Okay, this thread, started by a troll and fueled by a Taliban-loving bigot has now devolved sufficiently. Y'all have fun with what is clearly just going to become mocking. I have no obligation to participate any longer.
Virginia Catholic Bishop: 'No One' Is Transgender
31,049 Views |
707 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by ramblin_ag02
I'm not intent on anything. You said you haven't had any suicidal thoughts since you transitioned. Your depression is gone.PacifistAg said:chuckd said:But hormones and legal changes don't make you a woman, right? It sounds like the relief of suicidal thoughts and depression comes from the opportunity to openly dress and act like a woman instead of hiding it from people.PacifistAg said:chuckd said:From the story, I take it the transition was a combination of hormone therapy and a recognition from some of your family and friends that you are a woman.PacifistAg said:
Here, you can read my story here: https://nataliegracedrew.wixsite.com/findingnatalie/post/this-is-my-story-pt-1
Well there is hormone therapy. There's also legal changes. I've had one surgery. Whether or not family recognize the reality that I'm a woman, though, is immaterial. Family could have still completely rejected me, and it wouldn't have negated the transition. In fact, both my wife and I have had family completely cut us from their lives. Their recognition isn't needed. I've socially transitioned, go to work as myself.
But in all, I just live my life like any person. I just now get to do it without crushing depression. Oh, and I am going to be in an upcoming book, so that's cool.
No, hormones and legal changes don't make me a woman. Neither does social transition. I've always been a woman, whether I masked it or not.
But it seems like you're intent on presenting this as merely some performative dance. It's not. The hormones, legal changes, and social transition are merely to align things for me as the person I am. The hormones helped tremendously with the depression though.
What happened?
Who's mocking? I'm not, and I don't think the other guy was.
Lots of people have been mocking over the course of the thread, but not recently.
Lots of people have been mocking over the course of the thread, but not recently.
I don't believe male and female refer to Gender, I believe those refer to sex. I have seen the claim that Gender is a social construct whereas sex is biological.Dilettante said:
It's my understanding that the claim is "woman, male, female, and man" refer to gender, so pacifist is a female woman.
Does that make sense? Not really in my opinion. It seems like having a word for what sex you are is good. I certainly never am referring to gender when I call people male.
It seems like they typically refer to sex, you're right. I have seen them used for gender though.
So it leads you to the ridiculousness of the idea of a male woman or a female man. We're told that Gender is a social construct which is in no way incumbent upon biological sex; and then we have a person bragging about how they're undergoing surgery and taking artificial hormones in order to replicate the biological hallmarks of the other Sex.Dilettante said:
It seems like they typically refer to sex, you're right. I have seen them used for gender though.
It's not internally consistent, and as I mentioned earlier it's a bunch of pseudoscience and anecdote designed to obfuscate how illogical it is.
The biological hallmarks of the other sex seem like they would be a useful tool for helping others assign you the gender you want, no?
As with all situations, you should try to understand what's really happening first and then describe it with language second. Trying to understand something by assigning it to existing categories isn't always going to work and is a bad strategy. Language doesn't describe certain things well, and it's not surprising that this complex, poorly understood (I think) phenomenon isn't easily described by existing terms. Being uncomfortable with one's body and being uncomfortable with how others view one's body are very tangled concepts. No combination of the words "male, female, woman, man" is going to further our understanding of what's really happening here.
The fact that I haven't seen gender described well doesn't mean it can't be described well.
As with all situations, you should try to understand what's really happening first and then describe it with language second. Trying to understand something by assigning it to existing categories isn't always going to work and is a bad strategy. Language doesn't describe certain things well, and it's not surprising that this complex, poorly understood (I think) phenomenon isn't easily described by existing terms. Being uncomfortable with one's body and being uncomfortable with how others view one's body are very tangled concepts. No combination of the words "male, female, woman, man" is going to further our understanding of what's really happening here.
The fact that I haven't seen gender described well doesn't mean it can't be described well.
Your first question points to the completely inseparable nature of sex and gender. Yes, of course, biological hallmarks are a useful tool for assigning gender; because gender is nothing more than the cultural manifestation of sex.Dilettante said:
The biological hallmarks of the other sex seem like they would be a useful tool for helping others assign you the gender you want, no?
