No, it's "Let's attack those who aren't fundamentalist Christians."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
|
No, it's "Let's attack those who aren't fundamentalist Christians."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I wrote: to quote your own quote of me in your next line:
I capitalized "and" to help you see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Thus two sources.
1. A book (on human development) AND
2. research by a pediatric surgeon who does gender reassignment.
I hope this clarifies things.
The paper wasn't meant to provide information about Vilain's credentials. His web page was. The paper was listed at his website under "additional information." As you'll see, most of the other papers listed there do have his name. I assume he probably reviewed this paper in manuscript. I listed it for informational purposes.Quote:
It is also interesting to note that you reference a man named "Vilian" who is not even mentioned or acknowledged in the paper that you linked.
Here his website again, since you may have overlooked it.
UCLA Department of Urology Faculty Information - Eric Vilain, MD, PhD
Please give your references also.Quote:
The boy had damaged caused to his penis during electro-surgery when he was 7 months old, so they did further surgery to change him into a girl and his parents raised him as a girl. Here is an excerpt from the article:
There are hundreds of cases like this. I have heard of this particular case, as much has been made of it, probably because nothing seems worse to many people than condemning a man to be a woman. But there are many other people who feel they are women and were expected to behave like men.
These cases are very sad. It is especially sad when babies are born perfectly healthy but with mild intersex conditions, such as a micropenis in a boy or a too large clitoris in a girl. Often, looking at the genitals, the doctor has no idea what sex the child will feel s/he is when they grow up. Traditionally, surgeons have cut off a micropenis or large clitoris since they are "not big enough" for a man and "too big" for a woman, and attempted to turn boy and girl alike into proper girls. As you see by your own reading it often does not work and leads to terrible heartache.
That is why Vilain was saying that, in an ideal world, surgeons could wait until the child was old enough to say, "I am X." BUT, Vilain said, parents, grandparents, teachers and others will not put up with not knowing for several years. Indeterminancy creates serious social problems. Thus the feeling that surgery needs to be done early. He described gender assignment surgery as a sociomedical "emergency."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lying to children is generally a disaster!Quote:
Following the transition, John's father, on the advice of a psychiatrist, revealed what had happened during infancy. Until that moment her parents and clinicians had tried to conceal all that was problematic about her gender, to give her the unambiguous rearing as a girl they were told to provide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italics mine.Quote:
The outcome of the John/Joan case has been observed with comparable patients. In a recent and ongoing study Reiner tracked six boys who had lost their penises in infancy and were being reared as girls.
It's rare for boys to "lose their penises". They don't just fall down the toilet one day. It generally gets removed by a pediatric surgeon in an effort to turn an unsatisfactory boy into a girl.
I think it's important here to distinguish among the various kinds of sexual identity.
1. Genetic sex is simply if you are XX (female) or XY (male).
2. Does the person have testes or ovaries?
Oddly enough, these things need not be correlated.
3. Does the person have the external genitalia of just one sex or of two sexes (e.g. hermaphrodites--penis and vagina)
4. Which sex are the external genitalia?
5. The sex in which they are reared by the parents.
6. What is the self-identified gender of the child?
7. Legal sex.
And separately.
8. To which sex is the person attracted?
NONE of these things absolutely predict any of the others. They can all vary independently. As I mentioned earlier, a person who is genetically female can be fully male in all other respects and a genetic male can develop into a fully functional woman. Every other combination also occurs, including people with both sets of organs.
In MOST cases, however, things develop as we expect.
Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls. Transgender persons may be the victims of gender reassignment or they may simply be people who developed a gender identity different from their apparent sex. This is consistent with what I am saying about all these different kinds of sex identity being independent.Quote:
they believed they were boys."(Quoted in Colapinto.) [2]
Tom, I couldn't agree more. BUT, at the same time, society demands that we decide on a sex for an infant when it's still not clear. For now, there's just no way to tell if a baby is going to self identify as a girl or as a boy. If we could accept some indeterminancy and wait until a child is old enough to say, I am a girl or I am a boy, so much heartache could be avoided.Quote:
28] Unlike those with surgically corrected cleft palates, intersex patients are condemning physicians for their surgeries and for withholding the truth about their medical condition and treatment. The John/Joan case, the Reiner study, the activist protests and other cases reported in the literature, [29-31] strongly suggest that pediatric reassignment may often be failing the thank you test for clinical beneficence, [32] and that these poor outcomes may not be isolated droplets of misfortune in a downpour of excellent results.
