Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Kia Ora,

Please excuse the intrusion of a non believer...But I have a question of which I think other trans-Christians who are 'struggling' might find the answer/s of interest...So................

"Can Trans-Christians Really Find That Happy Medium Between What's Written In The Scriptures And Self Acceptance ? " (Scriptures Often Quoted By Trans-Intolerant Christians To Justify Their Claim That Trans-People Are All Sinners)

I guess in a sense I would like to find out if you have finally been able to stop worrying about(taking to heart) what other Christians are saying about you and have managed to get on with living your life as a Christian...


Metta Zenda :)

I'm probably going to get some backlash for this one, but I don't consider those who follow the levitical laws Christians. Christ came to fulfill the laws, and teach us how to truly honor God. Which is through love for everyone. Those who don't love everyone, and judge others are not Christians. Those are just my opinions.

It wasn't too long ago that Christians used scripture to justify slavery.  And it's because they didn't take the time to understand the intent behind the verses they were using.  It's what they wanted to see.

Being Trans -- or LGBT or any kind -- is similarly opposed on what most think are scriptural grounds.  They're mistaken.  And IMO within a generation, the majority of Christians will have come around.

The abomination argument is a very easy one to win.  Although it's still very difficult to change someone's deeply held belief in one conversation.  I can hang with most people in a deep theological discussion of this issue, but that's not what really wins them over.  Most Christians won't change based on the "love everyone" argument either.  But after a solid Biblical case has been made, that's when "love everyone" and "don't judge others" are more effective.

Your making a generalization not all Christians are like that, And for the record a Christian means their just a believer it doesn't mean your nessicarily right with God, All lgbt seem to have this view that are Christians are homophobic or transphobic I don't really appreciate that, Besides I know plenty of Christiams who see this as a real medical conditiom, All my Christian friends see me as male regardless....... God looms at the heart, that dont mean sin all the time though.

Quote from: katiej on January 17, 2014, 11:18:01 PM
It wasn't too long ago that Christians used scripture to justify slavery.  And it's because they didn't take the time to understand the intent behind the verses they were using.  It's what they wanted to see.

Being Trans -- or LGBT or any kind -- is similarly opposed on what most think are scriptural grounds.  They're mistaken.  And IMO within a generation, the majority of Christians will have come around.

The abomination argument is a very easy one to win.  Although it's still very difficult to change someone's deeply held belief in one conversation.  I can hang with most people in a deep theological discussion of this issue, but that's not what really wins them over.  Most Christians won't change based on the "love everyone" argument either.  But after a solid Biblical case has been made, that's when "love everyone" and "don't judge others" are more effective.

Their is such thing as Sin though. Yes we are not God and he who is without sin cast the first stone but there is no denying that evil exist

Quote from: Brooke777 on January 17, 2014, 10:12:14 PM
I'm probably going to get some backlash for this one, but I don't consider those who follow the levitical laws Christians. Christ came to fulfill the laws, and teach us how to truly honor God. Which is through love for everyone. Those who don't love everyone, and judge others are not Christians. Those are just my opinions.

You're exactly right.  The Old Testament law was never meant for Gentiles.  It was for the defense of the burgeoning nation of Israel.  Their priorities were procreation, survival, and maintaining an identity separate from the other people groups in the region.  In that context, the laws make a lot of sense.

In Acts 15, the church leaders all got together to discuss what laws were important for new believers, and they could only come up with 4 things that were the same for everyone:

1 - stay away from idolotry
2 - no sex outside of marriage
3 - Don't eat blood (blood = life and is important to God)
4 - Don't eat meat that was strangled and not bled correctly (an issue of sanitation)

Everything else is between you and God.  If you need a list, perhaps you don't really have a relationship with God.

I was actually raised as a Christian by a very religious family. I realized I was FTM when I was pretty young, and my religion was definitely a big part of finally accepting the fact that I was trans. But I actually remember a bible class teacher I had over 10 years ago, when I was in 2nd grade at a private elementary school, and he said, "To get into heaven, all you have to do is believe that Christ died for your sins. The bible is too difficult for humans to interpret 100% accurately about what is a sin and what's not." And then he explained that all sins, no matter how big or small, God considers them to be of the same importance (so, for instance, if I'm sinning by being trans, the 'Christians' ridiculing me for it are also sinning just as badly, because they're judging me.) This teacher used actual scriptures to prove this point, although I don't remember what they were anymore.

So anyway, it cancels itself out. If a person ridicules you on account of their religion considering it 'sinful,' they're sinning just as much as you're 'sinning' (which may not even be sinning; there's no substantial evidence in the bible that considers having a non-cisgender identity a sin. Most of the scriptures Christians use to ridicule me are taken entirely out of context and provide NO real proof; I studied this stuff for years in bible class and church as a kid, just trust me guys). Use this argument if a Christian ever has a problem with your gender identity; I've done it, and as long as you sound confident about making this point, it usually shuts them up  ;)

I'm not really a religious person anymore, but because of the way I was raised I still do identify with and believe the Christian ideals more than any other religion. So I found my "happy medium" by remembering that those who judge are sinning even worse than I am (if I'm sinning at all), and I do not fear hell because the Christian 'rule' to go to heaven is to believe Christ died for your sins. All other 'sins' are forgivable by God. So there you have it :P

The Bible says, "ALL" have sinned, everyone.  And Christ is our Advocate.

If being trans is Sin, (and I'm not sure it is), Christ is our Advocate and if we have accepted Him, our sin is forgiven.  Now I have prayed about this and feel that God has answered me and that I am Safe in His arms.

Quote from: Anatta on January 17, 2014, 10:02:20 PM
Kia Ora,

Please excuse the intrusion of a non believer...But I have a question of which I think other trans-Christians who are 'struggling' might find the answer/s of interest...So................

"Can Trans-Christians Really Find That Happy Medium Between What's Written In The Scriptures And Self Acceptance ? " (Scriptures Often Quoted By Trans-Intolerant Christians To Justify Their Claim That Trans-People Are All Sinners)

I guess in a sense I would like to find out if you have finally been able to stop worrying about(taking to heart) what other Christians are saying about you and have managed to get on with living your life as a Christian...


Metta Zenda :)

That depends on whether or not you follow Jesus or Paul teachings.... and whether or not you belive in the absolute and infallible literal meaning of the old testament

Yes, but it depends on the people your around. I know Christians who are accepting, but I know way more Christians that are tolerant. The tolerant ones are the ones that say hate the sin love the sinner in one way or another. This is damaging to people because it creates the sense of being a second class Christian for LGBT people. This is why before starting transition I never said anything about my sexual orientation and why it was challenging to come out to certain people as trans*. This being said I don't think people change their beliefs from conversation, but more from personal relationships with people. For example KKK members that build relationships with black people tend to leave the KKK.

Personally my faith helped me with coming out as transgender and in many other places in my life. Scripture is something that is translated and interpreted, which means there is bound to be error in peoples understanding of gods message. I personally don't think that being GLBT is wrong, but other people do. The main issue is dealing with people who don't share your views and/or when they treat you poorly, which is an issue that people face in other areas in life.

TL:DR Being GLBT and Christian aren't mutually exclusive.

Kia Ora Brendon,

(And a big thanks to all who have commented so far)

I should point out, yes I'm fully aware that there are Cis-Trans-Friendly Christians who are tolerant and totally accepting of Trans-People and feel that trans-people are part of their god's creation and just as worthy of their god's love as any other Christian ...(In other words they think "Well it may not be my cup of tea-but who am I to judge!")

Where I used the term "Trans-Intolerant-Christians" it was meant to highlight the fact that some Cis-Christians are 'intolerant' but not  "all" Cis Christians share their views...

So I hope I've cleared this up...
___________________________________________________________________________________

I know that many trans-Christians are struggling to come to terms with their faith and much of their struggle is due to the views of some intolerant non-accepting Christians...And that some trans-Christians seem to have overcome this obstacle and manage to live a somewhat 'undisturbed' life, of which their responses/answers to the question posed in this thread may be the key that unlocks the door and set free those who are still struggling... (Some have developed a "Teflon Mind" when it comes to the negative comments directed at them-the comments just don't stick around causing a disturbance )

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Anatta on January 17, 2014, 10:02:20 PM
Kia Ora,

Please excuse the intrusion of a non believer...But I have a question of which I think other trans-Christians who are 'struggling' might find the answer/s of interest...So................

"Can Trans-Christians Really Find That Happy Medium Between What's Written In The Scriptures And Self Acceptance ? " (Scriptures Often Quoted By Trans-Intolerant Christians To Justify Their Claim That Trans-People Are All Sinners)

I guess in a sense I would like to find out if you have finally been able to stop worrying about(taking to heart) what other Christians are saying about you and have managed to get on with living your life as a Christian...


Metta Zenda :)

I think it's very possible to find that happy medium betwen being transgender and Christian.  I haven't met much opposition since I am not officially out yet, but I have come to a point where I have reconciled being transgender and Christian.  After studying the scriptures, I realized that being transgender isn't going to keep me out of heaven.

Quote from: Anatta on January 18, 2014, 01:33:18 PM

I should point out, yes I'm fully aware that there are Cis-Trans-Friendly Christians who are tolerant and totally accepting of Trans-People and feel that trans-people are part of their god's creation and just as worthy of their god's love as any other Christian ...(In other words they think "Well it may not be my cup of tea-but who am I to judge!")

Where I used the term "Trans-Intolerant-Christians" it was meant to highlight the fact that some Cis-Christians are 'intolerant' but not  "all" Cis Christians share their views...

So I hope I've cleared this up...
___________________________________________________________________________________

I know that many trans-Christians are struggling to come to terms with their faith and much of their struggle is due to the views of some intolerant non-accepting Christians...And that some trans-Christians seem to have overcome this obstacle and manage to live a somewhat 'undisturbed' life, of which their responses/answers to the question posed in this thread may be the key that unlocks the door and set free those who are still struggling... (Some have developed a "Teflon Mind" when it comes to the negative comments directed at them-the comments just don't stick around causing a disturbance )

Metta Zenda :)

Well said Annatta...and if I may add: your comment can be extended to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. We can find extreme intolerants types even among Buddhists!

Metta Peky :)

Quote from: Anatta on January 18, 2014, 01:33:18 PM
I know that many trans-Christians are struggling to come to terms with their faith and much of their struggle is due to the views of some intolerant non-accepting Christians...And that some trans-Christians seem to have overcome this obstacle and manage to live a somewhat 'undisturbed' life, of which their responses/answers to the question posed in this thread may be the key that unlocks the door and set free those who are still struggling... (Some have developed a "Teflon Mind" when it comes to the negative comments directed at them-the comments just don't stick around causing a disturbance )

I think this is true for all trans people, Christian or otherwise.  Finding acceptance in society as a whole is very difficult for many of us, even when religion isn't an issue.  We even have trouble in the LGBT community sometimes.

And so that Teflon mind you mentioned is so important just to come to the point of self-acceptance.  What makes me sad is when finding that self-acceptance leads one to doubt and eventually leave Christianity because of the intolerance of misguided believers...many of whom are probably not true believers anyway.

Quote from: Trenton on January 18, 2014, 10:06:03 AM
Yes, but it depends on the people your around. I know Christians who are accepting, but I know way more Christians that are tolerant. The tolerant ones are the ones that say hate the sin love the sinner in one way or another. This is damaging to people because it creates the sense of being a second class Christian for LGBT people. This is why before starting transition I never said anything about my sexual orientation and why it was challenging to come out to certain people as trans*. This being said I don't think people change their beliefs from conversation, but more from personal relationships with people. For example KKK members that build relationships with black people tend to leave the KKK.

Personally my faith helped me with coming out as transgender and in many other places in my life. Scripture is something that is translated and interpreted, which means there is bound to be error in peoples understanding of gods message. I personally don't think that being GLBT is wrong, but other people do. The main issue is dealing with people who don't share your views and/or when they treat you poorly, which is an issue that people face in other areas in life.

TL:DR Being GLBT and Christian aren't mutually exclusive.

Well actually that's how God feels to, He hates the sins that we commit but he still loves us, There is also a reason why God labels some things as sins, And though no sin is greater there are abomination that which God despises which is different than your norm

Quote from: peky on January 18, 2014, 06:08:47 PM
Well said Annatta...and if I may add: your comment can be extended to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. We can find extreme intolerants types even among Buddhists!

Metta Peky :)

Kia Ora Peky,

Thanks....
That's true...At times Buddhists can be Buddhists by name(only) but not by nature...And as we all know this also applies to other religious/spiritual groups...

However Peky, this is in the Christian section for a reason...Christianity seems to be the religion of which the majority of religious/spiritual trans-members associate with...

I'm here to learn more about their coping mechanisms/strategies and hopefully the comments in this thread will help those who are struggling...

Quote from: katiej on January 18, 2014, 06:44:06 PM
I think this is true for all trans people, Christian or otherwise.  Finding acceptance in society as a whole is very difficult for many of us, even when religion isn't an issue.  We even have trouble in the LGBT community sometimes.

And so that Teflon mind you mentioned is so important just to come to the point of self-acceptance.  What makes me sad is when finding that self-acceptance leads one to doubt and eventually leave Christianity because of the intolerance of misguided believers...many of whom are probably not true believers anyway.

Kia ora Katie,

It's true some do become quite dissatisfied with/disgruntled by the treatment they receive from fellow Christians in the congregation and leave the fold...Quite often they start to question their god's existence and become somewhat atheistic in their outlook...

Not that there's anything wrong with atheism (I'm an atheist ) but this does not stop me from caring about those members for whom Christianity has been a big part of their lives and their once held beliefs are now gradually being squeezed out of them by pressure to conform or (for want of a better term) burn in hell...