As with all situations, you should try to understand what's really happening first and then describe it with language second. Trying to understand something by assigning it to existing categories isn't always going to work and is a bad strategy. Language doesn't describe certain things well, and it's not surprising that this complex, poorly understood (I think) phenomenon isn't easily described by existing terms. Being uncomfortable with one's body and being uncomfortable with how others view one's body are very tangled concepts. No combination of the words "male, female, woman, man" is going to further our understanding of what's really happening here.
The fact that I haven't seen gender described well doesn't mean it can't be described well.
RAB91 said:That's easy.... God 'hates' all types of sin that separate us from him, but he will never stop loving us no matter how much we sin. And for this conversation it applies to anyone who has sex outside of the marriage between a man and woman.Beer Baron said:Quote:
Do you believe that Christians should reject the bible and embrace the idea that all behaviors and lifestyles are moral and acceptable to God?
They can do whatever they want. And plenty of them do, since as a group Christians can't seem to get a unified, coherent position put together on just about anything including this. I'm just told on here quite a bit that God totally loves gay people he just hates gay sex. Straight Christians seem to have a very inflated sense of how much time we spend doing that.
There seems to be a genuine lack of understanding of how a lifetime ban on expressing who you are and who you love differs from not being able to occasionally engage in a pleasurable activity. This is not a matter of pleasure, it's a matter of basic existence.
Joe Boudain said:Your first question points to the completely inseparable nature of sex and gender. Yes, of course, biological hallmarks are a useful tool for assigning gender; because gender is nothing more than the cultural manifestation of sex.Dilettante said:
The biological hallmarks of the other sex seem like they would be a useful tool for helping others assign you the gender you want, no?
As with all situations, you should try to understand what's really happening first and then describe it with language second. Trying to understand something by assigning it to existing categories isn't always going to work and is a bad strategy. Language doesn't describe certain things well, and it's not surprising that this complex, poorly understood (I think) phenomenon isn't easily described by existing terms. Being uncomfortable with one's body and being uncomfortable with how others view one's body are very tangled concepts. No combination of the words "male, female, woman, man" is going to further our understanding of what's really happening here.
The fact that I haven't seen gender described well doesn't mean it can't be described well.
Except that manifestation can vary wildly across time and place. Gender is a construct that justifies itself in biology. It is not inherent to our biology.
Yes it can, as culture can vary wildly between time and place; there is still no escaping the fact that within the culture; there are attributes whose expression is reserved for females or males.Sapper Redux said:Joe Boudain said:Your first question points to the completely inseparable nature of sex and gender. Yes, of course, biological hallmarks are a useful tool for assigning gender; because gender is nothing more than the cultural manifestation of sex.Dilettante said:
The biological hallmarks of the other sex seem like they would be a useful tool for helping others assign you the gender you want, no?
As with all situations, you should try to understand what's really happening first and then describe it with language second. Trying to understand something by assigning it to existing categories isn't always going to work and is a bad strategy. Language doesn't describe certain things well, and it's not surprising that this complex, poorly understood (I think) phenomenon isn't easily described by existing terms. Being uncomfortable with one's body and being uncomfortable with how others view one's body are very tangled concepts. No combination of the words "male, female, woman, man" is going to further our understanding of what's really happening here.
The fact that I haven't seen gender described well doesn't mean it can't be described well.
Except that manifestation can vary wildly across time and place. Gender is a construct that justifies itself in biology. It is not inherent to our biology.
Show me a culture where femininity is expressed with a phallus; or where masculinity is expressed with large breasts. Both of those are commonly used in fertility statues, but again unique to male and female. Even the egyptian hermaphroditic Gods were understood to posses both Male and Female attributes, not some weird third position that was a conglomerate of both.
In most cultures wearing a skirt is feminine, in Scotland they call it a kilt and women don't wear them.
This is the part I don't get. If gender is not inherently linked to biology, how can being transgender have a biological basis? And why is it associated with changing sex characteristics?Sapper Redux said:
Except that manifestation can vary wildly across time and place. Gender is a construct that justifies itself in biology. It is not inherent to our biology.
Dilettante said:This is the part I don't get. If gender is not inherently linked to biology, how can being transgender have a biological basis? And why is it associated with changing sex characteristics?Sapper Redux said:
Except that manifestation can vary wildly across time and place. Gender is a construct that justifies itself in biology. It is not inherent to our biology.
