the transgendered

[MarvelousMarvin]

steve wrote:

no one is trying to talk you into anything, so relax.

I know that, my friend. But the theologian in me comes out when I see a problem like this.

A TG'd person who is born again is still whatever gender (s)he was before "the operation," and the prohibitions against homosexuality will still apply. There are, of course, a very few people who are actually born with sexual identity problems. The most common (but even this one is extremely rare) is hermaphroditism, where a baby is born with both sets of sex organs. I've read that in some of those cases, even the DNA is mixed up, having both XX and XY cells. But the most common problem we will encounter in ministering to people with a sexual orientation problem is that they just fell for Satan's lies and got really deep in sin before getting saved. IMHO, we need to figure out ways to minister to those who have been saved out of that type of sin, just as we minister to people who have been saved out of substance abuse (like some of my closest friends) or agnosticism/atheism (like me) or just plain, ordinary, everyday sinners who get saved.

I know that no one is trying to talk me into anything. I just think you brought up a very valid point that needs to be discussed.

just as fewer than 1 marriage in 100 (my generous guess, it is probably closer to 1 in 10,000) can handle polygyny in a manner that blesses YHWH

1 in 10,000? You are an optimist! In Western cultures, it might be 1 in 100,000. (And like you, that is just a guess on my part.) :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[sola scriptura]

On a more serious note, I would say that the verse below could give a little bit of insight into the proper way to treat the trans-gendered.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]. Matthew 19:12

i am probably being a little slow here, but it seems to me that all that this verse would give us is a label for them. i do not really see much instruction about how to treat them.
is there something that i am missing?[/quot

In this verse it says, "...he that is able to receive it, let him receive it." If you have had a medical procedure that, in essence, makes you a eunuch, then you are to receive/accept that aspect of of your life for the kingdom of heaven's sake. As one that believes wholeheartedly in predestination, I believe that if something happened to you, then it must have been God's decree for your life. Therefore, since you have been made a eunuch ( unable to have regular, male/female sexual intercourse), use this aspect of your life for the kingdom's sake.

 

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify, it was as a nurse in L/D I experienced the anomally

 

[Jim]

can we patriarchs provide a (non-sexual) family to those who were born as our same gender but now look more like our wives?

How marriage?

 

[steve]

can we patriarchs provide a (non-sexual) family to those who were born as our same gender but now look more like our wives?

How marriage?

it would not be the one-flesh union that we were designed for, but it could be a caring, loving, protective, committed relationship.

 

[steve]

In this verse it says, "...he that is able to receive it, let him receive it." If you have had a medical procedure that, in essence, makes you a eunuch, then you are to receive/accept that aspect of of your life for the kingdom of heaven's sake. As one that believes wholeheartedly in predestination, I believe that if something happened to you, then it must have been God's decree for your life. Therefore, since you have been made a eunuch ( unable to have regular, male/female sexual intercourse), use this aspect of your life for the kingdom's sake.

you may be correct in your interpretation of the verse. however, you may be wrong. i see no reason to believe that if a person repents they are still required to be ostracized from a family relationship while using this aspect of your life for the kingdom's sake .

 

[steve]

Just to clarify, it was as a nurse in L/D I experienced the anomally

did you help deliver the baby?
had there been any indication that there was a problem?

 

[sola scriptura]

In this verse it says, "...he that is able to receive it, let him receive it." If you have had a medical procedure that, in essence, makes you a eunuch, then you are to receive/accept that aspect of of your life for the kingdom of heaven's sake. As one that believes wholeheartedly in predestination, I believe that if something happened to you, then it must have been God's decree for your life. Therefore, since you have been made a eunuch ( unable to have regular, male/female sexual intercourse), use this aspect of your life for the kingdom's sake.

you may be correct in your interpretation of the verse. however, you may be wrong. i see no reason to believe that if a person repents they are still required to be ostracized from a family relationship while using this aspect of your life for the kingdom's sake .

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you make it sound like giving your life to the Lord for the kingdom's sake is a lesser state of being than marriage. Also, who said anything about the person being ostracized from a family relationship? My bachelor uncle, who is 62, is very much a part of the family. He spends lots of time with and goes on vacation with his brothers and their families on a regular basis. He just wasn't called to marriage. How would the transgendered be any different than my uncle or the spinsters of old?