The outcome of all these separate kinds of sexual identity is hard to predict and seems to result from processes that occur in the embryo/fetus during development. It's probably not all genetic. Just to give one non-genetic example, the youngest of several boys in a family (by the same mother) has a slightly increased probability of being gay. Something in the woman is slightly altered by carrying all those other boys for 9 months each.
My point is that none of these results is a "choice" made by an adult. I know that the question of whether someone can be ambivalent or bi in their sexual identity is controversial and I don't have anything to say about that. But it is clear that many people express at quite young ages an interest in a particular sex that does not change over their lifetime and which is independent of their own gender self identification ("I am a boy or girl").
My understanding is that Tom is saying that being born gay is no one's fault and not a sin. But acting on it is a sin comparable with other sins, neither better nor worse. I think this is a comparatively enlightened view.
My personal view is that acting on it is not sinful. But then I am not a Christian and basically do not believe in sin, at least not if it is defined as a narrow set of proscriptions from the Bible.
No. Tom says sexuality is chosen by each individual, and, if the choice is homosexuality, that is, in and of itself, a sin. Tom himself has chosen to be heterosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I see that you can't shake that obsession with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Read the context more carefully - he said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
"But, if God only designs people to be straight, then if they're OTHER than straight, it's by choice."
So is lust.Quote:
Heterosexuality is not a sin, but adultery is.
Once again, read more carefully. I provided a link.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
That is your claim. But so far you have not put forward a compelling argument which shows me that scripture is wrong when it makes it clear that such a decision is a choice.Quote:
Right. Likewise, there are "boys" who *know* they are girls.
Sigh! I wonder why people choose to mis-represent others. Is the truth just too hard? If you are unable to be honest about what I have said, why not simply let me present my position? Or is it important for you to tell me what I am to believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
No, Tom does not and never has said that. What I have said, and what scripture says is that God created us male and female, and that some choose to homosexuality rather than how God created us.
Scripture says clearly that we can change and that when we receive Christ we do change.
Scripture says that homosexuality is a sin, and that the act is also a sin.
I accept God's word.
No one is born "gay". Chosing to become so is a sin according to scripture. The same is true according to scripture for any sinful orientation (this is probably why some folk on here fear to discuss what an orientation is).Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
All sins, rather it be a sinful act or choosing a sinful orientation are equal sins regardless of what they may be - neither better nor worse whether your act on that chosen orientation.
I am not arguing about whether scripture is right wrong. That's not my department. I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.
Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?
I thought we were in agreement on this.
I find your arguments frustratingly oblique at times. It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement. That I have misunderstood your point after reading so much of what you wrote and, I thought, responding carefully makes me feel like I am wasting my time. I am disappointed.
Don't be disappointed, asking. It's not your fault. Apparently everyone on this board who doesn't agree with Tom is guilty of REFUSING to understand him. And so it must be, since we know it couldn't be Tom's fault for failing to make his points with adequate clarity and precision. That just could never be.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
This is the "Religious Discussions" board and that is what the topic is.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
As am I.Quote:
I'm just trying to provide accurate information about the biological processes of sex and gender determination.
What - that a person born as a girl gets mutilated as a baby and they try to raise here as a boy, but she subsequently wants to be as God created her - a girl? Sure that could happen.Quote:
Tom, you just posted a really long discussion about a person being raised as a girl who knew nonetheless that "she" was a boy.
Are you saying it can't happen the other way around?
I got a laugh about that. That is probably the first time anyone has said that. I have been accused of being too clear and blunt.Quote:
It's hard to discuss anything if you don't seem to commit to a definite statement.