You're confusing a term with the basis of the condition. Gender is how our society (and any society) expresses sex. To the extent that the differences are justified in biology, there's a link between sex and gender. That does not mean the link IS biological or that sex and gender are tautological. It means we as a society and culture have decided there is a link. In that sense, the term transgender is meant to cover a wide range of expressions that may go from maintaining existing physical genitalia while choosing to express the traits of what is perceived as the opposite gender, to physical transitioning with surgery and hormone replacement therapy. I keep seeing attempts, especially by those opposed to the expression of transgender rights, to simplify this matter into a dichotomy. That's not how biology or physiology work. Evolution and life are MESSY.
We're confusing a condition with a condition. The rest is some sort of "what is language" anyway navel-gazing. Yes, terminology is inherently flawed, but that's the case with literally every concept that is rudely conveyed by language. The fact is that gender is nothing more than the societal manifestation of sex, which is purely biological. If it wasn't biological, there would be no need for hormones nor surgery. From one day to the next you would just say "I'm the opposite gender now" and people would accept it.Sapper Redux said:Dilettante said:This is the part I don't get. If gender is not inherently linked to biology, how can being transgender have a biological basis? And why is it associated with changing sex characteristics?Sapper Redux said:
Except that manifestation can vary wildly across time and place. Gender is a construct that justifies itself in biology. It is not inherent to our biology.
You're confusing a term with the basis of the condition. Gender is how our society (and any society) expresses sex. To the extent that the differences are justified in biology, there's a link between sex and gender. That does not mean the link IS biological or that sex and gender are tautological. It means we as a society and culture have decided there is a link. In that sense, the term transgender is meant to cover a wide range of expressions that may go from maintaining existing physical genitalia while choosing to express the traits of what is perceived as the opposite gender, to physical transitioning with surgery and hormone replacement therapy. I keep seeing attempts, especially by those opposed to the expression of transgender rights, to simplify this matter into a dichotomy. That's not how biology or physiology work. Evolution and life are MESSY.
Binary choices lead to a dichotomy, for the vast vast majority of cases (the argument between whether 99.99% or 99.98% are readily identified by sex comes to mind). I don't have the right to be black, I don't have the right to be green eyed, nor do I have the right to be 65 years old and start receiving social security. People that feel like women, do not have the right to be women, if they are in fact men.
It is much deeper than simply looking down and saying "he" or "she". Insisting on that as a starting point to talk about God, creation, and salvation is limiting.
It has become more clear to me with my trans son, that God is right in front of us, leading the way. The temptation to over simply our physical nature leaves out much to be discovered. Try listening and understanding. As folks who are walking this path now and are forging on with their relationship with Jesus - there is much to learn from them (PacifistAg).
In the end, I believe God will give us the body that was intended from the beginning. Like the apostles, will our friends recognize us in our resurrected bodies? Hopefully by our actions and words - not so much by our physical nature.
It has become more clear to me with my trans son, that God is right in front of us, leading the way. The temptation to over simply our physical nature leaves out much to be discovered. Try listening and understanding. As folks who are walking this path now and are forging on with their relationship with Jesus - there is much to learn from them (PacifistAg).
In the end, I believe God will give us the body that was intended from the beginning. Like the apostles, will our friends recognize us in our resurrected bodies? Hopefully by our actions and words - not so much by our physical nature.
PabloSerna said:
It is much deeper than simply looking down and saying "he" or "she". Insisting on that as a starting point to talk about God, creation, and salvation is limiting.
It has become more clear to me with my trans son, that God is right in front of us, leading the way. The temptation to over simply our physical nature leaves out much to be discovered. Try listening and understanding. As folks who are walking this path now and are forging on with their relationship with Jesus - there is much to learn from them (PacifistAg). In the end, I believe God will give us the body that was intended from the beginning. Like the apostles, will our friends recognize us in our resurrected bodies? Hopefully by our actions and words - not so much by our physical nature.
Is this catholic doctrine?
Do you believe that we're primarily spiritual beings with no connection to the physical bodies we inhabit?
no, that's the condemned heresy of gnosticism, and has no place in Catholic discussion.AGC said:PabloSerna said:
It is much deeper than simply looking down and saying "he" or "she". Insisting on that as a starting point to talk about God, creation, and salvation is limiting.
It has become more clear to me with my trans son, that God is right in front of us, leading the way. The temptation to over simply our physical nature leaves out much to be discovered. Try listening and understanding. As folks who are walking this path now and are forging on with their relationship with Jesus - there is much to learn from them (PacifistAg). In the end, I believe God will give us the body that was intended from the beginning. Like the apostles, will our friends recognize us in our resurrected bodies? Hopefully by our actions and words - not so much by our physical nature.