 

[Isabella]

How would the transgendered be any different than my uncle or the spinsters of old?

Quite simply because many TG (not all but many) lost their birth families when they decided to transition, for many it was a permanent estrangement. They don't get to have any role in their nephews and nieces lives, sometimes not even their own children and grandchildren. It is a very lonely life to lead.

B

 

[steve]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you make it sound like giving your life to the Lord for the kingdom's sake is a lesser state of being than marriage.

they should be one and the same. whether in marriage or outside of it each persons life should be lived for the sake of the kingdom. my point was that giving your life for the kingdom does not preclude marriage.

. He just wasn't called to marriage. How would the transgendered be any different than my uncle or the spinsters of old?

maybe your uncle was called to NOT be married. i see marriage as the "default" position. the one that we are all designed for by our Creator.
while it is true that some men have not earned the right to be married, i believe that being in families has always been our Creators plan.
the spinsters were spinsters because of the selfish "monogamy-only" position taken by the "church", unless they were specifically called to not marry.

bel's point is well made also. while you could have a TG friend of the family, they would never be part of the family and would always be an outside with temporary status.
a big question would be that if they have to remain alone and lonely, would they be drawn back to the abuse that they left just to feel a form of "love"? would we be complicit in denying them the right to have the love that they are dying for?

 

[steve]

from another thread,

jealousy is the motivation to do those things, i cannot protect, preserve, and care for my neighbors wife in the same way that i can for my wife because she is not MINE.

i guess that what we are talking about in this thread is; do the TG'ed and the intersex have no right to belong and be cared for and loved on a deeper level than as a family friend.

 

[lutherangirl]

Steve,

I think your concern and compassion for the TG re-born Christian is so outstanding and thought provoking. I can see where it would be easier on the first wife to accept the TG person into the relationship, because you said it would be "non-sexual". On the other hand, I don't know how the patriarch of the family could remain "non-sexual". Intimacy is so important in relationships. I just don't see how over the years of loving someone and sharing a bed, the husband could keep from wanting to touch. There would be too much temptation just in the thoughts alone, imho.

 

[sola scriptura]

Steve,

I agree with much of what you said. I also believe that marriage is by God's design the default position for the majority of society. I also know, from evidence in scripture, that there were some men and women who weren't married for various reasons.

While your posts show a sincere concern for those who are in this difficult situation, there are several factors that must be weighed before coming to a conclusion.

1. If a person was born with problematic "plumbing", God in his sovereign wisdom chose to do that, to bring glory to himself.

2. If doctors messed up and chose the wrong sex for that person, God in his sovereign wisdom allowed that, to bring glory to himself.

3. If an unbeliever purposely chose to mutilate him/herself in order to attempt to find happiness, the heartbreaking fact is that person will suffer the effects of their sinful behavior for the rest of their lives, but if they are born again and a new creature in Christ, their life can still bring glory to their Heavenly Father!

4. Happiness ultimately comes from a right relationship with our Creator. No one, no matter how great or accepting their family is, will be truly happy if they aren't happy wherever the Lord has put them. To say that a transgendered person will never have true happiness without a marital relationship flies in the face of scripture. Our joy come from the Lord, who is our Strength. And while their family of origin may have abandoned them, if they are a true believer, then they should be able to find true fellowship within the family of God (the Church). Just as the lonely widower or the single mom with a STD might not find marriage, they can still find happiness and completeness in the fellowship of the believers and ultimately in the Lord.

5. Ideally, I would want as many people as possible to have a God-honoring marriage...the lonely widower, the single mom with the STD, the spinsters of old, etc. That's why I promote plural marriage as a beautiful way to answer some of these problems. It doesn't, however, answer the problem of a transgendered person being able to enter into a covenant relationship with essentially someone of the same sex. That's why I think the verse about the eunuch applies. The transgendered person has the ability to devote himself to the Lord's work, and the true body of Christ should embrace that person totally and completely as one of their family.

PROBLEM SOLVED!!! LOL!!!