Metta Zenda :)

There is actually a Gospel passage where Jesus has commissioned 70 missionaries to go out to towns around, and Jesus specifically gave instructions on how they were to behave.  If they were rejected by the locality, they were to leave, and "Shake the dust of the town off your feet" and wiggle their fannies on to some other town.  The story says that they all returned pretty darned happy, so I believe they all found acceptance some where, if not everywhere. 

The subject of acceptance in my life began with something other than my GD, although I now know it was working there too.  50 years ago at age 16 I found myself totally unable to take the Bible literally.  I love the Bible and have read it through several times in several versions but it is a story of men searching for Right Relations with a deity who can keep a whole world of people together in  spiritual harmony.  Political harmony will follow naturally to spiritual harmony.  I know that may sound like a ton of other religious teaching, but to me it does end up with that goal.  Taken with a bit of ancient history from non Christian Church sources, the so called clobber passages thrown out by non-Trans*/GLB -tolerant folks, these were religious practices of other religions in the neighborhood and Jews and later Christians, wanted to keep their worship practices and their adherents out of the bad stuff the church on the other side of town did. The passages did not have a relationship to the home-life of Christians, only the public worship life.

To me, my non-literalistic views have lead me to find that my being Trans* gives me a spiritual view that Cis Folk cannot have, and I have developed a peacefulness with that thought.  I am a practicing member of a major U.S. church whose Constitution & Canons say that I as Trans* am welcome in all areas of the church life and ministry.  My views are free to be spoken and my spiritual experiences will be listened to without condemnation.  I shook dust from another spiritual community off my feet half a century ago. 

There is no conflict between my faith and my being what I am and becoming what I will be. 

Read the biblical arguments made against us in using a Hebrew:English of Greek:English interlinear bible.  I do not depend on someone else's translation. That changed things for me.

Hugs,

Jen

Quote from: Vicky on January 18, 2014, 08:22:10 PM
Taken with a bit of ancient history from non Christian Church sources, the so called clobber passages thrown out by non-Trans*/GLB -tolerant folks, these were religious practices of other religions in the neighborhood and Jews and later Christians, wanted to keep their worship practices and their adherents out of the bad stuff the church on the other side of town did. The passages did not have a relationship to the home-life of Christians, only the public worship life.

This is really important.  The historical context of and purpose for the Old Testament law is misunderstood by the vast majority of Christians. And perhaps the biggest issue they miss is that it was never meant for non-Jews.  Acts 15 confirms that following the law (including the clobber passages in Leviticus) is not important for new believers.

The really savvy Christians will know to pull out Romans 1, but it's pretty easy to knock over that argument as well.

What bothers me is that the same person who uses the abomination passages on us has no problem with eating shrimp, slandering, and his wife wearing pants...those are all listed abominations as well.  So really, those who use those passages are just cherry-picking verses to justify their world view.  Because clearly they don't follow the whole thing themselves, they only require us to conform to those few verses.

Quote from: katiej on January 19, 2014, 02:22:24 PM
This is really important.  The historical context of and purpose for the Old Testament law is misunderstood by the vast majority of Christians. And perhaps the biggest issue they miss is that it was never meant for non-Jews.  Acts 15 confirms that following the law (including the clobber passages in Leviticus) is not important for new believers.

The really savvy Christians will know to pull out Romans 1, but it's pretty easy to knock over that argument as well.

What bothers me is that the same person who uses the abomination passages on us has no problem with eating shrimp, slandering, and his wife wearing pants...those are all listed abominations as well.  So really, those who use those passages are just cherry-picking verses to justify their world view.  Because clearly they don't follow the whole thing themselves, they only require us to conform to those few verses.

Umm actually your suppose to read the old tesament, And your only suppose to read KJV, Another Christian hasn't really knocked me down, I think some people around me do see it as a medical problem and that is long as I stay in God they can't judge, Not saying homosexuality is wrong or anything sin is sin, Even if it is bad to be gay, I don't nessicarily think it should be considered a sin but hey..... I can't tell God what to do neither can you. We fail to realize that sin and evil is real, If you believe in God and their being good then please explain to me how the devil is not real or evil.......

Quote from: katiej on January 19, 2014, 02:22:24 PM
This is really important.  The historical context of and purpose for the Old Testament law is misunderstood by the vast majority of Christians. And perhaps the biggest issue they miss is that it was never meant for non-Jews.  Acts 15 confirms that following the law (including the clobber passages in Leviticus) is not important for new believers.

The really savvy Christians will know to pull out Romans 1, but it's pretty easy to knock over that argument as well.

What bothers me is that the same person who uses the abomination passages on us has no problem with eating shrimp, slandering, and his wife wearing pants...those are all listed abominations as well.  So really, those who use those passages are just cherry-picking verses to justify their world view.  Because clearly they don't follow the whole thing themselves, they only require us to conform to those few verses.

And not all Christians are like that. And if your not even a Christian why are you commenting? In no way shape or form am I trying to be rude but she asked us Trans Christians only and there you go generalizing about something you have no clue about, I can't help how I was brought up and neither can the next man, Being trans and christian is hard, You don't want anyone to judge you yet here you are judging Gods people, Not everyone agrees with thoes passages but if some do then so be it, You or anyone else can't do anything about it.... 

Kia Ora,

I often wonder how much the "fear of burning in hell" has on the young (and I guess some older) trans-Christians  ?

I know from reading some past threads that many here don't take this threat too seriously...

I'm guessing for some who stem from the close knit religious communities where hell is a tool used to keep people in check, at times this must weigh heavily on their minds...

Is the fear of going to hell still a concern for some of you ?

Or do you simply see this as just a tool still used by some preachers to keep people in check-but has no real weight to it ?


Metta Zenda :) 

Quote from: Anatta on January 19, 2014, 08:48:53 PM
Kia Ora,

I often wonder how much the "fear of burning in hell" has on the young (and I guess some older) trans-Christians  ?

I know from reading some past threads that many here don't take this threat too seriously...

I'm guessing for some who stem from the close knit religious communities where hell is a tool used to keep people in check, at times this must weigh heavily on their minds...

Is the fear of going to hell still a concern for some of you ?

Or do you simply see this as just a tool still used by some preachers to keep people in check-but has no real weight to it ?


Metta Zenda :)

No because I believe heaven and hell are real. Do I fear it yes, But only because I'm young and I make mistakes, But far as my trans status goes, I do know that God looks at the heart. That doesn't mean keep sinning in general though

I can't speak for others, but having grown up in a fairly conservative Christian home, my experience was that hell was not a huge deterrent.  I'd say shame was always the bigger issue.  I had always wished that I was a girl, but transition never seemed possible.  Lack of information, fear of coming out, and potential loss of community were the reasons I hid.  Not unlike the reasons that hold back non-religious younger trans people too.

When it finally dawned on me that I am transgender (I'm not sure why it never occurred to me before), I did take time to study the issue in Scripture.  Also, because I plan to stay with my wife, that also makes me a lesbian.  So that was another issue I wanted to understand.  I feel as though I'm in right standing with God, but I wanted to be sure.  Also, I'm going to have to defend my decisions when I do come out.

Regardless of what hell actually is, I think that preachers who use it as a motivational tool are misguided.  Compelling someone to make a fear-based decision to avoid hell most often creates an unauthentic decision that will later be reversed when the fear has subsided.  Besides, the old-fashioned hellfire and brimstone sermons are largely a thing of the past.

Quote from: katiej on January 19, 2014, 09:35:00 PM
I can't speak for others, but having grown up in a fairly conservative Christian home, my experience was that hell was not a huge deterrent.  I'd say shame was always the bigger issue.  I had always wished that I was a girl, but transition never seemed possible.  Lack of information, fear of coming out, and potential loss of community were the reasons I hid.  Not unlike the reasons that hold back non-religious younger trans people too.

When it finally dawned on me that I am transgender (I'm not sure why it never occurred to me before), I did take time to study the issue in Scripture.  Also, because I plan to stay with my wife, that also makes me a lesbian.  So that was another issue I wanted to understand.  I feel as though I'm in right standing with God, but I wanted to be sure.  Also, I'm going to have to defend my decisions when I do come out.

Regardless of what hell actually is, I think that preachers who use it as a motivational tool are misguided.  Compelling someone to make a fear-based decision to avoid hell most often creates an unauthentic decision that will later be reversed when the fear has subsided.  Besides, the old-fashioned hellfire and brimstone sermons are largely a thing of the past.

Hell is real, Its not a tool and no preachers are not misguided. Come on know if you believe heaven is real then why can't hell be? I have a problem with that

Quote from: Anatta on January 19, 2014, 08:48:53 PM

Is the fear of going to hell still a concern for some of you ?

Or do you simply see this as just a tool still used by some preachers to keep people in check-but has no real weight to it ?

For me, following the teachings of Christ means that if I truly repent for the sins I have committed, then I will be forgiven all of them because of the sacrifice Christ made for me.

Quote from: Anatta on January 19, 2014, 08:48:53 PM

Is the fear of going to hell still a concern for some of you ?

Or do you simply see this as just a tool still used by some preachers to keep people in check-but has no real weight to it ?

In the context of my gender identity, I do not fear going to hell.  In other words, I do not believe that being transgender/transitioning will send me to hell and according to the scriptures, if I even think I need to repent of being transgender or not transition to be saved, then I'm not saved myself.  I believe in eternal security of the believer: once a person is saved, there is nothing they can do to lose their salvation (aka Once Saved Always Saved or "OSAS")

Don't get me wrong, however. I do believe that there is a literal, fiery, burning hell that is eternal, and that and hellfire sermons are something that is missing from a lot of preaching today sadly and I wish it was preached on more.  I'm all for preaching about hell and even people getting saved because of the fear of hell because that's biblical.  I just don't like it when false doctrines around hell and salvation are preached.

I was a Christian years before my parents were; they were both atheists. They both became Christians when I was close to being a teenager. Since then, I've been to many churches (most of them conservative) and been around many Christians. I have never in my life heard anyone say that being transgender, or even transitioning, is a sin, let alone going to hell. I live in New England, so my environment may be part of that (the Christians here are usually conservative, but very rarely "extreme"). I don't know. I've read the entire Bible cover to cover a few times and have never found anything in it that came close to suggesting transitioning is sinful. I searched for the verses people use to argue that it's a sin and couldn't find anything at all.

I guess the verses about women wearing men's clothing and men wearing women's clothing could apply, but using that verse to attack trans* people would be using it out of context. There's nothing in the Bible about changing your body, either; if transitioning is a sin because "God doesn't make mistakes," getting surgery to correct a fatal defect, a cleft palate, or some other issue would be just as sinful. So would dyeing your hair or wearing make-up. I know there are people who DO think all of that is sinful, but they're an extreme minority and it's not a mainstream Christian teaching.

The Bible doesn't really say anything about trans* at all, and (speaking as a Catholic) neither does my Church's doctrine. The majority of people (including the hierarchy) may of course believe Scripture and doctrine condemn transition, but that's simply not true. Actually, transition is explicitly permitted by a temporary (and "secret" - I think Rome is waiting for science before making a final call, to avoid making a decision now which will look stupid later) Church policy when therapeutically necessary. So I don't have to find a middle way; there is none.

That said, I won't be allowed to marry, and when I've had my SRS, the baptismal record won't be changed. I'll be seen as a castrated male in a canon law perspective. That may change in the future when science is more definitive, but right now, it is like it is. Which is no big deal for me personally, so I won't make a fight out of it. There are many reasons why people aren't allowed a Catholic wedding, so it's not like I'm the only one. If I end up with a partner, I'll just have to accept that I can't have everything I want. It could also be that I find I'm happy to be single; it's just impossible to know. Either way, Catholicism is about striving for perfection (something I won't even attempt to define; even within the confines of Catholic doctrine, there are more answers than individuals...), not being perfect. Those are very different things. Which is why most priests I know are also very accepting, and hesitant to condemn. This is something I wish people "on the outside" and media knew.

TL;DR: Being trans is not something I even have to reconcile with my faith, since it's not against it. The same goes for transition. Having a partner (of either gender) is more difficult, but I'll worry about that if it happens.

Quote from: Brandon on January 19, 2014, 09:38:38 PM
Hell is real, Its not a tool and no preachers are not misguided. Come on know if you believe heaven is real then why can't hell be? I have a problem with that

That's not what I said.  Hell is real, although what the Bible says about it is unclear.  I actually have studied it in depth.  There are 4 mainstream doctrines -- literal, metaphorical, conditional, and purgatorial -- that are all defensible using scripture.  The fact is that none of us knows what hell is.  But I know I want no part of it.  If you're interested in reading more, I recommend the book "Four Views on Hell."

What I have a problem with is preachers who try to scare people into accepting Christ.  Fear is a good motivator, but its effect is usually temporary.  And let's not forget 2 Timothy 1, "God has not given us a spirit of fear..."

Romans 2 says that His kindness leads to repentance.   My experience is that when someone gets a revelation of the goodness and kindness of God, then no fear-based message is necessary.  Yes, judgment is real...and there are consequences for our decisions.  "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:4-7)

Quote from: katiej on January 21, 2014, 11:22:41 PMWhat I have a problem with is preachers who try to scare people into accepting Christ.  Fear is a good motivator, but its effect is usually temporary.  And let's not forget 2 Timothy 1, "God has not given us a spirit of fear..."

Indeed. Most people who grow up being scared of hell lose their faith sooner or later. Which I can understand - the heaven of the "hell preachers" is so scarcely populated, and its population seems to be made up of rather unagreeable individuals, so I'm not sure I'd want to be there if they were right :)

And while hell most certainly is a part of Christian doctrine, I don't think any of the churches has a dogma regarding the size of it. While Origen, who taught that every soul would be restored at the end of time (very simplified), was condemned a heretic, it is still permissible to hope that he was right. His error was not in hoping it may happen, but teaching that it will happen. Which is a dangerous teaching if it isn't true.