Is this catholic doctrine?
Do you believe that we're primarily spiritual beings with no connection to the physical bodies we inhabit?
Joe Boudain said:no, that's the condemned heresy of gnosticism, and has no place in Catholic discussion.AGC said:PabloSerna said:
It is much deeper than simply looking down and saying "he" or "she". Insisting on that as a starting point to talk about God, creation, and salvation is limiting.
It has become more clear to me with my trans son, that God is right in front of us, leading the way. The temptation to over simply our physical nature leaves out much to be discovered. Try listening and understanding. As folks who are walking this path now and are forging on with their relationship with Jesus - there is much to learn from them (PacifistAg). In the end, I believe God will give us the body that was intended from the beginning. Like the apostles, will our friends recognize us in our resurrected bodies? Hopefully by our actions and words - not so much by our physical nature.
Is this catholic doctrine?
Do you believe that we're primarily spiritual beings with no connection to the physical bodies we inhabit?
The question was for Pablo alone.
Edit: Early Christians didn't want to be cremated because they assumed their earthly bodies would be resurrected. Thus this idea of being given a new body, to the point of the physical matching the idealized self, is something that I've not heard before. I'm curious if it's wishful thinking or if it comes from somewhere inside the church that I've not been exposed to.
Dilettante said:
If by good stuff you mean the type of nonsense that's causing Christianity to be pushed out of modern society, then I agree.
It's certainly why so many trans people turn away from Christianity. This is relatively mellow, the vitriol and hatred I've listened to preached from pulpits as a kid I more common. The parishioners who agree with it don't see it as that, but they're not the ones it's being aimed at.
Christians wonder why people turn from the church, but a God who insists on compliance or eternal torture is one that fewer and fewer voluntarily come to.
Sorry, I thought it was free response
Mea culpa
Mea culpa
Ag_of_08 said:Dilettante said:
If by good stuff you mean the type of nonsense that's causing Christianity to be pushed out of modern society, then I agree.
It's certainly why so many trans people turn away from Christianity. This is relatively mellow, the vitriol and hatred I've listened to preached from pulpits as a kid I more common. The parishioners who agree with it don't see it as that, but they're not the ones it's being aimed at.
Christians wonder why people turn from the church, but a God who insists on compliance or eternal torture is one that fewer and fewer voluntarily come to.
People turn from the church for the same reason they turn from health food and working out. It is difficult, and it makes them feel bad. Far easier to be comfortable in sin, than strive for conversion.
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
Joe Boudain said:Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
But you believe I will burn in hell as an unrepentant sinner, do you not? That's assuredly what the church teaches?
I'm not even prepared to condemn you for your beliefs, nor mock them, I just demand honesty. You may not "preach" hellfire, but your church certainly preaches "doctrine or else". I refuse to believe in a god out of fear, just like I refuse to accept a political doctrine out fear on earth.
I'm straying dangerously close to breaking a rule I set for myself about participation in this particular forum since that day years ago, my apologies for the confrontational nature of the posts.
Joe Boudain said:
Sorry, I thought it was free response
Mea culpa
You're good, read no tone or subtext into the response. I was just trying to get clarification on his stance because that's not something I've heard within Catholicism or any other denomination.
Ag_of_08 said:Joe Boudain said:Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
But you believe I will burn in hell as an unrepentant sinner, do you not? That's assuredly what the church teaches?
I'm not even prepared to condemn you for your beliefs, nor mock them, I just demand honesty. You may not "preach" hellfire, but your church certainly preaches "doctrine or else". I refuse to believe in a god out of fear, just like I refuse to accept a political doctrine out fear on earth.
I'm straying dangerously close to breaking a rule I set for myself about participation in this particular forum since that day years ago, my apologies for the confrontational nature of the posts.
Yes, because that is what Christianity teaches,, minus the emphasis on "burning".
Sinners don't go to hell, for if they did all would be in hell save for Christ and his mother and there would be no need for his sacrifice, the gates of heaven would remain forever closed.
Unrepentant sinners go to hell. I am not a believer in universal salvation, however I do note that the same person who decides whether you go to heaven or hell became man and gave his life so that you would be able to live with him forever in paradise.
