that Jill was referencing, you did not reply. But I am coming to the point that pearls before swine is the same as leading a horse to the water, but you cannot make them drink. The only purpose it serves me now is mostly psychological, I am fighting the corrupted impulses within myself by "transforming my mind." The more I realize that I am more than just my sexual impulses, the more I overcome the temptations on a daily basis. The other reason is to make a stand. If Walter Martin can hold his own on a large panel of hostile guests on the Long John Nebel show and the influx of unorthodox posters coming here almost shares the same circumstance, these suggests to me that the level of dialogue here is much more engaging, the moderating is much more fair, and the opportunity to see how 1 Corinthians 1.17-25 really operates (most especially for me to see the change within myself) quite satifying.

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."
20 Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

vs 21 footnote 9 True wisdom and power are to be found paradoxically where one would least expect them, in the place of their apparent negation. To human eyes the crucified Christ symbolizes impotence and absurdity.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I addressed the comment that Jill was referencing, you did not reply. But I am coming to the point that pearls before swine is the same as leading a horse to the water, but you cannot make them drink. The only purpose it serves me now is mostly psychological, I am fighting the corrupted impulses within myself by "transforming my mind." The more I realize that I am more than just my sexual impulses, the more I overcome the temptations on a daily basis. The other reason is to make a stand. If Walter Martin can hold his own on a large panel of hostile guests on the Long John Nebel show and the influx of unorthodox posters coming here almost shares the same circumstance, these suggests to me that the level of dialogue here is much more engaging, the moderating is much more fair, and the opportunity to see how 1 Corinthians 1.17-25 really operates (most especially for me to see the change within myself) quite satifying.

Just try to remember, that whether you view people as swine or fellow human beings... your point of view and deeply held convictions (biblically-substantiated or not) are not the only things which define reality for all human beings.

That is, while I don't expect you to communicate everything you believe 'perfectly', I do expect you to understand and ultimately accept the reality that not all people agree with you or believe the same things which you do; even those who know the same things you do, may surely not agree with you.

If "pearls" don't get through to the pigs, then (perhaps) try a carrot.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Austin Canes

Just try to remember, that whether you view people as swine or fellow human beings... your point of view and deeply held convictions (biblically-substantiated or not) are not the only things which define reality for all human beings.

That is, while I don't expect you to communicate everything you believe 'perfectly', I do expect you to understand and ultimately accept the reality that not all people agree with you or believe the same things which you do; even those who know the same things you do, may surely not agree with you.

If "pearls" don't get through to the pigs, then (perhaps) try a carrot.

Apparently you did not understand the alluding to a p***age from Jesus in the Gospel. I am not equating anyone as a "swine," but only addressing the idiom maxim found in Matthew 7.6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them underfoot and turn and maul you" NRSV and comparing it to the English maxim regarding leading a horse to the water. Is the playbook you use always like to accuse people of something? I mean, I wonder if you would be the type to "maul" me because I tell you the truth from Scripture? I mean here you are, a supposed professing Christian and you reject the Scriptures. You certainly are trying your best to win the argument by taking my reference out of context and ***ume I am calling you or the group a name. The only agreement I seek is God's will, let his will be done, not mine. Whether you accept searching for the same standard has yet to be seen, how is Christ Lord in your life if you refuse to take all his words, the words of his apostles, and the Prophets' of old, and God's law to heart? Either you are a bonafide Christian that accepts Scripture or your a fake who picks and chooses what Scriptures you can twist or sounds "Loving" and reject, ignore, or downplay, or shift attention away from what God actually says to his people throughout history of nation of Israel and his Church.

[Austin Canes]

Originally Posted by Columcille

...Either you are a bonafide Christian that accepts Scripture or your a fake who picks and chooses what Scriptures you can twist or sounds "Loving" and reject, ignore, or downplay, or shift attention away from what God actually says to his people throughout history of nation of Israel and his Church.

You must ultimately leave such 'judgment' (as you seem to be making) to God.

Live as excellently as you can by the grace of God; set an example with your life. No one who is human, will ever play the role of God or Jesus properly.

[alanmolstad]

i thought i had seen it all....then i ran into this topic....

[alanmolstad]

I tried to go over this topic again this morning looking for a reason someone would start it?

I dont see any.

I feel bad for any child born with a birth defect.
I dont see such a thing as something anyone need have a theological discussion over.