So I choose to believe that hell certainly does exist, while hoping it will be empty or emptied at the end of time. In either case, "scaring people into heaven" never really worked.

I don't believe in hell at all personally; Judaism leaves no room for it whatsoever, and Christianity wouldn't exist without Judaism. If God really sends people to be tortured for eternity just because they don't believe in Him, I would want to go to hell too so I don't have to spend eternity with someone like that. If God didn't want me to believe that's wrong, He shouldn't have given me a conscience. Just my two cents.

Quote from: DCQ on January 22, 2014, 01:22:09 PM
I don't believe in hell at all personally; Judaism leaves no room for it whatsoever

Not entirely true. While they don't believe in hell the same way Christianity does, they do believe in gehinnom (in the NT sometimes wrongly translated to "hell"), which is described as a temporal punishment prior to taking part in the world to come, similar to the Catholic belief in purgatory.

But I've read from several Jewish sources that Judaism leaves room for gehinnom to be permanent in very rare cases. So while Judaism doesn't leave much room for eternal punishment, there definitely is room. It's just very small and tiny.

Quoteand Christianity wouldn't exist without Judaism. If God really sends people to be tortured for eternity just because they don't believe in Him, I would want to go to hell too so I don't have to spend eternity with someone like that. If God didn't want me to believe that's wrong, He shouldn't have given me a conscience. Just my two cents.

I agree regarding Judaism and Christianity; I think some Christian teachings are sometimes misunderstood by Christians (if that makes sense), since they often forget the Jewish meaning of the same concepts etc. That said, many Christian concepts are new, and if all of them were to be written off because they don't exist in Judaism, it would no longer be Christianity.

I also agree that if God sends people to eternal punishment simply for not (consciously) believing in Him, He's not a nice guy. But then that's never really been Christian doctrine either - there's a vast array of different opinions on that, most of which are acceptable within Catholic/Orthodox doctrine. The Protestant, "faith only" variety is less flexible, which is also one of the reasons I left Protestantism. People have to do something worse than not being able to believe to deserve hell. Often, lack of faith is not even their own fault. So we're very much on the same page here. Yet I don't think hell can be written off entirely; I just think its population is very small.

I come from an evangelical background, where the majority hold to  belief about hell that is mostly made up IMHO.  They talk about the "lake of fire," not realizing that those scriptures are almost always talking about the eternal place for the devil and his fallen angels.  The torment is for them...not necessarily for people. 

The Bible more often talks about destruction for wicked people.  So although I remain unsure of what I believe, I lean towards an annihilation view.  A big part of it is because of what it says in Ephesians 2... we were dead before faith in Christ made us alive.  My body was alive, and my soul (consciousness or mind) was alive, so it must mean that my spirit was dead before salvation.  And so if someone who does not experience that second birth that Jesus told Nicodemus about in John 3, how can they experience a place of spiritual torment such as the "lake of fire."  The answer is likely that they can't.

Love your neighbor.  Don't pass judgement.  Believe He died and came back for you.

I think that's it. 

I really don't remember anything about Him telling anyone to closely scrutinize and pass judgement on other people.  Anywhere.

That's the perversion that humans put on the message.  The twisting of words to justify hate.
I feel sorry for those who live in fear of fire and brimstone, I fear for those who preach the gospel of hate. 

Quote from: Rina on January 22, 2014, 02:19:32 PM
Not entirely true. While they don't believe in hell the same way Christianity does, they do believe in gehinnom (in the NT sometimes wrongly translated to "hell"), which is described as a temporal punishment prior to taking part in the world to come, similar to the Catholic belief in purgatory.

But I've read from several Jewish sources that Judaism leaves room for gehinnom to be permanent in very rare cases. So while Judaism doesn't leave much room for eternal punishment, there definitely is room. It's just very small and tiny.

I agree regarding Judaism and Christianity; I think some Christian teachings are sometimes misunderstood by Christians (if that makes sense), since they often forget the Jewish meaning of the same concepts etc. That said, many Christian concepts are new, and if all of them were to be written off because they don't exist in Judaism, it would no longer be Christianity.

I also agree that if God sends people to eternal punishment simply for not (consciously) believing in Him, He's not a nice guy. But then that's never really been Christian doctrine either - there's a vast array of different opinions on that, most of which are acceptable within Catholic/Orthodox doctrine. The Protestant, "faith only" variety is less flexible, which is also one of the reasons I left Protestantism. People have to do something worse than not being able to believe to deserve hell. Often, lack of faith is not even their own fault. So we're very much on the same page here. Yet I don't think hell can be written off entirely; I just think its population is very small.

It's still not a lake of fire and brimstone where you get stabbed with pitchforks day and night, but you're right. The idea also bothers me because, as you said, some people are really not able to believe, even if they might want to. I'm very, very Christian, but my partner is Pagan, and that's OK. He was raised Christian and was for most of his life, but he was so severely spiritually abused that he can't possibly have a relationship with God based on Christianity. When he was a Christian, he had a very twisted, messed-up perspective on God that was not healthy at all. His religion is a very healthy one, even though it's different from mine. :)

I've never studied Catholicism, so it's interesting to know it's different from the traditional Protestant view of "whoops, Grandma died before she could be a Christian, looks like it's lava pits for her!" I've been drawn to Catholicism multiple times, but every time I research their views on trans* and gay people, it seems really harsh, and the concept of "going to hell if you die in sin" is a little off-putting to me. Is that just a misconception? Even the Catholic resources I've found all say that.  :-\

Quote from: JustEmily on January 22, 2014, 11:16:54 PM
Love your neighbor.  Don't pass judgement.  Believe He died and came back for you.

I think that's it. 

I really don't remember anything about Him telling anyone to closely scrutinize and pass judgement on other people.  Anywhere.

That's the perversion that humans put on the message.  The twisting of words to justify hate.
I feel sorry for those who live in fear of fire and brimstone, I fear for those who preach the gospel of hate.

Very well said, Emily.  And you're right that Jesus was not judgmental.  He even went as far as to tell people He wasn't here to judge them.  However, His message was to repent from sin and turn to God.  He called people to a higher standard rather than condemning them.

The problem is that Christians are often well-intentioned, but they go about things the wrong way.  They think they're "speaking the truth in love."  And I've often heard people say they "care too much about someone to leave them in their sin."  They're so focused on helping people avoid sin, that they forget the love part.

Quote from: DCQ on January 22, 2014, 11:44:46 PM
I've never studied Catholicism, so it's interesting to know it's different from the traditional Protestant view of "whoops, Grandma died before she could be a Christian, looks like it's lava pits for her!" I've been drawn to Catholicism multiple times, but every time I research their views on trans* and gay people, it seems really harsh, and the concept of "going to hell if you die in sin" is a little off-putting to me. Is that just a misconception? Even the Catholic resources I've found all say that.  :-\

Catholicism teaches a purgatorial view of hell.  Dante's Inferno is a great example.  They would say that most people don't go directly to Heaven, they make a stop in purgatory for a period of time until they have atoned (been punished long enough) for their sins.  As I understand it, lighting candles in mass and praying for the saints to intervene on their behalf are ways for people to advance toward heaven more quickly.

IMO that view isn't really supported by scripture, so much as tradition and other Catholic writings.  The protestant view is that Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, and salvation is given freely...not earned in purgatory.

And I agree with you about the "lava pits" belief that most Christians have.  I don't think that's Biblical either.

Quote from: DCQ on January 22, 2014, 11:44:46 PM
It's still not a lake of fire and brimstone where you get stabbed with pitchforks day and night, but you're right.

That lake thing isn't really the Christian idea either, but popular ideas caused by misinterpretation of Scripture.

The Catholic idea of hell (permanent separation from God), is kind of the complete "un-being" of a person. Not in an annihilative sense, though; explaining this without writing a long essay is difficult, but in short, imagine God being the source of our nature, with "nature" understood in the Aristotelian sense; our nature is what we are meant for, what we should be, what we're oriented against. Our shortcomings and wrongdoings are not part of our nature; when we lie, hurt and use people, we become less human. Salvation is becoming complete, to become what God intended us to be.

Hell is then not only the complete separation from God, but the complete undoing of our nature; we no longer have a hope of fulfilling that purpose we were created for. The people who suffer that fate chose it for themselves, by running away from that source of our being and nature. So the separation is not a punishment, but a choice made permanent. I believe few people make that choice, however.

QuoteThe idea also bothers me because, as you said, some people are really not able to believe, even if they might want to. I'm very, very Christian, but my partner is Pagan, and that's OK. He was raised Christian and was for most of his life, but he was so severely spiritually abused that he can't possibly have a relationship with God based on Christianity. When he was a Christian, he had a very twisted, messed-up perspective on God that was not healthy at all. His religion is a very healthy one, even though it's different from mine. :)

I've never studied Catholicism, so it's interesting to know it's different from the traditional Protestant view of "whoops, Grandma died before she could be a Christian, looks like it's lava pits for her!" I've been drawn to Catholicism multiple times, but every time I research their views on trans* and gay people, it seems really harsh, and the concept of "going to hell if you die in sin" is a little off-putting to me. Is that just a misconception? Even the Catholic resources I've found all say that.  :-\

I'd say it is a misconception (sadly shared by many Catholics), but with a trace of truth. Catholicism does believe that confession of sin is necessary for salvation, but if that confession is hindered by unavailability, accidents or, even more importantly, ignorance, it does not mean that person loses his or her salvation. Basically, if you don't know, or don't understand, that something is a sin, you're not guilty of that sin. In addition, a serious sin has to be willed; if your free will is impaired (e.g. through addiction, stress, being forced to do something etc.), there is no sin.

The view on gay people is indeed not something LGB activists will ever accept, but it's more sympathetic than what you'd think from the media. I can't even count the amount of times media reports that the Pope said something, while it turns out what they quoted was taken completely out of context. My experience is that priests are very understanding toward gays, and while they can't accept gay marriage, for example, they're often far more understanding toward gay couples than toward heterosexuals who cohabitate. As a priest told me once, "heterosexual couples have a choice, gays don't".

The issue I have with the Church on homosexuality is more the fact that not all Catholics are like those priests I know, and the fact that I think the focus is wrong. The reason gay sex (not the orientation - people can't choose their attractions!) is seen as immoral, isn't the sex as such, but the fact that heterosexual marriage is seen as sacred. That sacramental marriage is between man and woman is dogma, and neither can nor will change. However, the conclusion drawn from that, namely that all sex outside marriage is wrong, and that no other kind union between people can exist, is not necessarily dogma. I think the current non-dogmatic teaching might change sometime, but not this decade. Probably not this century. If I ever end up in a relationship that is not approved by the Church, however, I will still be welcomed - I know about gay couples who are active in the Church, they just have to refrain from the Sacraments. But they're in no way excluded from the community.

Regarding trans* issues, there is no Catholic teaching. There's only a temporary policy, which actually permits transition when therapeutically needed. There are restrictions on marriage, because SRS includes castration, which would also bar a cis person from Catholic marriage. However, many "conservative" (as in, afraid of everything that's not "normal") Catholics don't know this, which means it's definitely not a dance on roses. I have met a lot of misconceptions about this. But then again, the only Catholics of that type I've encountered so far are online. I'm sure some of my acquaintances will turn out to be of that kind when I come out "publicly", but my close friends accept me for what I am. And in a parish around an hour from here, there's a trans woman who is fully accepted, and everyone knows her history. So there are nuances here not easily seen from the outside.

Huh, thanks for the explanation. So what you're saying is that the "dying in sin" thing is only if you're willfully and deliberately in a sinful state, correct? So if you're doing something that you don't believe is sinful - such as being in a gay relationship; there are a lot of Christians who don't believe that's sinful at all and have a good argument for why it's not - you're not doomed? Just making sure I understood you, because that was the major issue I had with Catholicism. "Falling away," merely not believing, and deliberately rebelling because you want to hurt God are different to me...

Interesting to know transition is permitted when therapeutically needed. Are we forbidden to participate in the Sacraments (confirmation, etc.) even if it's deemed "therapeutically necessary," though? Is it because they think something is wrong with us that needs to be changed, or is it something else?

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this, and I apologize for having so many questions. I've been interested in Catholicism for a long time, but never really knew how to find answers to my questions.

Quote from: katiej on January 23, 2014, 12:22:46 AM
Very well said, Emily.  And you're right that Jesus was not judgmental.  He even went as far as to tell people He wasn't here to judge them.  However, His message was to repent from sin and turn to God.  He called people to a higher standard rather than condemning them.

Indeed. Having high moral standards is a good thing, and is sadly often condemned by the more liberal parts of society. But people should hold themselves to those standards, and not condemn everyone else.

QuoteThe problem is that Christians are often well-intentioned, but they go about things the wrong way.  They think they're "speaking the truth in love."  And I've often heard people say they "care too much about someone to leave them in their sin."  They're so focused on helping people avoid sin, that they forget the love part.

I agree. They are well intentioned, but sadly, their approach makes more harm than good. They also don't always have the most... well-educated understanding of moral theology.

QuoteCatholicism teaches a purgatorial view of hell.  Dante's Inferno is a great example.  They would say that most people don't go directly to Heaven, they make a stop in purgatory for a period of time until they have atoned (been punished long enough) for their sins.  As I understand it, lighting candles in mass and praying for the saints to intervene on their behalf are ways for people to advance toward heaven more quickly.

Partly correct, but purgatory and hell are two different fates in Catholicism. Hell is always permanent, and reserved for those who reject God. I described that teaching in the post above. I believe few people suffer that fate, since few people really reject God. They reject false notions of God, which is something different.

