Quote from: RobynD on September 26, 2016, 10:35:15 AM
There is another huge elephant in the theological room and most fundamentalists ignore it,or even flat out deny it. The idea of whether scripture is accurate or not (literal vs not literal) and whether it was ever meant to be "worshiped" the way that some do.

Clearly to those who do not believe its literal, its understanding of history/creation, its representation of science etc are metaphor or representative at best. It is not one book but many books and several councils of men decided which books would be sacred. It's a beautiful set of books, challenges us and also talks a lot about what it means to follow Christ, and how we should treat one another.

So how does once use certain "power verses" about what is sin, when the entire body of work is representative and they are taking it out of context? Because they want to and because it reinforces other world views that they hold. Very pharisee like to put literature over people.

The power of the Bible is not in whether it actually did or didn't happen but in the revelation of hat it says about humanity, God, life etc....

I had a lecturer who would say is it inspired or is it inspiring...

ANother thing he'd say was that it didn't fall from heaven in a morrocon leather binding translated to English..

I love that God loves all. That they desire to have connection with us all.

I found this wonderful story of a Christian trans
https://catholictrans.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/recongress-talk-transcript/

It amazes me so many Christians have jumped upon the trans condition and the choice to transition as a "sinful" one.

At the end of the day it is little different from operating on someone to cure cancer - do they feel the same way  operating on a tumor and removing it to save the person as they do about a few operations and some hormone therapy to also save someone from a life of stress and misery? Even though the Bible has practically nothing to say about trans or cancer? Someone somewhere has decided trans problems are problems of choice and not "real" medical problems, and woven them into ideas about deviance and sin. But where in the Bible does it actually talk about transitional drugs and operations and trans people in general? Pretty much nowhere as far as I'm aware. Does the Bible always speak of never altering the body in such a way as to "go against nature"? Which is usually the argument used against us? No, because it talks almost right away about Abraham circumcising himself, and then every other male in his house. But I suppose it's ok when God tells you to cut off a body part that he originally gave you. Not if you decide to do it yourself...

I have several Christian friends, several Buddhist friends and a couple of Muslim ones. The interesting difference between them all is that the Buddhists don't seem to have a strong opinion on judging trans issues, the Muslims ask if there's anything in the Koran that judges it (there is) and do the Imams accept it or not - and if they do they also will, and the Christians feel like it is their responsibility to come to some sort of judgement about the issue based loosely on Bible ideas. One group kind of shrugs about it, one asks if it's 'officially' sinful or not, and the other thinks it should be judging it somehow.

I am constantly amused when that bad translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 gets called out on us.  I wonder if the folks citing that have ever read the rest of Deuteronomy 22?

• All new residential construction must include a battlement. Deuteronomy 22:8
• Don't wear blended fabrics.  Wool and linen are right out, and cotton with spandex is dubious at best. Deuteronomy 22:11
• Wear fringes on the four quarters of your cloths.  The 70's forever! Don't forget the blue thread.  Deuteronomy 22:12
• Wife not a virgin?  Take her to her fathers house, stand her in the doorway, and stone her with stones.  God says so.  Deuteronomy 22:21
• Catch someone having an affair with a married woman?  Stone 'em both. Deuteronomy 22:22
• A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.  No marrying Mommy, and you are forbidden to find Dad's cross-dressing stash.  Got it?  Deuteronomy 22:30

If you're going to enforce one of these rules, you should enforce them all.  There's no 'special snowflake' exemption for specific rules in there.  The rationale that only the rules that are 'natural law' still prevail is just that, a rationalization.  It's a dodgy rationalization at best when what is supposed to be 'natural law' is decided by a committee of frustrated eunuchs, most unnatural people. Natural law comes from Nature and God, not muddled committees of ideologues and the arguably perverse.

Thus endith Michelle's rant for the day.  Now go in peace.

Hi Michelle,

You forgot one.

Malachi 2:15-16. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. "For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel,

Lots of hardcore Christians gonna be in trouble over that one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deborah -

Exactly that!  My wife bailed out of our marriage (she doesn't know that I am transitioning, so that wasn't the cause) and I couldn't understand why God would punish me for being trans and not her for divorce.  Needless to say, my faith has undergone some changes, from a fundamentalist approach to something more moderate.

In reality the majority of those statements found in the text are more about cultic observation, abomination in relation to the cultic religious practice. They must also be understood within the context of the time, the context of this new nation Israel trying to establish itself and ensure it's own survival.
Given that an understanding for them was that offspring was contained whole in the sperm of the male, and that the woman was only a carrier device, there is some sense to the sense of not wanting to allow things that would jeopardise procreation...

We should also not forget that the Christian religions, for decades if not longer, castrated male children just for the effect on the voice.  Supposedly it made the voice "Angelic" or something.  The last one died shortly after the creation of video and audio recording, and there is a single recording of them.  Remind them of this, and ask why the church doing it didn't count as a sin.

The voice was beautiful, would actually like to see the practice reinstated, just with volunteers instead of forcing it.