So what would you call hell? Is it not described as a fiery pit, torment, other sadistic terms would you use? I admit it's been a few years since I last read through your holy book, but I do remember it rather well.
You're trying to be semantical in some kind of effort to soften the blow, you could just have answered quite simply that you believe I will got to a place of everlasting torment because I do not follow the teachings of your church. I don't get why some Christians try to "soften the blow".... just come out and admit that you think it's church, or eternal torture.
People are too afraid of "gotchas" I think, or afraid that brutal honesty will continue to turn away believers, where it recruited them in centuries past.
You're trying to be semantical in some kind of effort to soften the blow, you could just have answered quite simply that you believe I will got to a place of everlasting torment because I do not follow the teachings of your church. I don't get why some Christians try to "soften the blow".... just come out and admit that you think it's church, or eternal torture.
People are too afraid of "gotchas" I think, or afraid that brutal honesty will continue to turn away believers, where it recruited them in centuries past.
Ag_of_08 said:
So what would you call hell? Is it not described as a fiery pit, torment, other sadistic terms would you use? I admit it's been a few years since I last read through your holy book, but I do remember it rather well.
You're trying to be semantical in some kind of effort to soften the blow, you could just have answered quite simply that you believe I will got to a place of everlasting torment because I do not follow the teachings of your church. I don't get why some Christians try to "soften the blow".... just come out and admit that you think it's church, or eternal torture.
I'm not trying to soften the blow. Hell is the absence of all good, so is the worse possible thing conceivable. I'm merely trying to steer you away from the imagery of a mustachioed lothario with a pitch fork as that has been Hollywoodized.
What would society say if I have a deeply held belief that I am a different race, go through surgeries to look more like a different race, and then demand society also agree I am now a different race?
If the responses differ from those about transgender, what implications does that hold for transgenderism?
This topic stretches the limits of even a relativistic framework, because even a cultural relativist accepts the bedrock cultural norms of male and female. And then when compared to the absolute framework of God given morality there is some gnashing of the teeth as these differences get brought to light.
If the responses differ from those about transgender, what implications does that hold for transgenderism?
This topic stretches the limits of even a relativistic framework, because even a cultural relativist accepts the bedrock cultural norms of male and female. And then when compared to the absolute framework of God given morality there is some gnashing of the teeth as these differences get brought to light.
one MEEN Ag said:
What would society say if I have a deeply held belief that I am a different race, go through surgeries to look more like a different race, and then demand society also agree I am now a different race?
If the responses differ from those about transgender, what implications does that hold for transgenderism?
This topic stretches the limits of even a relativistic framework, because even a cultural relativist accepts the bedrock cultural norms of male and female. And then when compared to the absolute framework of God given morality there is some gnashing of the teeth as these differences get brought to light.
Except, not all societies are founded on binary gender roles/definitions. There are many non-abrahamic societies that observe up to 5. There is a Christian nation that I can think of right this minute that observes three.
But that's irrelevant I'm sure.
Ag_of_08 said:Joe Boudain said:Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
But you believe I will burn in hell as an unrepentant sinner, do you not? That's assuredly what the church teaches?
I'm not even prepared to condemn you for your beliefs, nor mock them, I just demand honesty. You may not "preach" hellfire, but your church certainly preaches "doctrine or else". I refuse to believe in a god out of fear, just like I refuse to accept a political doctrine out fear on earth.
I'm straying dangerously close to breaking a rule I set for myself about participation in this particular forum since that day years ago, my apologies for the confrontational nature of the posts.
So you want a religion with zero moral obligations? That doesn't sound like much of anything. And true faith is wanting to keep gods commandments, not feeling like you have to. Our hearts should be fixed on doing what is pleasing to God, not to ourselves. Which I guess circles back to this transgender debate....
Howdy Dammit said:Ag_of_08 said:Joe Boudain said:Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
But you believe I will burn in hell as an unrepentant sinner, do you not? That's assuredly what the church teaches?
I'm not even prepared to condemn you for your beliefs, nor mock them, I just demand honesty. You may not "preach" hellfire, but your church certainly preaches "doctrine or else". I refuse to believe in a god out of fear, just like I refuse to accept a political doctrine out fear on earth.
I'm straying dangerously close to breaking a rule I set for myself about participation in this particular forum since that day years ago, my apologies for the confrontational nature of the posts.