While hell is the eternal punishment for sin (understood as rejecting God), Purgatory is the temporal punishment for the effects of sin. A good metaphor would be that someone chopped of their arm, which caused arterial bleeding. A doctor stepped in and stopped the bleeding, so the person didn't die. That's comparable to the forgiveness of sin. In baptism and confession, the arterial bleed is stopped.

However, in this particular case, the nerve endings were too damaged to reattach the arm. So the person lacks something, isn't complete. That is the temporal effect of sin; they make us unfulfilled as persons. Purgatory can be likened to growing the arm back out again. It is a cleansing, making the person complete. In some ways, it can be likened to the Buddhist teaching about Karma - our actions have consequences. Purgatory is such a consequence.

Prayers for the dead (which is really what the candles, Requiem Mass etc are about) is more difficult to understand in our individualistic age, but it stems from the belief that we can help each other grow in holiness as a community. So when we pray for the souls in purgatory, we join our penance to theirs. It's a bit like helping your friend paint a wall he or she was caught tagging.

QuoteIMO that view isn't really supported by scripture, so much as tradition and other Catholic writings.  The protestant view is that Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, and salvation is given freely...not earned in purgatory.

There is support in Scripture, but it is indeed scarce. One example is 1 Cor 3:15: "If any man' s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

Another example is 2 Macc 12:43: "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection"

The books of Macchabees is not part of the Protestant Canon, though, but then again that touches upon the main point; sources of theology. Catholicism believes the Apostolic Tradition to be authoritative along with the Bible, so while the ideal is to be able to base something on both Scripture and Tradition, it is not strictly necessary. So while Purgatory (which really just is an explanation of why we pray for the dead; the Orthodox share the practice, but haven't bothered trying to explain it the way we do in the West) is very well founded within the Catholic framework, it obviously isn't within a Sola Scriptura perspective. Which again is something I could discuss, but then I'd sidetrack the whole thread :)

Lastly, salvation (if by that you mean forgiveness of sins) is by no means earned in purgatory. It is always given freely to repenting sinners. Purgatory is about being made holy. It is a necessary stop on the way to heaven, but never permanent. Once in purgatory, one's fate is clear. In a Protestant sense of the word, I guess you could someone is "saved" when in purgatory - there's nowhere else to go than heaven from that point. But Catholics use the word a bit differently, in the sense that salvation entails being made holy, in addition to forgiveness of sins.

Quote
And I agree with you about the "lava pits" belief that most Christians have.  I don't think that's Biblical either.

Indeed. I think it borders on blasphemy. God is not a vindictive judge wanting to use people as fuel. I actually have a weakness for Eastern Orthodoxy when it comes to soteriology (salvation and perishment and stuff), but Catholicism is pretty similar - we just have different language and focus due to different cultures.

QuotePartly correct, but purgatory and hell are two different fates in Catholicism. Hell is always permanent, and reserved for those who reject God. I described that teaching in the post above. I believe few people suffer that fate, since few people really reject God. They reject false notions of God, which is something different.

If an atheist "rejects God" as in, can't find "enough evidence" that He exists, is he doomed to hell according to Catholicism?

If someone is Christian but loses their faith because they don't believe that's the right path for them, yet continues worshiping God through another religion (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.), is he doomed to hell according to Catholicsm?

If someone is Christian but turns their back on God and pursues their own interests, is he doomed to hell according to Catholicism?

If someone murders hundreds of people and is killed in a police shootout, is he doomed to hell according to Catholicism?

Just wondering about those specific scenarios so I can get a better understanding of your beliefs. :)

Quote from: DCQ on January 23, 2014, 10:41:15 AM
Huh, thanks for the explanation. So what you're saying is that the "dying in sin" thing is only if you're willfully and deliberately in a sinful state, correct? So if you're doing something that you don't believe is sinful - such as being in a gay relationship; there are a lot of Christians who don't believe that's sinful at all and have a good argument for why it's not - you're not doomed? Just making sure I understood you, because that was the major issue I had with Catholicism. "Falling away," merely not believing, and deliberately rebelling because you want to hurt God are different to me...

There is a distinction between culpable and inculpable ignorance - wanting not to know on purpose would of course be a rejection. Some Catholics would accuse gay couples of being in that state. I don't think that's right, and the majority of Catholics I know don't, either. I have yet to meet a gay person who is not sincere about their moral views. Generally, I think people follow their conscience, and do their best to act morally. In addition, there's the free will part - I don't think many gays have a choice. Just as most straight people aren't able to stay celibate, either.

That said, I'm hesitant to say anything definitive. I don't know how God will judge anyone. We'll know in the end. The important thing for me is to be as tolerant and as accepting as I can be, while still not denying the fact that sin exists, and that we should try to live moral lives. But I have no business telling others what they should do - I try to live according to the moral teaching of the Church to the best of my ability, but that's my choice. And with emphasis on "best of my ability" - Catholicism is not about achieving perfection, but about striving for it.

QuoteInteresting to know transition is permitted when therapeutically needed. Are we forbidden to participate in the Sacraments (confirmation, etc.) even if it's deemed "therapeutically necessary," though? Is it because they think something is wrong with us that needs to be changed, or is it something else?

Transition is not a problem with regards to the Sacraments, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Since the Church (hesitantly, to be fair) acknowledges it as a morally licit medical treatment in "rare cases" (which means those cases where it is a last resort, which is pretty much all cases, which again are rare cases, since transsexualism is rare... sometimes Churchspeak can be a bit cryptic), there is no sin involved, and hence no reason to abstain from the Sacraments.

However, since the Church won't allow me to marry anyone if I transition, due to impotence, I would be told not to receive the Sacraments if I entered a civil union or decided to move in with a partner. That would be the same as remarried couples, cohabitating couples, etc, and not because I'm transsexual as such.

I think this will change when/if it becomes possible to grow new internal organs from stem cells, though. If a person can reproduce, he or she can also marry. I think that would also prompt the Church to change the gender marker in the baptism registries; that was actually done in the beginning, but then Rome decided SRS was not enough to recognize a physical sex change, and stopped the practice. From the document in question, though, it seems to me this is simply because of the limitations of HRT and SRS, not because of a moral issue.

QuoteThanks for taking the time to explain all this, and I apologize for having so many questions. I've been interested in Catholicism for a long time, but never really knew how to find answers to my questions.

No problem! Catholicism is complex (often annoyingly, but at the same time entertainingly, so), and there are so many sources of variable reliability and official status etc. It's often difficult to decide which source to believe in. Some of the things in this thread are not clearly defined by the Church, though (surprisingly few things are, actually), so there will almost certainly be other Catholics who strongly disagree with me. But at least my views are fairly mainstream; I don't fit well in neither the liberal nor the conservative camp, but then few Catholics really do.

Quote from: DCQ on January 23, 2014, 11:25:06 AM
If an atheist "rejects God" as in, can't find "enough evidence" that He exists, is he doomed to hell according to Catholicism?

Not by necessity. What that atheist usually does, is really to reject idolatry/a false conception of God, which is a good thing. I think very few people would reject the true God - and the people who do, probably aren't even atheists. While seeking God is necessary for salvation, I think many atheists seek God without knowing so themselves, through pursuit of good, beauty and so on.

Quote from: DCQ on January 23, 2014, 11:25:06 AMIf someone is Christian but loses their faith because they don't believe that's the right path for them, yet continues worshiping God through another religion (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.), is he doomed to hell according to Catholicsm?

That would depend on whether they ever believed in Christianity for real, and whether they understood it for real. If they did, and yet decided to reject it, they would perish.

But then again, who would? When people genuinely seek God, I think they're on the right path. That said, I would of course tell them I believe Catholicism is the way to Christ and hence to the Father, but if they don't share my belief, for a sincere reason, I have no business telling them they'll go to hell.

Quote from: DCQ on January 23, 2014, 11:25:06 AMIf someone is Christian but turns their back on God and pursues their own interests, is he doomed to hell according to Catholicism?

That depends on whether the person actually does that :) And to what extent, with what consequences, etc. We're all egoists to some extent, and I'm unable to give a good answer as to when egoism becomes a complete rejection of God.

Quote from: DCQ on January 23, 2014, 11:25:06 AMIf someone murders hundreds of people and is killed in a police shootout, is he doomed to hell according to Catholicism?

If they died unrepentantly and were mentally stable (as in responsible for their actions), yes. But that is impossible for us to know; the person could have repented in those last few seconds before death. We never know what state people died in.

Some Orthodox also teach that there might be a possibility of repentance after death. But that's not mainstream Catholic theology, so while I like the idea, I'm hesitant to accept it.

Quote from: DCQ on January 23, 2014, 11:25:06 AMJust wondering about those specific scenarios so I can get a better understanding of your beliefs. :)

No problem :) To sum it up, Catholicism canonizes saints, but never says a specific person was damned (except Judas). There could always be some variable we simply don't know about.

Thanks for that; very interesting. :)

Quote from: katiej on January 22, 2014, 09:42:55 PM
I come from an evangelical background, where the majority hold to  belief about hell that is mostly made up IMHO.  They talk about the "lake of fire," not realizing that those scriptures are almost always talking about the eternal place for the devil and his fallen angels.  The torment is for them...not necessarily for people. 

The Bible more often talks about destruction for wicked people.  So although I remain unsure of what I believe, I lean towards an annihilation view.  A big part of it is because of what it says in Ephesians 2... we were dead before faith in Christ made us alive.  My body was alive, and my soul (consciousness or mind) was alive, so it must mean that my spirit was dead before salvation.  And so if someone who does not experience that second birth that Jesus told Nicodemus about in John 3, how can they experience a place of spiritual torment such as the "lake of fire."  The answer is likely that they can't.

Actually the tourment is for the people to.

Quote from: Brandon on January 24, 2014, 08:24:42 PM

Actually the tourment is for the people to.

You state it like it's a fact, but that's just your personal belief.

Kia Ora,

So far so good, it's been very educational thank you...and no doubt some struggling anonymous lurkers are broadening their understanding too (hopefully in a more beneficial way) from the different well thought out comments/opinions in this discussion/debate...

However just out of interest, if the different sects of Christians (& believers of different god-based faiths) all believe that their version of "what heaven and hell is and is not, and who will end up there" differs...it would seem that each cancels each others' versions of heaven out and they will all end up in each others hells...(one must bear in mind good & bad are relative terms-with for the most part no fixed positions)

So wouldn't it be best for the different religions not to speculate on what heaven or hell is and who is eligible for an entry permit... and just agree that there are such places but the criteria for entry is 'unknown'...That way there would be some form of consensus amongst the difference god-based religions for which heaven & hell are part of the package deal so to speak...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: DCQ on January 25, 2014, 02:34:49 AM
You state it like it's a fact, but that's just your personal belief.

It's fact read Mathew in one of the scriptures it says there will be a Weeping a Moaning and a Nashing of teeth..... read Rrevelations to.....

Quote from: Brandon on January 25, 2014, 07:02:13 PM
It's fact read Mathew in one of the scriptures it says there will be a Weeping a Moaning and a Nashing of teeth..... read Rrevelations to.....

I've read the Bible from the first to last page several times. I can assure you, it's your personal interpretation, not a black-and-white fact.

QuoteHowever just out of interest, if the different sects of Christians (& believers of different god-based faiths) all believe that their version of "what heaven and hell is and is not, and who will end up there" differs...it would seem that each cancels each others' versions of heaven out and they will all end up in each others hells...(one must bear in mind good & bad are relative terms-with for the most part no fixed positions)

I don't believe in hell at all (at least not the traditional view of it) but I don't think that really matters. One person could be right while everyone else is wrong. Who knows?

Quote from: DCQ on January 25, 2014, 07:06:44 PM
I've read the Bible from the first to last page several times. I can assure you, it's your personal interpretation, not a black-and-white fact.

I don't believe in hell at all (at least not the traditional view of it) but I don't think that really matters. One person could be right while everyone else is wrong. Who knows?

Well it's my belief, Like I say I don't see how one can believe in good but not evil. These things do exist, Know I will not force my beliefs down anyones throat. But the one thing I will say is wheather you believe in God or not you have to answer to him. He said every knee shall bow and every tounge shall confess

Quote from: Brandon on January 25, 2014, 07:11:03 PM

Well it's my belief, Like I say I don't see how one can believe in good but not evil. These things do exist, Know I will not force my beliefs down anyones throat. But the one thing I will say is wheather you believe in God or not you have to answer to him. He said every knee shall bow and every tounge shall confess

It's fine for you to believe that, but presenting your personal beliefs as fact isn't cool. Of course you think your beliefs are the truth; otherwise, they wouldn't be your beliefs. ;)

Quote from: DCQ on January 25, 2014, 07:15:41 PM
It's fine for you to believe that, but presenting your personal beliefs as fact isn't cool. Of course you think your beliefs are the truth; otherwise, they wouldn't be your beliefs. ;)

I'm not going to argue with you. It's a fact though theres plenty of proof but I'm gonna be the bigger man and just say believe what you want that's fine, But when you say my bliefs are fake or arn't facts that's rude that's like telling a homosexual that homosexuality isn't real that's disrespectful

Kia Ora Brendon & DCQ,

It would seem the answer to the original title question is gradually unfolding...

However I hope that you two can "agree to disagree" by accepting that each other's 'beliefs'...are just that, personal beliefs/interpretations...

Please accept each others disagreement in good faith and move on, before any personal attacks start flying...

Metta Zenda :)

Your right that's fine with me

Quote from: Brandon on January 25, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

I'm not going to argue with you. It's a fact though theres plenty of proof but I'm gonna be the bigger man and just say believe what you want that's fine, But when you say my bliefs are fake or arn't facts that's rude that's like telling a homosexual that homosexuality isn't real that's disrespectful

Not sure why you made a comment about being the "bigger man" here - you can certainly believe whatever you want. I didn't say your beliefs are fake. I said presenting them as facts (as in, "it is fact, read the Bible") isn't cool in a discussion where people are sharing their beliefs and being respectful of differing opinions.

