Quote from: Elijah on July 28, 2010, 12:37:58 AM
(just wanted to throw this in)

but my brother and stepdad have told be about a christian church near me (the south) that is accepting of trans people, and even has a bathroom for transgender people to use.

That's sad. We need no "special" such as bathrooms, we need to be accepted as normal (what this ever means). So, why they have a bathroom for ts folks. We're normal. We can use women's or men's bathrooms. Are they afraid that we do awfull things in a regular bathroom?

well.. maybe its just a family bathroom.. I think more of those would be nice.. sometimes I dont know which bathroom to use.

Quote from: Witch of Hope on July 15, 2009, 08:10:13 PM
Pre-existence theory:

Mormons think that they lived as "a spirit being", before they came on  earth. And which we were already almost ready there.That the color of our skin and our gender was determined. . Now my thesis says that Mormons think that a gender, or the gender role, for ever is prescribed and is unchangeable. With it( they contradict the scientific knowledge.

So what is their thoughts on the proven fact that skin pigmentation is a result of particular races evolving on particular parts of the earth in relation to the sun. Closer to the poles = whiter skin, closer to the equator = darker the skin??
I don't know I could be wrong but to me that just seems like a given in the realms of rational thought?

But I guess they'll bend anything in a certain way to be of their benefit I mean that is what most western religions are based around right?
"I think what god meant to say...". *sigh*.
</pointless post>.

Quote1. Submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the person was
disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural
marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), or embezzlement of Church funds or property. (Page 128)

Interesting they equate nicking the church gold with abusing children.

I try to avoid criticising the faith of others, or lack of it even, but I find the Mormons to be very, very funny.

I recall, many years ago, shortly after my father decided it would be ever so fashionable to dump my mother, she went through a really low period. I tried my best to stand with her, but she found my presence very uncomfortable. Anyhoo, couple of nice young Morman boys come to the door and she invited them in. Their entire pitch was the same as a doubly glazing salseman. They gradually flipped through a book of photos, finishing with a small gang of old men, sitting round a table. Apparently, god approves of the corporate structure and it is right an propper that the church should be led by serious business types.



Above, there is a link to the excellent etransgender site. http://etransgender.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57

There is a reply post by me, second from the end, where I put the question where does anyone get the authority to speak on behalf of God?

A response follows from someone who posts a quote, apparently from Jesus, where he predicts that someone else will follow him. The implication being that Pat Robertson is this person.

As far as I can see, this is the only post from this person.

These people seem to pop up every so often. We had one here in another thread.

Strange that these pontificating types seem to lack the courage of their convictions to continue participating, making further comment or even identifying themselves.

where does anyone get the authority to speak on behalf of God?

Usually from mental illness.

Quote from: tekla on July 28, 2010, 01:12:21 PM
where does anyone get the authority to speak on behalf of God?

Usually from mental illness.

Mormons believe, like all the other cracked Christian fundamentalists that they speak for God or in the name of God (for me the same). They put their own fears, longings and and phobias on a not existing God. And thus they justify their action. Psychologically very interesting.

They put their own fears, longings and and phobias on a not existing God.

Pretty much all gods are non-existing.  It's not theology, its just really good fiction.

This is kinda slightly off topic so I'll link to it instead...
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7935406/priest-drowned-baby-during-baptism
"accidential homicide".
"Father Valentin had denied being responsible".
o_0

  Personally, I think the problem with the vast majority of so called Christian churches is that they no longer see the office of ministry as being a calling on one's life. It has many times been called a profession.
  When God truly puts a calling on one's life they are to shepherd a flock and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Issues such as money and sexual / gender are a moot point. Let the Lord deal with that in the way he pleases.
  I have known preachers that are just waiting to retire.
  To me that isn't a calling but a profession. If it was a calling they would preach unto the end. Whether it be death or the Lord returns.
  When I see a list of rules and guidelines I see man's puny mind at it's finest trying to put carnal regulations on a spiritual word.
  It is to be the Spirit of God that leads people to repentance and reveal Christ. It is also the Spirit of God that is to teach them and give the pastors the sermon.
  Not the foolishness I see today.
  If the Lord doesn't want a transsexual in his church he doesn't need a list of rules to keep them out. I think that if he can part the Red Sea, he can drive them out without help from man's rules.
  It's just gotten to be big business and whatever the high tithers want the wimpy preacher agrees to.
  By the way. I'm new. I will post on the intros when I get more time.