So you want a religion with zero moral obligations? That doesn't sound like much of anything. And true faith is wanting to keep gods commandments, not feeling like you have to. Our hearts should be fixed on doing what is pleasing to God, not to ourselves. Which I guess circles back to this transgender debate....
You don't need ECT to have "moral obligations". And being a trans person doesn't violate God's commandments.
Even Christ said the two greatest commandments, the two on which the whole Law and Prophets hang, are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. A great example of one of the major problems with American Christianity took place in this board yesterday. I can have my entire faith mocked, rejected, dismissed simply for being a trans woman, yet disgusting hate-filled attacks never seem to elicit such condemnation. But only of those directly violates those commandments upon which all of this hangs.
Heck, when I used to post under GigEm01, I was violent, angry, and simply mean. I was a hate-filled person, yet I can't recall a single time anyone challenged me when I claimed Christ. But i get it nearly every day on some social media platform because I'm a trans woman, and before I transitioned anyone on this board who knew me as GigEm01 could testify to the radical change in my life. That change was due to actually embracing Jesus. But the second I came out as a trans woman, I've been condemned by so many. Nothing changed about my faith or how I treated others. I just transitioned, and that's enough for some to condemn me.
So it's a problem when we talk about moral obligations in relation to our shared Christian faith, and being trans elicits condemnation while being angry, unloving, and hate-filled doesn't even cause others to bat an eye.
Howdy Dammit said:Ag_of_08 said:Joe Boudain said:Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
But you believe I will burn in hell as an unrepentant sinner, do you not? That's assuredly what the church teaches?
I'm not even prepared to condemn you for your beliefs, nor mock them, I just demand honesty. You may not "preach" hellfire, but your church certainly preaches "doctrine or else". I refuse to believe in a god out of fear, just like I refuse to accept a political doctrine out fear on earth.
I'm straying dangerously close to breaking a rule I set for myself about participation in this particular forum since that day years ago, my apologies for the confrontational nature of the posts.
So you want a religion with zero moral obligations? That doesn't sound like much of anything. And true faith is wanting to keep gods commandments, not feeling like you have to. Our hearts should be fixed on doing what is pleasing to God, not to ourselves. Which I guess circles back to this transgender debate....
Never once did I say that. My own spiritual beliefs touch on karmic implications...
Your religion focuses on a vengeful and wrathful God that will imprison all those who don't keep his version of morality forever in torment. That's not something I made up, it's the selling point for a good many of your fellow believers.
I have no doubt you believe sincerely and wish to please your God, but let's not pretend that Christianity is hugs and feels, nor that the way its practitioners tend to approach others searching is usually anything but threats and veiled hints at damnation.
I don't make a ton of money, I give a great deal of it away, to the point I've nearly bankrupted myself temporarily at times. I donate to charities run by religions, and not. I get out in the cold and bring blankets to fire victims, I ride my 4 wheeler through chest deep water to relieve first responders trapped in floods. I do these things because they are good, because kindness is something that can make us happy as human beings, without the threat of damnation for displeasing a deity. I want, nor need, no recognition on this plane, or the next, I simply do because it is RIGHT. No stick and carrot, my satisfaction is the enrichment of my soul knowing I have done what I could, when I could. Humanity became so obsessed with pleasing "the gods ", they forgot how to simply live.
Your religion would damn me to torment everlasting though. I fail to see the morality in that.
PacifistAg said:Howdy Dammit said:Ag_of_08 said:Joe Boudain said:Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
But you believe I will burn in hell as an unrepentant sinner, do you not? That's assuredly what the church teaches?
I'm not even prepared to condemn you for your beliefs, nor mock them, I just demand honesty. You may not "preach" hellfire, but your church certainly preaches "doctrine or else". I refuse to believe in a god out of fear, just like I refuse to accept a political doctrine out fear on earth.
I'm straying dangerously close to breaking a rule I set for myself about participation in this particular forum since that day years ago, my apologies for the confrontational nature of the posts.
So you want a religion with zero moral obligations? That doesn't sound like much of anything. And true faith is wanting to keep gods commandments, not feeling like you have to. Our hearts should be fixed on doing what is pleasing to God, not to ourselves. Which I guess circles back to this transgender debate....
You don't need ECT to have "moral obligations". And being a trans person doesn't violate God's commandments.