QuoteHowever I hope that you two can "agree to disagree" by accepting that each other's 'beliefs'...are just that, personal beliefs/interpretations...

Please accept each others disagreement in good faith and move on, before any personal attacks start flying...

Certainly. I have no problem with him having his own beliefs, and I can certainly agree to disagree. I'm frustrated by the "I'm right, you're wrong" approach to the discussion, not frustrated by the beliefs themselves. I'm a very tolerant person, even on topics that I have strong opinions on.

Kia Ora,

I would like to commend you both for not getting to the level of personal attacks and disrupting the thread... so thank you for keeping your cools...

Btw you have both shed some light on the issues faced by some trans-Christians...

Metta Zenda :)

Between Dante's The Inferno description of Hell, and C.S. Lewis', the British Christian apologist's  The Great Divorce, I see the latter as much more in keeping with my beliefs.  Dante was a literal and literary HELL for me in college 45 years ago.  The Great Divorce was a fun read during a spiritual retreat I made in my late 30's.  Lewis's view is that of his mentor the Scottish theologian George McDonald, whose principal was that hell was the absence of God's presence as chosen by those who could not in the final time tell God, "Thy will oh Lord be done."  When that could not be done by the person, God sadly declares "Man THY will be done" and mans will is Hell, not Gods will.

For me, "Thy will Oh Lord be done" has become a mantra.

Quote from: Anatta on January 25, 2014, 06:34:37 PMHowever just out of interest, if the different sects of Christians (& believers of different god-based faiths) all believe that their version of "what heaven and hell is and is not, and who will end up there" differs...it would seem that each cancels each others' versions of heaven out and they will all end up in each others hells...(one must bear in mind good & bad are relative terms-with for the most part no fixed positions)

Remember that monotheistic religions are, to various extents, mutually exclusive (as you point out), and not very interested in agreement. So while there are some shared beliefs (like in the existence of a heaven/paradise/afterlife, and usually some sort of eternal damnation), they can't all be true. I'd say the correct conclusion would be that if any of them are true, then only that version of heaven/hell can exist. But they'd all be correct that such fates indeed existed; it was simply their interpretation that was (in)correct.

But then many of those religions really go into detail, or accept variations in belief. Like I mentioned about Catholicism; the exact nature of heaven and hell isn't really dogma, there is great variation of belief as to who ends up where, what they consist of and so on. The Latin tradition tends to accept Thomas Aquinas' description of heaven as the "beatific vision", and of hell as "complete separation from God", with the added input of the earlier Eastern Fathers of hell as the complete "un-being" (in lack of a better word - if there is a terminology proper, it has slipped my mind :) ).

But even though Dante's description is simply a work of fiction and not in any way mainstream theology, no one would be considered a heretic to believe in it literally. There are Catholics who believe that people who don't formally belong the the Catholic Church go to hell for that reason alone - while the mainstream Church views that belief as unreasonable and perhaps even laughable, they're not considered heretics. And there are people who believe that anyone who does his best to strive for good is saved because that person in reality seeks God and hence also receives his grace (I am very sympathetic to this belief), which is also not viewed as heresy. Most people are somewhere in between.

The two "fringes" that are seen as heresy within Catholicism are Pelagianism, which states that salvation can be earned through good works alone (as in no faith or grace, not even subconscious searching for God), and Protestantism, which states that salvation is earned through faith alone, with good works not being part of the equation at all. The first is seen as heretic because it excludes God's mercy, the second simply because it's unreasonable; it excludes the God-given ability we're given to choose between good or evil.

But everything in between is pretty much viewed as acceptable. The Catholic "catchline" is "Grace alone", which means that salvation is always attained through God's grace; faith and good works alike are ultimately products of divine grace. That view allows for a huge variation in personal belief.

QuoteSo wouldn't it be best for the different religions not to speculate on what heaven or hell is and who is eligible for an entry permit... and just agree that there are such places but the criteria for entry is 'unknown'... That way there would be some form of consensus amongst the difference god-based religions for which heaven & hell are part of the package deal so to speak...

I agree to some extent, but at the same time, remember that some of these religions view the rest as false, and hence aren't interested in any agreement. Those are generally also the ones with most clearly defined and rigorous beliefs about who ends up where.

Others again have a "degree of truth" view of other religions - again, since my background is Catholic and that simply is the religion I know the best, we see other belief systems as containing various amounts of divine revelation, which means they're not devoid of truth, but yet, we wouldn't compromise our own teaching to find an agreement. But we definitely can learn from them. That includes Eastern religions, by the way - I often find many elements of Buddhism to be inspiring for my Catholic faith.

But I digress. In some way we already do what you say - we don't know who are saved and not. While we believe the ordinary means are through Christ and the Church, we also acknowledge that God could have extraordinary means to salvation. God is not fully revealed to us, and it would be foolish to claim that He can't do anything we don't know about. Which is why we canonize saints, but don't declare anyone damned, even though we warn about the possibility of hell. In some periods of history, this has perhaps been done with too much zeal (also remember the legitimate variation of personal belief), but there has never been "official theology" regarding the exact criteria.

Yet, I don't think we can expect everyone to pick up that belief. There will always be groups with very detailed and unison beliefs, and I can understand them to some extent. It provides a sort of safety which can be comforting to those who "subscribe".

(Note: To be fair, I also observe this variation is belief within plenty of other monotheist religions - Islam seems to have numerous interpretations, Protestantism of course is split into more than 30,000 denominations with differing beliefs (though many of them of course agree on heaven and hell and differ on other matters), and so on. But there's generally less variation within specific denominations, from my impression.)

Quote from: Rina on January 26, 2014, 04:21:42 AM
Remember that monotheistic religions are, to various extents, mutually exclusive (as you point out), and not very interested in agreement. So while there are some shared beliefs (like in the existence of a heaven/paradise/afterlife, and usually some sort of eternal damnation), they can't all be true. I'd say the correct conclusion would be that if any of them are true, then only that version of heaven/hell can exist. But they'd all be correct that such fates indeed existed; it was simply their interpretation that was (in)correct.

But then many of those religions really go into detail, or accept variations in belief. Like I mentioned about Catholicism; the exact nature of heaven and hell isn't really dogma, there is great variation of belief as to who ends up where, what they consist of and so on. The Latin tradition tends to accept Thomas Aquinas' description of heaven as the "beatific vision", and of hell as "complete separation from God", with the added input of the earlier Eastern Fathers of hell as the complete "un-being" (in lack of a better word - if there is a terminology proper, it has slipped my mind :) ).

But even though Dante's description is simply a work of fiction and not in any way mainstream theology, no one would be considered a heretic to believe in it literally. There are Catholics who believe that people who don't formally belong the the Catholic Church go to hell for that reason alone - while the mainstream Church views that belief as unreasonable and perhaps even laughable, they're not considered heretics. And there are people who believe that anyone who does his best to strive for good is saved because that person in reality seeks God and hence also receives his grace (I am very sympathetic to this belief), which is also not viewed as heresy. Most people are somewhere in between.

The two "fringes" that are seen as heresy within Catholicism are Pelagianism, which states that salvation can be earned through good works alone (as in no faith or grace, not even subconscious searching for God), and Protestantism, which states that salvation is earned through faith alone, with good works not being part of the equation at all. The first is seen as heretic because it excludes God's mercy, the second simply because it's unreasonable; it excludes the God-given ability we're given to choose between good or evil.

But everything in between is pretty much viewed as acceptable. The Catholic "catchline" is "Grace alone", which means that salvation is always attained through God's grace; faith and good works alike are ultimately products of divine grace. That view allows for a huge variation in personal belief.

I agree to some extent, but at the same time, remember that some of these religions view the rest as false, and hence aren't interested in any agreement. Those are generally also the ones with most clearly defined and rigorous beliefs about who ends up where.

Others again have a "degree of truth" view of other religions - again, since my background is Catholic and that simply is the religion I know the best, we see other belief systems as containing various amounts of divine revelation, which means they're not devoid of truth, but yet, we wouldn't compromise our own teaching to find an agreement. But we definitely can learn from them. That includes Eastern religions, by the way - I often find many elements of Buddhism to be inspiring for my Catholic faith.

But I digress. In some way we already do what you say - we don't know who are saved and not. While we believe the ordinary means are through Christ and the Church, we also acknowledge that God could have extraordinary means to salvation. God is not fully revealed to us, and it would be foolish to claim that He can't do anything we don't know about. Which is why we canonize saints, but don't declare anyone damned, even though we warn about the possibility of hell. In some periods of history, this has perhaps been done with too much zeal (also remember the legitimate variation of personal belief), but there has never been "official theology" regarding the exact criteria.

Yet, I don't think we can expect everyone to pick up that belief. There will always be groups with very detailed and unison beliefs, and I can understand them to some extent. It provides a sort of safety which can be comforting to those who "subscribe".

(Note: To be fair, I also observe this variation is belief within plenty of other monotheist religions - Islam seems to have numerous interpretations, Protestantism of course is split into more than 30,000 denominations with differing beliefs (though many of them of course agree on heaven and hell and differ on other matters), and so on. But there's generally less variation within specific denominations, from my impression.)

Kia Ora Rina,

A very informative response thank you...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Anatta on January 25, 2014, 06:34:37 PM
Kia Ora,

So far so good, it's been very educational thank you...and no doubt some struggling anonymous lurkers are broadening their understanding too (hopefully in a more beneficial way) from the different well thought out comments/opinions in this discussion/debate...

However just out of interest, if the different sects of Christians (& believers of different god-based faiths) all believe that their version of "what heaven and hell is and is not, and who will end up there" differs...it would seem that each cancels each others' versions of heaven out and they will all end up in each others hells...(one must bear in mind good & bad are relative terms-with for the most part no fixed positions)

So wouldn't it be best for the different religions not to speculate on what heaven or hell is and who is eligible for an entry permit... and just agree that there are such places but the criteria for entry is 'unknown'...That way there would be some form of consensus amongst the difference god-based religions for which heaven & hell are part of the package deal so to speak...

Metta Zenda :)

yeah! and we have a special one for people like you  >:-)dear...... :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: >:-)

Quote from: peky on January 26, 2014, 07:25:19 PM
yeah! and we have a special one for people like you  >:-)dear...... :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: :icon_chainsaw: >:-)

Kia Ora Peky my dear friend,

::) As the old saying goes...."It's your hell-you burn in it !"  ;) ;D (there's no point in wasting good fire wood) ;)

Metta Zenda :)

I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't quite understand how anyone can be trans and Christian? Doesn't the Bible speak against being transgender?

"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

Quote from: Mr Hockey on January 29, 2014, 09:12:17 AM
I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't quite understand how anyone can be trans and Christian? Doesn't the Bible speak against being transgender?

"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

Is that about trans people? Perhaps it is about pretending to be who you are not. Either to enter the temple or to shirk work. Either way, christians don't live under the law but under grace. If we followed the old testament, no modern person would be christian as they don't follow most of the laws in Leviticus. It is either all truth or all a lie. You can't pick and choose.

Jesus said there are only 2 commandments, to love your neighbor as yourself; and to love god above all else.The old testament is there for us to learn from as is Revelation, not to rule over us.

Quote from: Mr Hockey on January 29, 2014, 09:12:17 AM
I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't quite understand how anyone can be trans and Christian? Doesn't the Bible speak against being transgender?

"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

Not the same thing. I'm not a woman, and a MTF person is not a man. If you took that verse and applied it to transgender people, then people who have intersex conditions and don't really identify with either gender would have to go around with no clothes on at all.

That said, this verse is misused all the time. This verse is not as simple as "men shouldn't wear dresses and women shouldn't wear pants." This verse uses the term "geber" in its original language, which directly translates to "warrior man" or "valiant man," so a more accurate translation would be "a woman shall not appear to be a male warrior." This part is more than likely referring to the women who would abandon their "duties" to fight in battle alongside men, wearing their garments and masquerading as males. There's really no other way to interpret it, IMO. That would probably mean that the rest of the verse is about men choosing to adopt the responsibilities of their wives while their wives go to battle in place of their husbands.

Quote from: LordKAT on January 29, 2014, 09:22:56 AM
Is that about trans people? Perhaps it is about pretending to be who you are not. Either to enter the temple or to shirk work. Either way, christians don't live under the law but under grace. If we followed the old testament, no modern person would be christian as they don't follow most of the laws in Leviticus. It is either all truth or all a lie. You can't pick and choose.

Jesus said there are only 2 commandments, to love your neighbor as yourself; and to love god above all else.The old testament is there for us to learn from as is Revelation, not to rule over us.

That's the verse I always see anti-LGBT people use when speaking against trans people. They say it is a sin to change your gender, that God made you how he wanted and it's an abomination to want to change that.

Quote from: DCQ on January 29, 2014, 09:25:54 AM
Not the same thing. I'm not a woman, and a MTF person is not a man. If you took that verse and applied it to transgender people, then people who have intersex conditions and don't really identify with either gender would have to go around with no clothes on at all.

That said, this verse is misused all the time. This verse is not as simple as "men shouldn't wear dresses and women shouldn't wear pants." This verse uses the term "geber" in its original language, which directly translates to "warrior man" or "valiant man," so a more accurate translation would be "a woman shall not appear to be a male warrior." This part is more than likely referring to the women who would abandon their "duties" to fight in battle alongside men, wearing their garments and masquerading as males. There's really no other way to interpret it, IMO. That would probably mean that the rest of the verse is about men choosing to adopt the responsibilities of their wives while their wives go to battle in place of their husbands.

Thanks for clarifying it for me. Like I said above, I always see people use that verse against trans people. I guess it's true that some Christians like to cherry pick verses out of the Bible and misinterpret them.