With acknowledgment to people who believe in a religon, I do not wish this to be offensive.

Humans need thinks to explain our circumstance. We have very inquiring minds. This facet of our mentality is far higher than in any other animal that we know of. We have problems with not understanding stuff. We invent explanations to cover our deficits in understanding. We do this at the highest levels of science. We create a hypothesis, an explanation of the facts we have available. In science we then test those facts. It may be many many years before they can be tested. The technology may not exist.

Religion was at one time the the science of the day. No one could think of how an event may happen. So the hypothesis was the 'god' made it happen. It is a provable hypothesis. I will pray to god that the sun will rise in the morning. It works. I will pray to god that we get rain for our crops. It works. I will pray to god that my side will win the war/battle it works; for one side.

So this belief system is very powerful at every level of our lives. Sadly the system has massive flaws. It is dependent upon belief and acceptance of that belief from a person who cannot prove their hypothesis without resorting to magical theory. That the belief system may give enormous emotional help to people in crisis supports the god role. Humans are an innately social group, as are many animals.
So how does this essay fit to the title? Science evolves. It does not matter how long it takes but a scientist can test another scientist hypothesis. It may be right or it may be wrong but usually it's not quite right, which leads to another hypothesis.
Religion does not evolve. It is written in statute that god did this therefore god desires this. Sadly the hypotheses cannot be tested and the 'facts' brought forward by the religious scientist which is  the priest or  whatever are taken as fact. If the priestly council declares that transsexualism is an abomination, there is no way to test that hypothesis. It is an untestable fact. Woman being made priests in the RC religion are on par with pedophiles, in a recent Vatican release. This is an untestable fact. How are these decisions made? where are the arguments presented so that they can be  peer reviewed. OK you cannot peer review god. But there are so many manifestations of god you should be able to get an editorial board.

I have totally no problems with any individuals belief and comfort. I have a lot of problems when any religion has an opinion about scientifically provable facts. Am I alone? Coppernicus, Galileo, Micheal Angelo, Sir Thomas Newton, and too many others to mention, were in the ire of mainstream religion because they could think.
Their problems came from the idea that they could think outside of godship. We are not far away from the same mis-understandings.

Cindy

It does make sense that humans want an answer for everything even if it's just to ease the mind from fear ....or to grasp something that seems near-impossible.
I was talking to my mum last week and during the conversation I had this idea that sometimes there is no "one" answer but several that work together to create a more realistic explanation.
I've been for so long looking for just the "one" answer to why I am the way I am.. but now I have a new approach. It may be wrong but I'm going to try it. ^_____^
Unless of course there already is a "one" simple answer to Transsexualism that ya'll are hiding from me o___O

I agree with you to an extent Cindy. I am also pleased that you feel comfortable to participate.

Religion and its associated practices have evolved to explain and to seek to understand the mysterious aspects of our lives. As you rightly say, they are a product of our enquiring minds.

Science has been able to explain the mechanisms of the various cycles.

As science has developed each new discovery, Christianity has acknowleged these. Darwin's were initially refuted simply because, like many brilliant ideas, they take time to come to terms with. The social attitudes of the 19th century saw man as the masters of all around them. The insignificance of humans in the greater order of the universe was unknown at that time.

Even now, nature programs and books talk about creatures developing adaptations to deal with their environments, indicating that the Darwinian notion is either not fully understood or that the producers don't believe their audience has fully understood.

The position of women and sexual practice is somewhat different however. Science has not demonstrated that women and men are equal simply because they are quite evidently not, any more than an apple is equal to an orange. Science has not demonstrated that, for example, homosexuality or the needs of transgendered people are normal or acceptable.

Any changes in the relative status of women or the acceptability of sexuality are social. Science has little influence here other than in its attempts to chart these changes and to attempt to manipulate social attitude. The charting of social change, while using scientific principals, is and remains, subjective. It is based upon observation and the personal biggotries of the observer. Manipulation of social attitudes has existed since the earliest civilisations. Civilisation is, itself a manipulation of attitude!

Science is an observational tool. Nothing more. Many of its observations will be percise or almost. Many others will be subjective, the recording of, attempting to use the scientific method.