 

[Isabella]

the heartbreaking fact is that person will suffer the effects of their sinful behavior for the rest of their lives, !

Ermmm, you may believe that but I doubt you have any research backing that statement up. As far as I know the evidence is to the contrary and despite estrangement from family and public persecution trans people are usually very happy with their transitions. Since many of us have also suffered estrangement from our families and social ostracism for our Polygamous beliefs, I think there is a case to say that those things alone are also considered 'suffering' for what we believe is right.

B

 

[steve]

5. Ideally, I would want as many people as possible to have a God-honoring marriage...the lonely widower, the single mom with the STD, the spinsters of old, etc. That's why I promote plural marriage as a beautiful way to answer some of these problems.

i guess that i fail to understand why you would want any of these problems solved if, as you say about the other problems: " God in his sovereign wisdom allowed that, to bring glory to himself. "

starving children? God in his sovereign wisdom allowed that, to bring glory to himself.

your children being taught by a neighbor kid that "drugs are cool"? no problem, God in his sovereign wisdom allowed that, to bring glory to himself.

sorry, but i just do not accept that view of YHWH's will.

 

[steve]

........... I don't know how the patriarch of the family could remain "non-sexual". Intimacy is so important in relationships. I just don't see how over the years of loving someone and sharing a bed, the husband could keep from wanting to touch. There would be too much temptation just in the thoughts alone, imho.

sharing a bed? i was not suggesting an intimacy that would equal the intimacy of the other wives.

There would be too much temptation just in the thoughts alone, imho

i am not sure what your opinion is based upon, but no . i could elaborate in a private message, if you so desired.

 

[sola scriptura]

5. Ideally, I would want as many people as possible to have a God-honoring marriage...the lonely widower, the single mom with the STD, the spinsters of old, etc. That's why I promote plural marriage as a beautiful way to answer some of these problems.

i guess that i fail to understand why you would want any of these problems solved if, as you say about the other problems: " God in his sovereign wisdom allowed that, to bring glory to himself. "

starving children? God in his sovereign wisdom allowed that, to bring glory to himself.

your children being taught by a neighbor kid that "drugs are cool"? no problem, God in his sovereign wisdom allowed that, to bring glory to himself.

sorry, but i just do not accept that view of YHWH's will.

Steve, God in His sovereign wisdom allows difficult/tragic/terrible things to occur in people's lives. Many of these things occur because of sin. Some have nothing to do with sin, such as the blind man that was healed by Jesus purely to bring glory to Him. The glory that was brought to the Lord came after a lifetime of suffering for the man and his parents, who had been blamed by the Pharisees for his blindness because of some sin they must have committed. The point is, suffering occurred and Jesus made it very clear that it was so "that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Starving children are usually a result of sin. Consequences. The law of sowing and reaping, both literal and figurative. Does it make it any less sad or tragic? NO. There are starving babies that need to be fed. How much better for the Lord to be glorified by His Church following the commands of Jesus and feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.

The issue is not that "God lets bad things happen so there's nothing I can do about it and it will eventually work out for his glory, but in the meantime starving children will die and my kids will become drug addicts." On the contrary, people are sinful, human beings who, without the redemptive work of Christ in their life are bound to sin. It's their nature, they will sin, they want to sin, they will find pleasure in sin. However, when Christ's redemptive work comes flooding over their soul, oh the glorious joy and peace and life that comes shining through that once-dead, sinful person. God is glorified in the beautiful redemption of that person's life!

 

[steve]

i ran across a persistant rumor about a hollywood actress who, as the rumor goes, was born with both sets of genetalia and the parents opted for eliminating the male part.
the only indication that the rumor may be true is that her children are all adopted, which would be normal for that particular problem.

not that art imitates life, but she co-starred in True Lies :lol:

 

[steve]

katie,
i understand the story about the blind man and Yeshua's response to the question. i just do not believe that He meant it as the answer to all tough situations.
is it ok if we agree to disagree about that? 'cause i really do not want to argue with you about it. we just both see it differently.

 

[sola scriptura]

katie,
i understand the story about the blind man and Yeshua's response to the question. i just do not believe that He meant it as the answer to all tough situations.

That's why I included the part about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc