Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I'd say that 99.9% of Christians live with some cognitive dissonance or they'd be living like Orthodox Jews. And I don't see many other than maybe the Amish who willingly live that way.

One wrong doesn't make another right. The fact that other Christians fail to uphold their faith to the fullest is wrong, but that doesn't make outright ignoring the faiths blatant opposition towards trans right.

[Aellex]

One wrong doesn't make another right. The fact that other Christians fail to uphold their faith to the fullest is wrong, but that doesn't make outright ignoring the faiths blatant opposition towards trans right.

True. And ignoring things you don't like about your religion isn't great but at least it's still better than lying and twisting to try and force what you like into your religion.

Also, nice avatar, I knew you would love this image. ;D

[The Alexanderians]

I'd say that 99.9% of Christians live with some cognitive dissonance or they'd be living like Orthodox Jews. And I don't see many other than maybe the Amish who willingly live that way.

One wrong doesn't make another right. The fact that other Christians fail to uphold their faith to the fullest is wrong, but that doesn't make outright ignoring the faiths blatant opposition towards trans right.

The topic of which Christians live up to the faith seems to be a topic for the CDT. The "cognitive dissonance" can be argued/debunked there. We're always geared up for such a topic there.

[The Serbian Empire]

I'd say that 99.9% of Christians live with some cognitive dissonance or they'd be living like Orthodox Jews. And I don't see many other than maybe the Amish who willingly live that way.

One wrong doesn't make another right. The fact that other Christians fail to uphold their faith to the fullest is wrong, but that doesn't make outright ignoring the faiths blatant opposition towards trans right.

Nor is this the place for it.

[Grenartia]

On the bright side, I have recently discovered my face looks more masculine than I thought, though I look like I'm 12.

You too?

Back before I found out I was gay, worried that most of my partners would be lolicon's because of that.

There are several transgender Christians around here. The two are not mutually exclusive

They are though. The Christian Bible is quite homophobic and transphobic.

Not necessarily.

Well, go explain the transgender Christians that

Some of us have tried, but they tend to not listen and instead use literary and historical revisionism.

Said the literary and historical revisionist.

Well they say that they are Christians, and who are you or me to deny that.

I didn't say they aren't Christian, I say that their ideas on certain things are immensely unorthodox and incorrect.

The irony burns.

Also I'm confused. Hatred of the LGBT community is meant to be one of the ways in which Islam needs to get with the 21st century, but as soon as someone suggests Christianity do the same suddenly we're trying to re-write history or something.

Consistency pls.

We all know the "Islam is homophobic!" line is just a cover for wanting to treat brown people with a different religion like shit.

That's been my observation as well, but there also is a lot of overlap of transphobic people who later realize they themselves are trans. And then there's truscum.



Just wait until you turn 21 and try to buy some booze. I remember the first time I bought some, and the lady behind the counter said "I'm gonna need to see some ID because you literally look 12." Worst part is, I hadn't shaved that day, and had 5 o'clock shadow.

People mistake my age all the time. Most people think I'm in my teens even though I'm almost thirty. It's a pain when going to 21 and over clubs and you still get IDed at the bar, lol. Like I'm obviously of age or I wouldn't be there.

I mean, to be fair, there's 16 year olds and shit who do try to get in.

Not to downplay your irritation here, but have you been a teenager?

If you mean by sneaking into a club? No, I've never done that.

I've known several who have.

[Shikihara]

You too?

Back before I found out I was gay, worried that most of my partners would be lolicon's because of that.

They are though. The Christian Bible is quite homophobic and transphobic.

Not necessarily.

Stoning people to death for having sex with members of the same sex or dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex is homophobic and transphobic whatever way you try to look at it. Sending people to burn for all eternity for doing those things is even more homophobic and transphobic. It's not what I want, but it's the reality of the Christian religion.

Pretty sure I'm still mentally 14.

Remember, growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

I'm mentally 12. Guess it goes well with the way I look.

I have the soul of a Japanese schoolgirl in the body of a 20 year old woman.

While it's not all that big a step on my transition, I did manage to buy some hair dye and foundation and concealer. Looking forward to being able to change my hair color in the next couple of days and get rid of any shadow on my face.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You too?

Back before I found out I was gay, worried that most of my partners would be lolicon's because of that.

They are though. The Christian Bible is quite homophobic and transphobic.

Not necessarily.

Some of us have tried, but they tend to not listen and instead use literary and historical revisionism.

Said the literary and historical revisionist.