Yep, here we go again, go after the person when you cannot deal with the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Wow, one really like to compliment one's self. Show where that has happened (being accused of being "too clear").Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I could not care less whether you believe it or not. If you are under the mis-understanding that I am on here to defend the homosexual rights lobby of the American Atheists Association, then clearly you have not been reading clearly enough. That is not my issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Depending on which bible translation you read, homosexuality is not found in the translations although it's assumed sexual perversion holds the same meaning. I am not too sure of that since the Talmud makes pretty clear the sin of the Sodomites is the transgression of inhospitability not homosexuality. In fact the bible never really makes a clear line or distinction even in 1st Corinthians where various translations have interpreted the language as either homosexuality, sexual perversions, with no definite type, and bestiality. Since bestiality is clearly defined biblically and in the Talmud I am guessing this is one of the transgressions that would be considered sexual perversion, as well as what Paul would have done himself in the same time period: rape as a form of tax collection, bestiality, prostitution, orgies which were gaining popularity at the time, virgin baths, pedophilia. When he converted to Christianity he was probably still yearning for many of the sexually abusive temptations available to tax collectors at the time. It was Josephus who first put the world onto the notion that Homosexuality took place in Sodom. Considering the speed at which everything occurred within the passages leading up to sodom's destruction and the fact that Jesus himself called Sodom's transgression inhospitability, I am guessing that Sodom at the time of it's destruction was little more than a war ravaged town suffering from Drought and avarice of in Jesus's words "overfed and unconcerned women", they had recently been pillaged by foreign armies and only ten years previous within biblical context they had suffered a great drought and famine. So I am guessing with their relatively weak king that the city was destitute and made it's living as a port of sin, brothels, gang warfare, brigandry drugs and nationalism. Place reminds me of modern Thailand or Somalia, where daughters are sold as sex slaves to pay for parents drug addictions, and boys six and seven years old are sold to foreigners for sex to feed the family.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbalina
Is homosexuality a sin? Can't really tell you. If there was ever any biblical evidence that the 12 apostles had male sexual relations it was never mentioned and neither was it mentioned whether they had female sexual relations. That could mean that they did and it was not discussed or they did and it was removed, or they didn't have any relations at all. However the sin of coveting is discussed and to covet a neighbors manservant is a sin. That always made me wonder if manservant had more of a sexual connotation. Therefore it is all right for you to have a manservant (your boi) but you can't steal someone else's gay manservant. Again can't prove that either. Heck I can't even prove that the bible disapproves of incest since at least three relationships are incestous.
The point is you do what you believe, but Jesus himself said let he without sin cast the first stone, before you dig the thorn out of my pull the log out of your own. So regardless of whether it is a sin, I question whether a person should attack others for their beliefs. As for hand holding, they could be sisters. The fear of homosexuality has obviously insinuated itself in so much that people are willing to be inhospitable, which is a great sin according to Jesus.
There is no such thing - you made that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Wow - what a story.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSlager
Scripture is quite clear about the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction:
Jude 5-8
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
NKJV
My Christian friends are always reminding me to love the sinner, but hate the sin. Sounds good to me, but then I ask what is the sin, and that answer requires much discussion.
Bobbalina,Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbalina
Yes. It is right to be gay.
It is as right to be gay as it is right to be straight, to have brown hair or white or dark skin, to be a man or to be a woman. It is right to be smart and it is right to be not so smart. It is right to carry one of 16 different alleles for the same gene. It is right to carry another of the 16 alleles. It is right to be different.
It is right to be human.
It is not wrong.
God has a differing view.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
1 Cor 6:9-11
O not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Each of us has the choice to submit to God's view or the opposing view.