Even Christ said the two greatest commandments, the two on which the whole Law and Prophets hang, are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. A great example of one of the major problems with American Christianity took place in this board yesterday. I can have my entire faith mocked, rejected, dismissed simply for being a trans woman, yet disgusting hate-filled attacks never seem to elicit such condemnation. But only of those directly violates those commandments upon which all of this hangs.
Heck, when I used to post under GigEm01, I was violent, angry, and simply mean. I was a hate-filled person, yet I can't recall a single time anyone challenged me when I claimed Christ. But i get it nearly every day on some social media platform because I'm a trans woman, and before I transitioned anyone on this board who knew me as GigEm01 could testify to the radical change in my life. That change was due to actually embracing Jesus. But the second I came out as a trans woman, I've been condemned by so many. Nothing changed about my faith or how I treated others. I just transitioned, and that's enough for some to condemn me.
So it's a problem when we talk about moral obligations in relation to our shared Christian faith, and being trans elicits condemnation while being angry, unloving, and hate-filled doesn't even cause others to bat an eye.
Gigem01? Hello new information( to me)
Ag_of_08 said:PacifistAg said:Howdy Dammit said:Ag_of_08 said:Joe Boudain said:Ag_of_08 said:
Keep giving answers like that, they keep reinforcing the point.
People are not going to voluntarily run to a religion that preaches a wrathful and cruel God, who punishes anyone that does not adhere to a strict ideology that turns the basic person they are into a doomed heretic that will burn I'm some sadistic fiery pit.
I knownits very hard to see outside perspectives, but try to realize what you sound like to people who don't believe.
I came to this board years ago, before I was out, looking for a church to go to "for a friend" when I began to turn away. The vitriol and negativity was bad enough staff chose to delete the thread rather than moderate it, partially because I was accused of trolling. While not the sole, nor main reason, that absolutely abhorrent response was nearly universal(not entirely by far, I did get a couple of offers), and was some of what made me sit down and reevaluate my beliefs one final time. I'm glad I made my decision, and there's nothing that will bring me back to it... just reality, that Christians turn believers away in their ideology, even when its not really biblically supported.
I cannot give any other answers, for they wouldn't represent the beliefs of my church. If you go to a Vegan convention wanting them to affirm your meat centric diet, you're going to be unsatisfied and feel ostracized.
I haven't preached damnation nor hellfire, merely stated which beliefs are incompatible with Catholic teaching, being espoused by professing Catholics.
But you believe I will burn in hell as an unrepentant sinner, do you not? That's assuredly what the church teaches?
I'm not even prepared to condemn you for your beliefs, nor mock them, I just demand honesty. You may not "preach" hellfire, but your church certainly preaches "doctrine or else". I refuse to believe in a god out of fear, just like I refuse to accept a political doctrine out fear on earth.
I'm straying dangerously close to breaking a rule I set for myself about participation in this particular forum since that day years ago, my apologies for the confrontational nature of the posts.
So you want a religion with zero moral obligations? That doesn't sound like much of anything. And true faith is wanting to keep gods commandments, not feeling like you have to. Our hearts should be fixed on doing what is pleasing to God, not to ourselves. Which I guess circles back to this transgender debate....
You don't need ECT to have "moral obligations". And being a trans person doesn't violate God's commandments.
Even Christ said the two greatest commandments, the two on which the whole Law and Prophets hang, are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. A great example of one of the major problems with American Christianity took place in this board yesterday. I can have my entire faith mocked, rejected, dismissed simply for being a trans woman, yet disgusting hate-filled attacks never seem to elicit such condemnation. But only of those directly violates those commandments upon which all of this hangs.
Heck, when I used to post under GigEm01, I was violent, angry, and simply mean. I was a hate-filled person, yet I can't recall a single time anyone challenged me when I claimed Christ. But i get it nearly every day on some social media platform because I'm a trans woman, and before I transitioned anyone on this board who knew me as GigEm01 could testify to the radical change in my life. That change was due to actually embracing Jesus. But the second I came out as a trans woman, I've been condemned by so many. Nothing changed about my faith or how I treated others. I just transitioned, and that's enough for some to condemn me.
So it's a problem when we talk about moral obligations in relation to our shared Christian faith, and being trans elicits condemnation while being angry, unloving, and hate-filled doesn't even cause others to bat an eye.
Gigem01? Hello new information( to me)
Yes. I'm a much different person today, thankfully.
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
79
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
76
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
56
Andrew13
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
50
therealnick05
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
47
Another Doug
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
45
sealyag
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
41
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
40
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
39