Quote from: Mr Hockey on January 29, 2014, 09:28:12 AM
That's the verse I always see anti-LGBT people use when speaking against trans people. They say it is a sin to change your gender, that God made you how he wanted and it's an abomination to want to change that.

I've heard that one a few times. I just say it's a birth defect like any other, and that if I'm not supposed to change it, you shouldn't treat things like cleft palates and congenital heart problems. It puts an end to that argument right away. Usually, the person just doesn't understand the nature of it and really thinks it's as simple as "you just don't like being a girl" or "you just don't like being a boy."

Quote from: DCQ on January 29, 2014, 09:25:54 AM

Quote from: Mr Hockey on January 29, 2014, 09:12:17 AM
I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't quite understand how anyone can be trans and Christian? Doesn't the Bible speak against being transgender?

"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

Not the same thing. I'm not a woman, and a MTF person is not a man. If you took that verse and applied it to transgender people, then people who have intersex conditions and don't really identify with either gender would have to go around with no clothes on at all.

That said, this verse is misused all the time. This verse is not as simple as "men shouldn't wear dresses and women shouldn't wear pants." This verse uses the term "geber" in its original language, which directly translates to "warrior man" or "valiant man," so a more accurate translation would be "a woman shall not appear to be a male warrior." This part is more than likely referring to the women who would abandon their "duties" to fight in battle alongside men, wearing their garments and masquerading as males. There's really no other way to interpret it, IMO. That would probably mean that the rest of the verse is about men choosing to adopt the responsibilities of their wives while their wives go to battle in place of their husbands.

That's interesting. I've also heard the suggestion that it was to differentiate themselves from their neighbors who had male priests that would dress as women for ceremonies. Anything that the pagans did was considered an abomination.

Anyway, these verses are always taken out of context. We're talking millenia ago when this was written - vastly different culture and way of life. Seems like a lot of the rules in there pertain to health and disease that we aren't at such a big risk for today.

In addition to the explanations above, also remember that the Mosaic law was the national law of the ancient Jewish nation, and does not apply to Christians. Some (if not most) of it doesn't even apply to Jews, or in some cases, only metaphorically, if I've understood modern Judaism correctly. But in Christianity, the laws found in the Old Testament don't apply, and are mainly a historic (leaving debates of historicity aside) account of how the Jews understood God.

Some Christians of different varieties (including my own, sadly) sure like to apply random verses from the OT to things they don't like, though. But it's generally easy to counter - skip a few verses forward, and you'll find something too absurd to even consider taking it seriously as a commandment in modern society. If I remember correctly, the same chapter that contains the "no crossdressing" verse also says that if a woman is raped within a city (as in within earshot of others), she is to be executed because she didn't cry for help... At the time, that may very well have been very humane; after all, women who were raped outside of the city, and hence were beyond rescue, were not to be executed. Other cultures may not even have let those victims live. But that's a digression, my point is that one can't accept the first without also accepting the second, that's cherry picking. Discarding the Jewish law, however, is not, since the Apostles agreed that Gentile Christians were not to follow it.

Quote from: Mr Hockey on January 29, 2014, 09:12:17 AM
I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't quite understand how anyone can be trans and Christian? Doesn't the Bible speak against being transgender?

"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God."

No there is nothing in the bible that really speaks against being trans, Only homosexuals from what I have seen. And Yes I can still be a man of God.

Quote from: FA on January 29, 2014, 09:43:23 AM
Not the same thing. I'm not a woman, and a MTF person is not a man. If you took that verse and applied it to transgender people, then people who have intersex conditions and don't really identify with either gender would have to go around with no clothes on at all.

That said, this verse is misused all the time. This verse is not as simple as "men shouldn't wear dresses and women shouldn't wear pants." This verse uses the term "geber" in its original language, which directly translates to "warrior man" or "valiant man," so a more accurate translation would be "a woman shall not appear to be a male warrior." This part is more than likely referring to the women who would abandon their "duties" to fight in battle alongside men, wearing their garments and masquerading as males. There's really no other way to interpret it, IMO. That would probably mean that the rest of the verse is about men choosing to adopt the responsibilities of their wives while their wives go to battle in place of their husbands.


That's interesting. I've also heard the suggestion that it was to differentiate themselves from their neighbors who had male priests that would dress as women for ceremonies. Anything that the pagans did was considered an abomination.

Anyway, these verses are always taken out of context. We're talking millenia ago when this was written - vastly different culture and way of life. Seems like a lot of the rules in there pertain to health and disease that we aren't at such a big risk for today.

Kia Ora FA,

That's an interesting take on things...It makes a lot of sense...I like it...

Metta Zenda :)

You all have made some great points.  The Old Testament law needs to be understood for its purpose and its historical context.  Israel was a fledgling nation leaving one land and going to another.  Most of the laws are about self-preservation. 

Procreation was job number 1.  It was so important that if a man's brother died, he was required to try to impregnate his brother's widow.

Many of the laws are related to diet.  They couldn't afford to lose a bunch of people because some spoiled meat got around.  (BTW, if anyone ever throws the abomination verses at you, just ask if they eat shrimp.  Cause that's also listed as an abomination to God.)

And maintaining their distinct national identity was the other important mandate.  As someone already mentioned, the native peoples had religious traditions that were largely sexual in nature.  And most of the Old Testament verses that seem to be talking about homosexuality are really talking about avoiding those religious practices.  In fact, the verses in the New Testament that seem to be about homosexuality are also mostly about avoiding the same kinds of sexual cult rituals of the Greeks and Romans.

Regarding whether a Christian should obey the Old Testament law, that was answered in Acts 15.  The church leaders (all of whom were Jews) all got together to decide which laws should still apply, because some were forcing new converts to convert to Judaism.  Peter's response was, why would we force them to adhere to laws that neither we nor our fathers have been able to keep.

Quote from: Anatta on January 17, 2014, 10:02:20 PM

Can Trans-Christians Really Find That Happy Medium...

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farchives.thestar.com.my%2Farchives%2F2013%2F4%2F28%2Flifeliving%2Fkerry-sees-crystal-ball-reader-f19.jpg&hash=598f19e29db03127e09f2918b2b76d5632454eba)

Boom-tish!

Quote from: Rina on January 23, 2014, 11:01:34 AM

I believe few people suffer that fate, since few people really reject God. They reject false notions of God, which is something different.

That supposes that there's a right "notion" of God, which is?

Hi,

When reading the bible be sure of the facts first to quote out of context will lead you  wrong,

the translastion concerning of men wearing female clothes was for a group or tribe of fighting men those who put on womens apparel were trying to hide, and not go to the front line to fight, no more no less cowared's  they were conscripted to fight to keep the women and children safe .

If any women went to fight they had to wear the mens armour and use a sword  they would have been killed out right because they were not trained or could fight let alone carry the armour or run a sword through a man who was trained,

The bible is not translated in all parts correctly, so is open to abuse,

Any one can find thier place in life, regardless of who they are or how they are born clothes is a non issue,  happy medium, depends on what your looking for , to be content with who you are as a person to love your self to be happy  to  love others in a way that is becoming of a person who is prepared to give to others,  to bless them as youv been blessed,  you know what its not about wether your male or female or like us = myself intersexed, or other, thats only a small part of who you are,  what about what makes you who you are, take my clothes away im not something else  im still who i am, you put barriers in your life or way you wont be happy or content with who you are,

Our spirit will go back to the one who gave us this time on this earth every one will go back, our body is only for a short while,  have you  read the whole bible and seen what took place long ago,  try it , see how discontented some were, then read of those who followed a part that was pure loving and whos content ,
  I cant answer for you or any one only myself , ill tell you what im one of the most happest on this earth because i was blessed being born the way i was  for some they think im not normal weird nuts  what ever, yet iv been so blessed by those around me who are my friends , whats different ,

I accepted what who i was / am at age 10 i knew i would live as a normal woman and you know i was lead shown helped and given many people to help in so many ways it was fantastic  all i had to do was go for the ride of my life, and trust me i have and its not done yet,

You see when you trust the one who leads you yes down the valley of death up the mountain and many places you dont have to fear where you go or what happens to you because your trust is safe,

You'r ? is there a happy ...medium... ....NO..... its a life that is right for you  in this case mine full on compleat and so neat i would ? the ?  because that to me is like saying  half a life is no life for myself .


............IT"S ALL OR NOTHING.............


You can spend your life thinking regret'ing or the what ....IF..... forget it get on with your life and youll find you have one ,

Sad to say many dont understand those of us who are different  so is that your issue,  only when you make it so. that being the case then its not yours to work out  let the ..... BOSS....sort it, does a better job that you or i. so get with the plan  your here to live your life so get to and do.

...noeleena...

In reading the Bible, we see that Christ taught to individuals and to groups of individuals,  but he never set up any formal institutions that were to govern and teach Christianity.   Individual churches were formed by his followers after Christ's crucifixion.     Paul's mission was to the gentiles and Peter's mainly to the Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire.   There were conflicts between Peter and Paul as to rather every Christian was bound by Jewish Old Testament Law.   Paul taught that gentile Christians were not and Peter felt they should be.   There were also many Christians who followed the gnostic beliefs that individuals could communicate directly to God with and or without Christ's intervention.    The Roman Government persecuted the Christian communities off and on for over three hundred years until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.   It was only after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire that Christian doctrine began to be codified at the order of the Emporer of the Roman Empire because the many differing groups of Christians were at war with each other declaring each other heretics.    Two of the largest factions of Christianity developed because of conflicts between the Bishop in Rome and the Bishop in Constantinople.   When the Roman Empire split between the eastern and western empires the bishop in Rome became the leader of the Western or Catholic Church and the bishop of Constantinople who was controlled by the Emporer became the head of the Orthodox Christian Church.   The division of the Church was became permanent when the western Roman Empire ceased to exist.   

The Roman Catholic Church set about eliminating as many as it could of the Christian communities that did not acknowledge the Pope in Rome and the doctrine that the Pope set for the Churches in the west.   I am not knowledgeable about the struggles of the Orthodox Church in the east except that in time it broke up into the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, among others.   I am also aware of the Marionites in Lebanon as well as the Copic Christians in Egypt.   The Arians were also another Christian Religion which were persecuted as heretics.   There is also the Armenian Christian Churches.

The Catholic Church in the west began to splinter with the invention of the Gutenberg Press and the printing of the Gutenberg Bible allowed the Bible to be printed over time in the native languages of the differing ethnic groups around the world because individuals could read if for themselves and not just depend upon the interpretation of the Catholic Priests.     The Catholic Church tried to stamp out these differing groups of Christian communities as they formed.   But Martin Luther who formed the Luthern Church and King Henry the VIII of England who formed the Church of England succeeded in bringing about large divisions in the Western Christian Church.  The Luthern Churches were divided by ethnicity while the Church of England split into many other Protestant groups such as the Congregationalists, the Quackers, the Baptists, the Methodists, and others.   Many  Protestant churches were influenced by John Calvin a French Swiss Theologian whose ideas became part of the doctrine of many Protestant Sects.

The point of this all being that how each of us who was socialized as a member of some Christian Church filters our reading of the Bible through the beliefs of the Church we belonged to.   Until I became a Baha'i, I was a member of the First Methodist Church and the Congregational Church, however I was baptised an Episcopalian and I attended a conservative Baptist Church for about four months because we lived next door to it.   I also went to some community summer Bible schools one of which I pushed a likeness of Jesus to heaven on a string.    When I went to college I was a solitary self taught Buddhist for a while.   Point being the filters by which I read and read the Bible are mixed.    My youth church days in the sixties were during a time of the ecumenical youth movement and a time of interest in the many Christian Theologians of the 19th and 20th Century. 

My view of Christianity was the left of the Reformed Jews theological point of view.     My question is to say who has the authority to interpret the Bible for any individual.    The Bible was written after Christ left the physical world.   He didn't have any point of view on how it should be understood.   Neither did Christ leave any theological treatises upon his interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures, nor did he philosophize upon his own teachings.     Did Jesus ever point out who the enlightened Jewish scholars were during his time on earth and say that they represented God's point of view on life.   

The Old Testament was written for the Jewish communities that existed at the time the different Scriptures were written.   Even the Jewish community during Jesus's time was divided into many differing schools of thought including the Sadducees, the  Pharisees,  the Essenes, those that groups that felt it was ok to adopt aspects of Roman and Greek culture, etc.

Understanding the Bible is not all quite that simple.   The texts of the Bible through out time have been interpreted through many differing languages from the Semitic languages of Abraham, Moses, and the following centuries of Jewish history, though the Greek languages, through Latin, and then into English, and whatever language you speak.

So while you can consider the Bible to be God's Holy word,  you still are just stuck with your own personal interpretation based upon your religious upbringing through the filters of time. 

Is it really worth beating yourself up over?   Can you really be sure that the issues that the those individuals the verses of the Bible that were given to individuals centuries ago are really speaking to your issues today.   Some issues such as murder and stealing never really change in the sense that murder is unjustified killing and stealing is taking that which is not yours to take.   But murder is set within the  social setting of who it is ok to kill and who it is not ok to kill, which may be determined by kinship relationships and community laws.   Also, property that it is permissible for you to take and property that you are not is also determined by social conventions of your community.

So basically on what basis does one determine false notions of God.   On what basis do you say, "I believe in God, therefore I must ........"   I am not trying to question the validity of the Bible or the Holy Scripture of any Faith, however,   when you make judgements on yourself, please understand the conditions under which you are making judgements.   

Jesus, may have said, to Peter that you are the Rock upon which I will build.   But Jesus left no specific guidelines as to what Peter's authority nor were their any guidelines as to the true doctrine or the specific guidelines for life or spiritual laws that were musts for the Christian community.

Jesus stressed kindness and love above judgement and condemnation.  So I think as transgenders we at least have to be kind to ourselves and love ourselves, accepting who we are.  Then just do the best we can to live our lives.   