Strange flesh from the talmud and the torah both translates to bestiality. Flesh in itself is often a misnomer for sex which is a modern way of describing sex but in the greek histories, hebrew works including the Talmud and other works at the time flesh has a very specific meaning. Biblically before translation when describing the eating of meat they describe it as flesh Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 7:19, that same term is also used to describe the eating of a fig, or the internal workings or a human (like an open wound) leviticus 13:24. However it is not used when they are describing one's nudity Exodus 20:26. They have a different word to describe that. So contextually the bible almost always uses the term for flesh to mean animal. The exceptions to this are the interpreted meanings of strange flesh in Jude and another time in the NT which also relates back to Sodom and Gammorah. Strange that the term used to describe animal and sometimes fruit everywhere else in the bible replaces the term used everywhere else in the bible to describe sex. Possible conclusions you could derive from this are that the writers of that particular passage are taking poetic licensure and not using the standard wording or more likely strange flesh refers to bestiality. Now going back to the laws in the OT you find that bestiality is very specifically mentioned and in that passage the original term is not beast but the reflected term that is the same for flesh, unfortunately I don't have access to an online version of the hebrew otherwise I'd show you. Exodus 22:19 And lest I forget here are the sex laws very specifically discussing whom you cannot have sex with using the euphemism uncover their nakedness meaning Leviticus 18:6-18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Very nice posts, CSlager. Thanks so much for your contributions to the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSlager
Strange but I just looked in the NKJV and my version doesn't even have that exact quote. However the online version does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: 1 Corinthians 6 ;
this shall get you to Corinthians. Here is the problem with the text. Go to the New Standard Version, to the NKJV now to the KJV, now try the NLT, notice the difference? That's what happens when a version adds words. Catamite wasn't even in the pretranslated text that the NKJV used for its translation, it extended the original words to include catamites. The original text has arsen koite which if you read koine you'd know could mean about ten dozen things. However in this case interpretation has often been left to a certain group who always believed it meant homosexuality. Here's what else it could mean or allude: rapist, adulterer, male concubine, someone who ignores his sexual responsibilities to his race and generation (which is very much a sin dating back to genesis, but is somehow missed in this group), someone who commits incest. See all of those things are evil in someone's eyes and they could all be the translation of arsen koite, however it seems that translations often shorten it to mean exclusively singular man but the original was meant to represent a group of men, so if you take it that way it means those who violate the couch of mankind. That sounds suspiciously like the hebrew text from Genesis which uses a similar term to go forth, be fruitful and multiply. Then again if you look in 1 corinthians then you have to look no further to find the point where many biblical scholars sa you can pretty much ignore everything in the old testament that was a law except fornication (which is between a married man and a married woman or unmarried woman) But I don't need to continue this discussion despite it being interesting I need to eat lunch
Actually the word is not in hebrew but in Greek and the word can be translated either as "flesh" or as "meat", so it could potentially refer to either, but in the context of fornication and in the context of Sodom and Gomorrah where we know what their acts were, the meaning is clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSlager
Further, this was in response to a person claiming that the sin was inhospitality, so your post agrees more with what I was saying since bestiality would also be a sexual sin.
I don't use various versions to find the one that I like - I don't think that is the right way to do it. The right way, if there is a question, is to go back to the original languages which I did in an earlier post, and that validates what I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSlager
What is lust? And how do you understand the relation between lust and desire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Desire is a generic term, lust is a specific kind of desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Again, not very explanatory. What makes a desire lust? What distinguishes lustful desires from non-lustful desires? How do we tell them apart?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Akoue,Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
As I have told you before, I don't play 20 questions. If you don't know what the word lust means, then get thee to a dictionary.
Well, you've done your fair share of asking questions. You've asked them of me, and you've asked them of Wondergirl (way more than twenty times). It appears you're more than fine with "20 questions" so long as you're the only one asking. You told me I was confused about desire and lust. So it's incumbant upon you to explain the nature of my confusion. Don't make claims you can't back up. If "desire" is a generic term, that there must be something in virtue of which a desire counts as a lustful desire. You ought to be able to explain what that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And still waiting for some answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I don't know the nature of your confusion. If you are confused, you are going to have to sort that out, and a dictionary is a good start since you are asking about definitions.Quote:
So it's incumbant upon you to explain the nature of my confusion.