I didn't say they aren't Christian, I say that their ideas on certain things are immensely unorthodox and incorrect.

The irony burns.

Also I'm confused. Hatred of the LGBT community is meant to be one of the ways in which Islam needs to get with the 21st century, but as soon as someone suggests Christianity do the same suddenly we're trying to re-write history or something.

Consistency pls.

We all know the "Islam is homophobic!" line is just a cover for wanting to treat brown people with a different religion like shit.

People mistake my age all the time. Most people think I'm in my teens even though I'm almost thirty. It's a pain when going to 21 and over clubs and you still get IDed at the bar, lol. Like I'm obviously of age or I wouldn't be there.

I mean, to be fair, there's 16 year olds and shit who do try to get in.

If you mean by sneaking into a club? No, I've never done that.

I've known several who have.

Since you want to revive the discussion, which of my ideas are unorthodox and constitute revisionism?

[Grenartia]

Not necessarily.

Stoning people to death for having sex with members of the same sex or dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex is homophobic and transphobic whatever way you try to look at it. Sending people to burn for all eternity for doing those things is even more homophobic and transphobic. It's not what I want, but it's the reality of the Christian religion.

I mean, you're assuming that whatever asshole in the pulpit you've heard ranting about us, actually represents the entirety of the religion and the perspectives it has.

What if I told you that if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah applies to homosexuality, then it also requires admitting that God has no problem with sexually active gay people?

[Shikihara]

Stoning people to death for having sex with members of the same sex or dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex is homophobic and transphobic whatever way you try to look at it. Sending people to burn for all eternity for doing those things is even more homophobic and transphobic. It's not what I want, but it's the reality of the Christian religion.

I mean, you're assuming that whatever asshole in the pulpit you've heard ranting about us, actually represents the entirety of the religion and the perspectives it has.

What if I told you that if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah applies to homosexuality, then it also requires admitting that God has no problem with sexually active gay people?

A Baptist preacher doesn't represent the entirety of Christianity, but the Vatican and Orthodox Churches share the same opinion as him on the matter and can cite scriptural sources, which leads me to believe they're right. I've never seen anything to convince me that being actively gay is compatible with Christianity and I don't think I ever will.

That seems a very bizarre leap of logic, but it's irrelevant because Sodom and Gomorrah is not the basis for which homosexuality has been universally accepted to have been condemned in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 is the most well known instance of the Bible's stance on same sex relations.

[Grenartia]

I mean, you're assuming that whatever asshole in the pulpit you've heard ranting about us, actually represents the entirety of the religion and the perspectives it has.

What if I told you that if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah applies to homosexuality, then it also requires admitting that God has no problem with sexually active gay people?

1.A Baptist preacher doesn't represent the entirety of Christianity, but the Vatican and Orthodox Churches share the same opinion as him on the matter and 2. can cite scriptural sources, which leads me to believe they're right. I've never seen anything to convince me that being actively gay is compatible with Christianity and I don't think I ever will.

3. That seems a very bizarre leap of logic, but it's irrelevant because Sodom and Gomorrah is not the basis for which homosexuality has been universally accepted to have been condemned in the Bible. 4. Leviticus 18:22 is the most well known instance of the Bible's stance on same sex relations.

1. Neither of those organizations can legitimately pretend to speak for all of Christianity, even together. And they certainly do not speak for me.

2. So can I. I also have the ability to use logic and historical context.

3. If S&G happened (in part) as a condemnation of consensual homosexuality, then that means the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom. Which means God has no problem with sexually active homosexuals in His service.

4. Theologically speaking, Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians. Its effectively little more than a Jewish cleanliness manual. We're talking about the same book that, if followed as strictly in every other matter as certain people think it should be followed in terms of sexuality, would ban double bacon cheeseburgers, pretty much the entire Gulf Coast seafood industry (please don't do that, we need the money to recover from the hurricanes this season), cotton/wool blended fabrics, working on Saturdays or Sundays (geez, that really takes a third of my weekly income away), football (granted, I don't really think it should be paid attention to as much as it is), and the environmentally and agriculturally responsible practice of crop rotation (hello New Dust Bowl).

[Shikihara]

Neither of those organizations can legitimately pretend to speak for all of Christianity, even together. And they certainly do not speak for me.

The Vatican is the oldest sect of Christianity, has access to the most scholars and theologians, as well as performing global missions for peace and charity. Simply disagreeing with their legitimacy does not discredit it.

3. If S&G happened (in part) as a condemnation of consensual homosexuality, then that means the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom. Which means God has no problem with sexually active homosexuals in His service.