As a Baha'i I do have specific Laws and spiritual institutions by which I am directed to live my life  I need to understand my self as a transgender and live my life within their context rather I like it or not.

Quote from: JS on January 31, 2014, 11:38:44 PM
That supposes that there's a right "notion" of God, which is?

I would be arrogant to claim to be able to answer that - there is a reason why the traditional churches prefer apophatic theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology) especially with regard to the nature of God. We only resort to positive descriptions when absolutely needed.

Yet, I have some ideas about what God is not - and He is not the spiteful, angry, small-minded entity atheists often describe to me. If that is who they reject (often based on taking portions of Scripture out of context), they indeed reject a false god.

Quote from: michelle on February 01, 2014, 01:13:45 AM
In reading the Bible, we see that Christ taught to individuals and to groups of individuals,  but he never set up any formal institutions that were to govern and teach Christianity.   Individual churches were formed by his followers after Christ's crucifixion.

Not true. When Jesus says to Peter "thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church", the word used for "church" in the Greek text is "ecclesia", which was also the term used for the electorate in Greek city states - a highly organized entity, and not least a legal/jurisdictional term.

Also, in the Septuagint (the translation of the Old Testament to Greek, which predates Christianity), the word "ecclesia" is used to translate the Hebrew word "qahal", which again was the term used to refer to those who had religious and national "citizenship" in the people of Israel. Again, a highly organized entity etc.

Since "ecclesia" bears this meaning in Greek, and is used to translate a nearly equivalent word from Hebrew by the Jews who translated the Septuagint, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus used the Hebrew (while he spoke Aramaic, Jews at the time often used Hebrew religious terms) "qahal" when he spoke those words to Peter. So if the gospels are right (and if I didn't believe that I wouldn't be Christian - there are also no better sources anyways), Jesus did indeed intend to form an organized Church.

---

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, I don't have time to address all of it - but a lot of the things you say are common misconceptions that few historians (of any persuasion) would agree with. Do you know that Constantine actually supported the Arians? Yet, when the Church declared it a heresy, he decided to support the decision, since he had no business interfering with it. Yes, he wanted the Church to set up a council to end the fight between Arianism and Trinitarian belief, but the people he supported actually lost the argument, something he accepted. So a lot of the myths about how Constantine affected the Church are simply wrong.

In general, I think it's natural to want to paint the "big" organized religions as bad, simply because they're, well... big. But while there certainly have been transgressions done by Catholics, from laymen to popes, the history is generally more sympathetic (and less exciting) than the popular beliefs.

(Edit:)

Quote from: michelle on February 01, 2014, 01:13:45 AM
Jesus stressed kindness and love above judgement and condemnation.  So I think as transgenders we at least have to be kind to ourselves and love ourselves, accepting who we are.  Then just do the best we can to live our lives.

I just had to add that to this, I absolutely and utterly agree :)

Quote from: Rina on February 01, 2014, 03:24:19 AM
I would be arrogant to claim to be able to answer that - there is a reason why the traditional churches prefer apophatic theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology) especially with regard to the nature of God. We only resort to positive descriptions when absolutely needed.

So if you asked me whether or not I believe in God, what is it that you would be asking me?

Quote from: JS on February 01, 2014, 05:33:25 AM
So if you asked me whether or not I believe in God, what is it that you would be asking me?

It depends. Since "believe in God" could mean anything from Deism to Christianity to Islam to [insert alternative], that exact question would simply mean something along the lines of "do you believe in a supreme being who is the first cause of everything", which is really the only thing all monotheistic faiths (as implied by your use of "God" in the form of a given name, instead of "a god") have in common.

If I asked you whether or not you believed in the Christian God, I would ask if you believed in the Trinity as defined in the first council of Nicaea, the two natures of Christ as defined by the council of Chalcedon, and His benevolence, which are the main common beliefs of Christian denominations.

To go further, if you challenged the benevolence on grounds of Old Testament passages, I would point out the Christian interpretative tradition, which states that while all Scripture is inspired by God, it is not dictated by God, and hence the writings of the Old Testament describe a gradual and far from complete revelation of God. Especially the early writers attributed to God events that we now can reasonably believe had nothing to do with Him. As time goes, God is increasingly revealed to be benevolent and forgiving, and this culminates in the New Testament. There is a narrative there, that atheists and biblicists/fundamentalists forget alike.

If I asked you if you believe in the Christian God the way Catholicism understands Him, I would also ask if you believe in the Thomist understanding of God as the first cause/mover as understood through the Aristotelian philosophical tradition, and his five statements on the nature of God. More importantly, I'd ask if you believed in the further development of the Trinitarian belief by the Cappadocian Fathers, since that is a shared Catholic/Orthodox belief.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that there is no simple, clear-cut explanation of God. And Christian theology traditionally has chosen the via negativa or apophatic theology to describe Him, which means that we have more beliefs about what He's not than what He is. I'm sure it's completely possible to reject the Christian God even knowing what Christianity actually teaches, but still, the God most atheists describe when they explain their rejection, is usually a poor caricature of the Christian God.

Kia ora,

Thank you all for your responses so far, which have stretched the boundaries of understanding and have enlighten people such as my(atheist)self...And thank you all when commenting on this thread for remembering that when it comes to the issues faced by trans-people (both religious and irreligious) we are all in it together and are here to help each other where and when we can...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: michelle on February 01, 2014, 01:13:45 AM
There were conflicts between Peter and Paul as to rather every Christian was bound by Jewish Old Testament Law.   Paul taught that gentile Christians were not and Peter felt they should be.

Not true.  They had other disagreements, but this wasn't the issue.  In Acts 15, the church leaders all gathered to address this very issue.  Peter's admonition was:

"Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke (the law) which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."


Then James outlined a very simple group of 4 rules for all believers to follow in Acts 15:19.  Their assumption is that believers will, through prayer and submission to God, not need such a detailed list as what they were given in the Old Testament law.  Direct relationship with God through the Holy Spirit and connection to other believers should lead them to do what is right.

QuoteIt was only after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire that Christian doctrine began to be codified at the order of the Emporer of the Roman Empire because the many differing groups of Christians were at war with each other declaring each other heretics.

Most of the New Testament is made up of letters from the apostles to local groups of believers to set them straight.  And there is regular mention all over the New Testament of adhering to "the apostles' doctrine."  You're right that there wasn't a denominational structure, but there most certainly was structure.

QuoteGod is increasingly revealed to be benevolent and forgiving, and this culminates in the New Testament. There is a narrative there, that atheists and biblicists/fundamentalists forget alike.

This is very well said.  In a nutshell, the Bible reads like a very long narrative of what God set up from the beginning.  After the fall of man, sin entered the world and we were separated from God.  The law was then given to demonstrate man's inability to satisfy the requirements of the law and to demonstrate the need for a Savior.  Christ was promised and prophesied in the last half of the OT, giving hope of salvation.  Then He showed up, satisfied the law, and restored man's connection to God.  The Holy Spirit was then given to facilitate our connection, through Jesus, to God.

The whole narrative shows God's kind intentions from the beginning.  It has just taken 6-10,000 years to unfold.

Jesus said, "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father."  And so anyone who assumes it is their place to judge or condemn others, are clearly not representing God.  The Jesus of the New Testament gospels preferred to spend time with the outcasts of society, and His only harsh words were directed at the religious establishment.

Quote from: Anatta on February 01, 2014, 09:43:12 PM
Kia ora,

Thank you all for your responses so far, which have stretched the boundaries of understanding and have enlighten people such as my(atheist)self...And thank you all when commenting on this thread for remembering that when it comes to the issues faced by trans-people (both religious and irreligious) we are all in it together and are here to help each other where and when we can...

Metta Zenda :)

Anatta, thank you for starting this discussion.  I've really enjoyed it.  We are indeed all in this together, and it kills me that fellow Christians have been so hurtful to the entire LGBT community.  They have misinterpreted Scripture, and actually feel like they are defending God.  But I believe that it will be very different within a generation.

Although religions get a lot of the blame for mistreating LGBT people, it really is a society-wide issue.  I live in California, one of the more liberal and non-religious states in the US.  And marriage equality couldn't even pass here.  It required a federal judge to strike down the law.

Quote from: katiej on February 02, 2014, 08:42:19 PM


Anatta, thank you for starting this discussion.  I've really enjoyed it.  We are indeed all in this together, and it kills me that fellow Christians have been so hurtful to the entire LGBT community.  They have misinterpreted Scripture, and actually feel like they are defending God.  But I believe that it will be very different within a generation.

Although religions get a lot of the blame for mistreating LGBT people, it really is a society-wide issue.  I live in California, one of the more liberal and non-religious states in the US.  And marriage equality couldn't even pass here.  It required a federal judge to strike down the law.

KIa Ora Katie,

You're welcome...I'm just fascinated and amazed by the wealth of knowledge of some members on this topic...

Even though I tread a different path, one that doesn't involve a belief in any form of creator being(apart from the unwholesome god of ignorance of which suffering is the reward it shares with its followers), I have a keen interest in how others find ways to cope with their situation (gender issues), especially when it seems they are having to fight an up hill battle with their faith, in their god, others and themselves...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Anatta on February 03, 2014, 01:52:14 PM
I have a keen interest in how others find ways to cope with their situation (gender issues), especially when it seems they are having to fight an up hill battle with their faith, in their god, others and themselves...

That's one thing that brings us all together.  Regardless of religion, we all have an up hill battle within ourselves, our families, and in society.  Even the LGBT community doesn't always know what to do with us.  It doesn't help our cause that the public perception of trans people is the guy in a dress on Jerry Springer.  Unfortunately, most of our best representatives are trying to blend in and move on with their lives...and rightfully so.

But you're right that religious beliefs do a lot to hold us back.  In my case, my dad is a minister.  So that added more pressure to keep my secret.  Ironically, my dad has spent the last 10 years pastoring a church that is 80% LGBT, and that has actually helped me come to terms with my situation.

When I came out as transgender, I felt affirmed by God. I never felt any shame or guilt about it. When I was helping people to understand that the can be Christian and transgender, I read and studied the scriptures because there were many misconceptions and untruths being foisted out there. God knows everything about because he knew us before we were even born. Being transgender is a part of His plan for our lives.

Maybe society doesn't understand us or don't see what value we have but God certainly does. Christians have been persecuted throughout the centuries because they didn't adhere to what society was suppose to represent. Being transgender is one of the wonderful things in my life because I am completed and liberated.

:)

Quote from: gennee on February 04, 2014, 04:52:59 PM
When I came out as transgender, I felt affirmed by God. I never felt any shame or guilt about it. When I was helping people to understand that the can be Christian and transgender, I read and studied the scriptures because there were many misconceptions and untruths being foisted out there. God knows everything about because he knew us before we were even born. Being transgender is a part of His plan for our lives.

Maybe society doesn't understand us or don't see what value we have but God certainly does. Christians have been persecuted throughout the centuries because they didn't adhere to what society was suppose to represent. Being transgender is one of the wonderful things in my life because I am completed and liberated.

:)

Kia Ora Gennee,

It sounds like you have found your "Happy Place"...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: katiej on February 03, 2014, 11:50:29 PM
That's one thing that brings us all together.  Regardless of religion, we all have an up hill battle within ourselves, our families, and in society.  Even the LGBT community doesn't always know what to do with us.  It doesn't help our cause that the public perception of trans people is the guy in a dress on Jerry Springer.  Unfortunately, most of our best representatives are trying to blend in and move on with their lives...and rightfully so.

But you're right that religious beliefs do a lot to hold us back.  In my case, my dad is a minister.  So that added more pressure to keep my secret.  Ironically, my dad has spent the last 10 years pastoring a church that is 80% LGBT, and that has actually helped me come to terms with my situation.

Kia Ora Katie,

That's great news...Because of your father's position it sounds like his love and acceptance will be forthcoming ...

Metta Zenda :)

(Quote from ketiej, not my mistake) Sorry I should have said Rina.

Not true. When Jesus says to Peter "thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church", the word used for "church" in the Greek text is "ecclesia", which was also the term used for the electorate in Greek city states - a highly organized entity, and not least a legal/jurisdictional term.

"Also, in the Septuagint (the translation of the Old Testament to Greek, which predates Christianity), the word "ecclesia" is used to translate the Hebrew word "qahal", which again was the term used to refer to those who had religious and national "citizenship" in the people of Israel. Again, a highly organized entity etc.

Since "ecclesia" bears this meaning in Greek, and is used to translate a nearly equivalent word from Hebrew by the Jews who translated the Septuagint, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus used the Hebrew (while he spoke Aramaic, Jews at the time often used Hebrew religious terms) "qahal" when he spoke those words to Peter. So if the gospels are right (and if I didn't believe that I wouldn't be Christian - there are also no better sources anyways), Jesus did indeed intend to form an organized Church."

I did not say that Jesus did not give Peter the authority to build a Christian Community,  I said that Jesus did not give Peter the Charter that prescribed the exact nature of the institutions of the Christian Church.   Mohammad himself formed the governmental structure of the Islamic Community and lead the Islamic community until his death.  He left the Islamic community the Koran as Holy Guidence for the community.

Because Mohammed did not outline a specific written document as to how leadership was to be passed down after his death, this lead to the many schisms in the Islamic Community.

Jesus did not inscribe in written documents any of the doctrine of belief for the Christian community that formed around Peter and Paul.   Jesus did not leave a legal written charter which stated that his Church was to be lead by the Pope elected by a College of Cardinals as it is today.   Jesus did not prescribe what images of him or his family or any of the saint or apostles could be represented in the physical Churches that the Christians worshiped in.    Jesus did not even designate the Holy Cross as a symbol for his Church.    Peter,  Paul, the Popes, and the Christian Roman Emperors were left to decide this.   Jesus did not even authorize the Apostles Creed which is the statement of faith for Christian Faiths.   Jesus did not prescribe what Books would be in the Christian Bible.   Did Jesus say that the writings of Paul should be considered Holy Scripture?   He did none of these things,  nor did he give Peter specific authority to do so.   For the most part Peter did not even authorize these things.   As to who and what institutions were to have authority over the Christian Faith after Peter's passing we have no written charter as to what form these institutions were to take.