If you don't know where to find a dictionary or what that is, let me know. But I am not going to play games answering questions that could be answered simply by picking up a dictionary. If you are too lazy to do that, then you're probably confused about more things than I could ever help you with.
A bit acerbic. I wonder how much of that is "Biblical".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In any event, here's what the OED says:
Desire
1. The fact or condition of desiring; the feeling that one would derive pleasure or satisfaction from possessing or attaining something; a longing.
2. spec. Sexual appetite; lust.
3. An expressed wish, a request.
5. Something desired or longed for.
Lust
1. Pleasure, delight (also foll. By in, to, unto). Also (poet.), a source of pleasure or delight.
2. Desire, appetite, inclination; an instance of this.
3. A sensuous appetite or desire considered as sinful or as leading to sin.
4. Strong (esp.uncontrollable) sexual appetite or desire.
5. Vigour, life.
6. A passionate desire for, to do; a passionate enjoyment of.
So, according you, consulting a dictionary should clear up any confusion regarding the distinction between desire and lust. You've already claimed that lust is a kind of desire, that not all desires are lusts. Now according to the definition of "lust", a strong, uncontrollable sexual desire counts as lust. But you don't seem to think of lust as something that is limited only to certain sorts of sexual desire (i.e. the strong, uncontrollable ones). Lust is sinful desire, you've been clear about that. But presumably pleasure and delight isn't always sinful. Neither is desire, appetite, or inclination always sinful. Vigour and life don't appear sinful. A passionate desire or enjoyment isn't always sinful.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to explain what you take the defining characteristics of a lustful desire to be, since the OED doesn't appear to be able to clear this up. In fact, as #2 of the definition of "desire" makes plain, the words "desire" and "lust" can be used synonymously (in some cases, at least). But you seem to think that the difference between desire and lust is so plain to see that I must be kind of dim-witted to have missed it. Perhaps it's not quite as obvious as you would have me think. Why don't you give us all your take on the distinction between non-lustful desires and lustful desires. Unless you don't know, in which case some of your earlier claims would be cast in a rather different light.
You seem to think that you are good at mind reading. You aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Rather than trying to mind-read (which you are very poor at, why don't you just put forward your position and we can see where we differ and discuss.
I did put it forward, and you told me I was confused. Since then I've just been asking you to explain what I got wrong, and the very best way to do this would be to explain the distinction between lustful desire and non-lustful desire. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you can explain it. Maybe I'm wrong to do so; maybe you don't know what you're talking about. There are others reading this thread; you have an audience. It's a great chance for you to set us all straight. Or are you just blowing smoke?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It was you who said that you were confused. You keep asking me for dictionary definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I thought that you just looked in the dictionary. Do you know what the prefix "non" means?Quote:
Since then I've just been asking you to explain what I got wrong, and the very best way to do this would be to explain the distinction between lustful desire and non-lustful desire.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you understand the English language and can read a dictionary. You claim to be a professor. Maybe I'm wrong to do so; maybe you don't know what you're talking about. There are others reading this thread; you have an audience. It's a great chance for you to set us all straight. Or are you just blowing smoke?
Like I said, I am always interested in helping those who care but when a person starts asking me dictionary definitions after I have answered their multiple questions. And yet claims to be a Greek expert and professor, then I find it hard to believe that they cannot figure out a dictionary.
I also am confused as to what you mean by lustful desire and nonlustful desire. I learned in grade school that there is a terrific way to clarify: examples. Please provide us with examples of each. Those certainly will help us understand your thinking in this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Dictionary.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Wow, I just got hit by such a wave of nostalgia. Not since grade school have I had somebody parrot me back to myself. That's a couple of times on this very thread.
So the dictionary definitions have been offered above. They don't clearly demarcate lustful desires from non-lustful desires. Don't you have a "biblically-based" answer, Tom?
It seemed appropriate. Some of the behaviour have seen on here reminds me of grade school also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Read Matthew 5.Quote:
So the dictionary definitions have been offered above. They don't clearly demarcate lustful desires from non-lustful desires. Don't you have a "biblically-based" answer, Tom?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 AM. |