But the claim that science exists in its own right, that it is somehow infallable, that the word of those who claim it as their exclusive territory is irrefutable by morals, is an indication that science has not replaced superstition at all. It has simply usurped it supernatural status.

Science is quickly becoming what it continues to criticise. To use an Orwellian annalogy, the pigs are becoming men.

---

Post Merge: July 29, 2010, 10:54:25 AM

---

It also occurs to me that, since many animals have very inquiring minds and a concept of mortality, do they have any concept of religion?

Science is an observational tool. Nothing more.
Incorrect, it is a predictive tool.

Atheism is much less complicated and is more humane.

I honestly think that many if not most churches who worship Jesus would actually kick him out of the church were he to show up.  He was quite a rebel for his time, breaking Sabbath law, associating with prostitutes and outcasts, drinking wine (and making it), and pretty much being against hypocrisy. 

I made my circuit around the various Christian denominations.  I thought I found my home in the Episcopal Church until the big brouhaha about ordaining Gene Robinson (openly gay priest in a relationship) to bishop - like that was the first time there was ever a gay bishop. 

I'm personally more comfortable with Buddhism with a dabbling of shamanism and an open mind.  I really did enjoy visiting a Unitarian Universalist congregation once, but there aren't any around where I am.  Even the supposedly "liberal"  churches are conservative in my town, lol.

I thought being Roman Catholic would be good, except I can't get past the church hierarchy stance on women, gays, and transexuals - love the incense and candles though!  I'm told that individual parishes are sometimes different and may be more accepting of folks despite what the hierarchy says. 

I try to take a live and let live attitude, but the hypocrisy of my christian family sometimes gets to much.  Mother and father seem more concerned about someone saying "damn"  than people dying of hunger, not to mention the human rights struggle for LGBTI folks (abbreviation used for convenience). 

I was asked to leave 7 Church's before i found one that accepted me without any question and have been in this Church and active for over a year and i am pretty sure everyone in the Church knows what i am,but no one seems to care. While at these previous church's i had asked the leaders of the church to show me in the bible where it covered anything about TG's,guess what there is nothing at all. The man should not dress in Woman's clothing does not apply as we are woman,so there small comebacks don't apply,so they finally agreed  i was right but still didn't want me in there Church. I always figured that had Jesus walked into there Church they would have asked him to leave as his beard and hair were dirty and matted etc. as well as his clothes being dirty as were also his feet,plus he was homeless etc. My parting comment to them all was i didn't know what God they worshiped but mine was a loving God,who turned nobody away!!!

I long ago decided I couldn't deal with any of the organised religious groups. I can't bring myself to argue with them. I can't lower myself to agree.

Quote from: spacial on July 29, 2010, 03:43:35 PM
I long ago decided I couldn't deal with any of the organised religious groups. I can't bring myself to argue with them. I can't lower myself to agree.

That's why I became a Wicca(n). Cause monotheistic relgions are mostly fundamentalistic relgions.

Quote from: Witch of Hope on July 30, 2010, 03:16:02 AM
That's why I became a Wicca(n). Cause monotheistic relgions are mostly fundamentalistic relgions.

Sorry, on that point, I have to completely disagree.

Most Christains seem to be pretty much like me. Ordinary people, trying their best.

We don't need to attend any church. We are forbidden from making an exhibition of our faith, it is personal. We will answer only to God.

The politicaly motivated weirdos just make a lot more noise.

In Africa, there are quite a number of these groups. To be fair, they do offer fellowship to people who are quite isolated. The breakdown and restructuring of African society has left huge numbers isolated.

But in almost every case, these groups seem to spend a lot of time telling people that the American way of life, their version of the American way of life, not reality, is the way to salvation.

Go figure. 

Anytime that you get an organized religion with people laying down rules and deciding who is in and who is out, you risk the development of fundamentalism - especially in regards to those that literally interpret their scriptures. 

The one thing I liked about the Anglican church was that church teaching is supposed to be based on scripture, tradition, and reason.  Unfortunately, there are sections of the church that give scripture and its literal interpretation precedence over tradition and reason. 

That is not to say all organized religion is bad.  I can see vast differences between some of the different organized churches in the US.  Some are also more prone to change with the times and believe that their faith can evolve with human development, but others believe faith should be static regardless - yet the later tend to pick and choose what beliefs can change and what can not based on their own preferences.