In the Baha'i Faith  we have these written records which pass on authority and set up the Spiritual Institutions which govern our Faith today.

I am not saying that there was any thing wrong with what Peter or Paul did, but the lack of these records and disputes over authority within the Christianity,  over doctrinal believes, over the Statement of Faith, over the Holy Sacraments, over the symbols and artistic expressions of the Church, etc have splintered the Christian Church into many different Christian communities,  much as the dispute over how governmental power was to be past down after Mohammed's death has splintered the Islamic community.

Basically, nobody in any of the many different Christian Faiths has the authority to speak for God and to condemn the GLBTQ Community for their life style.   Each individual can read the Bible and decide for themselves how they should live their lives and just take the chance that it might or might not find favor in the Eyes of God.

Quote from: michelle on February 08, 2014, 11:39:45 PM
Quote from ketiej

I think you quoted me, not ketiej :)

Anyhow, the below response became longer than intended. I should learn to be more concise. But here goes:

QuoteI did not say that Jesus did not give Peter the authority to build a Christian Community,  I said that Jesus did not give Peter the Charter that prescribed the exact nature of the institutions of the Christian Church.   Mohammad himself formed the governmental structure of the Islamic Community and lead the Islamic community until his death.  He left the Islamic community the Koran as Holy Guidence for the community.

Because Mohammed did not outline a specific written document as to how leadership was to be passed down after his death, this lead to the many schisms in the Islamic Community.

Jesus did not inscribe in written documents <snip>

Remember that in Apostolic Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Churches), written documents are not the only authoritative source of our theology.

But you are right, Jesus did not leave written, detailed instructions as to how the Church was to be organized. As a matter of fact, He did not write anything at all. He did, however, give the Apostles a mandate to govern the Church (which, given His use of the word ecclesia/qahal, was to be a jurisdictional body, not just a loosely formed community), and the Apostles used their mandate to institute the hierarchy shared by all Apostolic Churches to date.

Which leads me to the point - except for Protestantism, which only accounts for 25% of Christians on a global level, all Churches agree on almost 100% of their theology. We all share the basics of hierarchal structure, through the three levels of Holy Orders (deacon, presbyter, bishop), apostolic succession, etc. We all believe in the same seven sacraments, the same Trinitarian belief (except some of the Oriental Churches who took issue with the Chalcedon council, but the difference in belief has in recent years proven to be much smaller than we originally believed - it was more a matter of language than of content), etc. Our rites may be different (but the structure is similar in all of them), but our faith is virtually the same.

QuoteIn the Baha'i Faith  we have these written records which pass on authority and set up the Spiritual Institutions which govern our Faith today.

While I do respect the Baha'i Faith, especially for its emphasis on peace and unity, I have problems believing that a religion which came into existence in the 19th century has access to original texts describing what Jesus (or anyone else, for that matter) really intended. It effectively implies that God allowed Christianity to be fooled for two millennia, just to give the truth to a select few. That is not the God I believe in. It implies that 2 billion Christians are left in the dark, with only a few million really knowing God.

That said, what I do like about the Baha'i Faith, is that it (if I understand it correctly - I have to admit my knowledge is limited) at least acknowledges Christians as followers of God. The theological results are far worse in religions like the Watchtower Society, who seem to think everyone but a small fraction of their own believers will be annihilated or damned.

QuoteI am not saying that there was any thing wrong with what Peter or Paul did, but the lack of these records and disputes over authority within the Christianity,  over doctrinal believes, over the Statement of Faith, over the Holy Sacraments, over the symbols and artistic expressions of the Church, etc have splintered the Christian Church into many different Christian communities,  much as the dispute over how governmental power was to be past down after Mohammed's death has splintered the Islamic community.

The splintering of Christianity has mainly happened because Protestantism decided to discard the Apostolic Tradition. As I mentioned above, the Apostolic Churches are not primarily divided because of theology - we share 99% of our theology, and the difference isn't really dogmatic. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but they're too small to be the real cause of division. Take the filioque addition to the Nicene Creed - the Latin Church used that addition for several hundred years without the Eastern Church taking issue with it at all. It only became an issue when they were growing (in part rightly) tired of the Pope's increasing wish to govern details in the Eastern Churches. It became the symbolic reason for the schism.

So to try to get to my point: There really isn't much division within Apostolic Christianity, and the division is often superficial. The Catholic Church is one, organizationally as well in faith. The Eastern Orthodox Church is one in faith, but divided according to territory and jurisdiction, since they no longer recognize any authority above the Patriarchs. The Oriental Churches are also mainly divided by territory. So except for the East-West schism, there is unity within the larger "clusters" of churches.

Protestantism, however, is as you rightly say, splintered. There are over 30,000 denominations, who often split over things that would be seen as legitimate disagreement within the Apostolic Churches. I think that is what happens when the Apostolic Tradition is discarded - with the Bible only to guide them, there is room for a lot of very different interpretations, and since they all "just read the Bible as it is", the disagreements are rarely accepted as legitimate, and hence cause division.

QuoteBasically, nobody in any of the many different Christian Faiths has the authority to speak for God and to condemn the GLBTQ Community for their life style.

I both agree and disagree to this. On the one hand, a religion has the right to make moral demands of its believers. Choosing to adhere to a faith has consequences, and it is not like anyone is forced to be Catholic, Pentecostal or anything else. And I do believe the Bishops in a council or the Pope under special circumstances have the authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition authoritatively - the Apostles did that, and they did confer their authority to their successors. But that said, of course a religion has no right to make demands of people who do not subscribe to their faith, perhaps with the exception of what is contained in natural law.

Regarding LGBTQ issues, I'm also a bit conflicted. Trans issues is a no-brainer; it is not even mentioned in the Bible, and there is no doctrine condemning transition. Gender dysphoria is a valid condition, and transition is valid and necessary medical treatment. According to Catholicism, altering the body is morally licit if it is a medical/therapeutical necessity. This is unproblematic. Anyone who claims anything else is wrong. But sadly, there are a lot of them :(

That said, the LGB part is more complicated. Homosexual acts (not the orientation) has been seen as immoral since the time of the Apostles, and the argument laid out in Catholic doctrine (not the newspaper version) is valid given the premises. I'm unable to discard a valid argument just because I don't like the conclusion. But that said, interpretation of doctrine can change, and I'm not sure the current interpretation is set in stone.

But in either case, every individual has a choice regarding religion, and no one is forced to remain part of it. I will not be allowed to marry in the Church because I will be seen as impotent, and while that of course can become a problem if I suddenly find myself in a relationship, it is one of the things I've just decided to accept. I think this will change when stem cell research makes it possible to grow internal parts, since by that point, the person will be able to reproduce as their identified gender. But that won't happen tomorrow. Nothing stops me from getting a civil marriage, however, and it's not like I'd be excommunicated for getting one (I'd simply be asked to refrain from receiving Communion, which isn't really meant as "punishment", but I'll leave that explanation for another time :) ). But as for now, I've decided to try and follow what the Church asks from me. That is my choice, not forced upon me by anyone - and something I will never try to force upon anyone else. I can explain my choice to others, but their choices are not my business.

Gay marriage, however, will not happen in Catholicism, simply because the nature of marriage is dogma, and is different from the secular definition. I think gay unions might be recognized in some form or another in the future, but it is not up to me, and I doubt I'll live to see it. I know gays who have decided to stay celibate because of what the Church teaches, and they're happy with their choice. I don't think everyone can do that, and I won't even say everyone should. I also know about cohabitating gay couples who are practicing Catholics, but have decided not to receive Communion. Their priest respects them, and they're happy with their choice too. People choose differently, and it's not up to me to tell anyone what they should do.

I do however agree with what pp. Francis said about some Catholics being "obsessed with gays" (or something like that) - it is detrimental to the Church, and it turns people away. I also don't see the problem with gay civil marriage (though I do think secular states should simply remove marriage from their laws and replace it with a civil union which could also be between non-sexual partners, like when siblings decide to live together), and I don't understand why bishops in some countries spend so much energy on fighting it. I spend more time fighting those attitudes than I spend defending Church teaching, actually. That kind of "fundamentalist Catholicism" annoys me, but at least they are a minority - just a very vocal one.

QuoteEach individual can read the Bible and decide for themselves how they should live their lives and just take the chance that it might or might not find favor in the Eyes of God.

I'm not sure I agree with the former - I don't believe in the Bible alone, and hence I think reading the Bible as the sole source of one's theology is not enough. I believe in the Magisterium, and I believe not having a teaching authority causes chaos. I'll rather live with the slow-moving, always-behind-the-times teaching authority of Apostolic Churches than the splintering of Bible-alone communities.

I do however completely agree with the latter. All one can do is to do one's best, and what one thinks is right, and hope God will look upon us with favor.

"Trans issues is a no-brainer; it is not even mentioned in the Bible, and there is no doctrine condemning transition. Gender dysphoria is a valid condition, and transition is valid and necessary medical treatment. According to Catholicism, altering the body is morally licit if it is a medical/therapeutical necessity. This is unproblematic. Anyone who claims anything else is wrong. But sadly, there are a lot of them  "

Hi Rina,
Thank you for your eloquent, lucid and concise explanation, I whole heartedly agree with you especially where you touch on what probably concerns us most. To reinforce your argument may I add the following as a reference to support your understanding of the Catholic Church position from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which can be applied to us who are transgender or transsexual persons. 

CCC 2297..... Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

The language used may not be to our liking but it is clear, applied to Transgender and Transsexual persons this statement says what it means in regards to the suffering caused by unbearable gender dysphoria and corrected via a legitimate medically approved therapeutic surgical remedy.

For those who are not aware the CCC is the authoritative teaching document of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. 

Please God, with the above understanding many more of us who are greatly concerned by this issue will sleep more easily. :) :) :) :) :) :)

Thank you for pointing out the CCC reference - I was too lazy to find it when I wrote my post :)

Quote from: Talitha Cumi on February 09, 2014, 12:51:50 PMThe language used may not be to our liking

Yeah, this is a problem in modern society. Theological language (or curial language, as it's often called) has evolved to be very exact in describing moral and spiritual principles within the framework of Catholicism, but it is also far removed from daily speech. This opens up for a lot of misunderstandings, especially since few journalists are theologians. On several occasions, I see big headlines saying "The Pope said [insert crazy statement] about [insert topic]", then I think "this can't be right", check the actual statement, and see that what he said was the complete opposite of what was reported.

This is of course annoying, and the media could do a far better job, but then even most Catholics don't really understand curial language. The Church needs to realize that journalists are even less probable to understand it. Pope Francis seems to be getting it a bit more - I often have to laugh at how pp. Francis can say something that is virtually a quotation of pp. Benedict XVI, but in different terms, just to have the media report it as if they said completely opposite things. It is really ironic; their theology is more or less identical, but Francis is a better media person.

Quote from: Talitha Cumi on February 09, 2014, 12:51:50 PMFor those who are not aware the CCC is the authoritative teaching document of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I just have to add here that while the Catechism is indeed authoritative as a reference work for theologians and priests (which is really what catechisms started out as), it is not authoritative in the sense that everything in it is dogma. It can (and probably does, as earlier revisions did - the first version of the new CCC was a mess, but the current revision is solid as far as I know) contain errors. That said, keeping this in mind, it is the best reference there is. Especially since it gives references to every statement, so one can easily check the original statements/documents/etc. and Scripture passages the teachings build upon.

Oooff.  wow.  The law, the blood, the relationship with Jesus which is EVERYTHING to us, especially transgender...

I only know He saved my marrage, He knew I would be born transitioned (DES baby and yes its controversial but makes so much sense), He means everything for me, and He came to set us free from bondage and pain.

I rely on Christ for everything.  Everything I have is an answer to prayer.  Yes I believe in hell and I am sure there is a devil.  I have seen so many interventions, so many times scripture has proven out.

Do I think  Trans is sin?  Fruit of HRT:  Peace, freedom, end of decieving wife, end of decieving self, end of hiding, emotional stability instead of frequent outburst or driven nature to race, watch tv, do do do do anything to escape the pain...

Fruit of not being trans:  insanity.  Fear.

Scriptures-  get into the Greek and Hebrew first.  Get rid of spin or limitations of english.  Understand the debauchery of Rome, and the sin of Sodom - those folks would screw anything and tried to.  Thats not trans.  Not even gay.

We can drive ourselves insane sometimes in our great desire to please God by disecting scriptures.  It comes down to this for me, am I still able to pray and hear Him in my heart (yes- and sin separates from God so...)  If I was sitting with Him next to a fire eating fish with a bunch of wildheads about to turn the world upside down, what would He say to me?  How many have I helped by actually living this life experientially as opposed to a history lesson or a book of rules?  What have I done for Him?  I know what He did for me, he gave me a way off the planet when the day is done.

I love Christ.  His church is hurting.  They're people.  He is God.  He is our friend.

I believe strongly I was born trans, for a reason.  He would not ask me to go against my endocrine system and entire nervous system when it was created in a way that is different from the normies.  He will ask me how I used this difference to glorify Him.

And I will tell Him I posted of His love and His desire to reach our hearts and every heart on the planet.

Follow Him.  Love Him.  Embrace Him.  He helped me He will help you too if you seek His HEART.   And nothing can stand up to Him that is evil, and they sure won't lift up their arms and say "daddy pick me up I'm scared."  That's His heart for us.