The Bible doesn't care too much about whether sex is consensual or non-consensual. The families of virgins who are raped merely need to be recompensed and sexual violence is implied to be encouraged in Numbers 31 ("now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.") Homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus regardless of whether or not the deed was consensual. So there is no reason to believe that the men of Sodom were punished for wanting to rape the angels, their intentions were not even necessarily assault, they demanded that Lot bring out the men so that they might "know" them.

would ban double bacon cheeseburgers,

While I would personally enjoy if we banned bacon and beef altogether, Peter's vision of the sheet of animals does abolish the dietary restrictions that were previously in place. In contrast; Romans 1:26 - 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:7, First Timothy 1:10, and other verses all make clear that the restrictions on sexuality still apply.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Neither of those organizations can legitimately pretend to speak for all of Christianity, even together. And they certainly do not speak for me.

The Vatican is the oldest sect of Christianity, has access to the most scholars and theologians, as well as performing global missions for peace and charity. Simply disagreeing with their legitimacy does not discredit it.

3. If S&G happened (in part) as a condemnation of consensual homosexuality, then that means the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom. Which means God has no problem with sexually active homosexuals in His service.

The Bible doesn't care too much about whether sex is consensual or non-consensual. The families of virgins who are raped merely need to be recompensed and sexual violence is implied to be encouraged in Numbers 31 ("now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.") Homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus regardless of whether or not the deed was consensual. So there is no reason to believe that the men of Sodom were punished for wanting to rape the angels, their intentions were not even necessarily assault, they demanded that Lot bring out the men so that they might "know" them.

would ban double bacon cheeseburgers,

While I would personally enjoy if we banned bacon and beef altogether, Peter's vision of the sheet of animals does abolish the dietary restrictions that were previously in place. In contrast; Romans 1:26 - 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:7, First Timothy 1:10, and other verses all make clear that the restrictions on sexuality still apply.

Don't forget Acts 15:19-21.

[Vassenor]

Having another day of really hating my stupid voice again.

[Grenartia]

Neither of those organizations can legitimately pretend to speak for all of Christianity, even together. And they certainly do not speak for me.

1. The Vatican is the oldest sect of Christianity, has access to the most scholars and theologians, as well as performing global missions for peace and charity. Simply disagreeing with their legitimacy does not discredit it.

3. If S&G happened (in part) as a condemnation of consensual homosexuality, then that means the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom. Which means God has no problem with sexually active homosexuals in His service.

The Bible doesn't care too much about whether sex is consensual or non-consensual. The families of virgins who are raped merely need to be recompensed and sexual violence is implied to be encouraged in Numbers 31 ("now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.") Homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus regardless of whether or not the deed was consensual. 2. So there is no reason to believe that the men of Sodom were punished for wanting to rape the angels, their intentions were not even necessarily assault, they demanded that Lot bring out the men so that they might "know" them.

would ban double bacon cheeseburgers,

3. While I would personally enjoy if we banned bacon and beef altogether, Peter's vision of the sheet of animals does abolish the dietary restrictions that were previously in place. 4. In contrast; Romans 1:26 - 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:7, First Timothy 1:10, and other verses all make clear that the restrictions on sexuality still apply.

1. So, basically, appeal to tradition.

2. So, your argument is "maybe the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom". Which, again, requires admitting that God has no problem with that.

3. That would be a sad existence.

4. Only if you want to assume that arsenokoitai refers to gay sex in general, instead of temple prostitution or pederasty.

[Vassenor]

4. Only if you want to assume that arsenokoitai refers to gay sex in general, instead of temple prostitution or pederasty.

But that's totally rewriting all of history and we're not allowed to think about that.

[Arcturus Novus]

Unrelated to this whole religion thing, but recently I've been the subject of a doctoral student's interviews regarding my experiences as a trans girl in Kentucky.

[Salus Maior]

Having another day of really hating my stupid voice again.

I've been there.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1. The Vatican is the oldest sect of Christianity, has access to the most scholars and theologians, as well as performing global missions for peace and charity. Simply disagreeing with their legitimacy does not discredit it.


The Bible doesn't care too much about whether sex is consensual or non-consensual. The families of virgins who are raped merely need to be recompensed and sexual violence is implied to be encouraged in Numbers 31 ("now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.") Homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus regardless of whether or not the deed was consensual. 2. So there is no reason to believe that the men of Sodom were punished for wanting to rape the angels, their intentions were not even necessarily assault, they demanded that Lot bring out the men so that they might "know" them.


3. While I would personally enjoy if we banned bacon and beef altogether, Peter's vision of the sheet of animals does abolish the dietary restrictions that were previously in place. 4. In contrast; Romans 1:26 - 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:7, First Timothy 1:10, and other verses all make clear that the restrictions on sexuality still apply.

1. So, basically, appeal to tradition.

2. So, your argument is "maybe the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom". Which, again, requires admitting that God has no problem with that.

3. That would be a sad existence.

4. Only if you want to assume that arsenokoitai refers to gay sex in general, instead of temple prostitution or pederasty.

1) Appeal to tradition makes sense in a religion that is based on what ancient people believed. If you don't appeal to tradition, then you can't have any of the beliefs associated with Christianity, because they all come from tradition.
3) It doesn't change that the Bible is clear that sexual acts proscribed as wrong in the Old Testament are still wrong.
4) It does refer to that, and everyone has agreed that it refers to that for two thousand years.

[Vassenor]

4) It does refer to that, and everyone has agreed that it refers to that for two thousand years.

"This is the right way to do things because this is the way we've always done it."

[Aellex]

4) It does refer to that, and everyone has agreed that it refers to that for two thousand years.

"This is the right way to do things because this is the way we've always done it."

You're aware, I hope, that Christianity is built around Dogma and indeed Traditions, right? Sorry to tell you that but not everything you dislike is a fallacy. :^)

[Khasinkonia]

Y’all I just found out about this new kind of Christianity cool with LGBTQ+ folks that my father just happens to be ordained in. It’s called Episcopalianism and it’s in full communion with Anglicanism(being an offshoot) and Lutheranism.

[Shikihara]

1. So, basically, appeal to tradition.

We're discussing a tradition which bases it's entire legitimacy on the teachings received from Jesus Christ, which even 16th century heretical branches who threw out numerous books from the Bible and wanted to throw more out tried to claim.

2. So, your argument is "maybe the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom". Which, again, requires admitting that God has no problem with that.

No, my argument was that the men outside had no idea that those in the house were angels or even would not agree to have sex with them, and that this doesn't matter very much because the people of the Old Testament historically hadn't cared that much about consent. If homosexual rape was wrong to God but consensual homosexuality was not, why wasn't a man who had homosexual sex simply required to marry his lover (or rape victim) instead of both being stoned?

3. That would be a sad existence.

It would be a very happy existence for the healthcare budget and those who're disgusted by the increase of obesity in the country. As well as those of us who believe in reincarnation.

4. Only if you want to assume that arsenokoitai refers to gay sex in general, instead of temple prostitution or pederasty.

We have no reason to believe it refers exclusively to prostitution or pederasty, the understanding of the word as referring to homosexuality was unanimous among the early Church fathers.

It's important to point out that pederasty usually took place with adolescent boys who could be as old as 17 or 18, the youngest most boys who entered into the relationships were was 12, two years younger than the age where a girl was accepted to marry. There is no reason to believe that the Church fathers, who did not care about 14 year old girls being married and having children, would be opposed to pederasty because of a lack of consent.

4. Only if you want to assume that arsenokoitai refers to gay sex in general, instead of temple prostitution or pederasty.

But that's totally rewriting all of history and we're not allowed to think about that.

"Every scholar and priest for the past 2,000 years has been an idiot incapable of translating words correctly and requires people (who more than likely don't actually know Greek) to translate the word." is a pretty major revisionist statement.

[Vassenor]

Y’all I just found out about this new kind of Christianity cool with LGBTQ+ folks that my father just happens to be ordained in. It’s called Episcopalianism and it’s in full communion with Anglicanism(being an offshoot) and Lutheranism.

Well then clearly they're not "real" Christians if the ongoing discussion is anything to go on.

[Neutraligon]

Y’all I just found out about this new kind of Christianity cool with LGBTQ+ folks that my father just happens to be ordained in. It’s called Episcopalianism and it’s in full communion with Anglicanism(being an offshoot) and Lutheranism.

Well then clearly they're not "real" Christians if the ongoing discussion is anything to go on.

Also clearly Jesus was in the wrong with the money lenders or whatever that turning over the table was since tradition.

[Vassenor]

"Every scholar and priest for the past 2,000 years has been an idiot incapable of translating words correctly and requires people (who more than likely don't actually know Greek) to translate the word." is a pretty major revisionist statement.

"They said this but we think they're wrong" isn't revisionist. Revisionist would be pretending they never existed.