Might have already been covered but I know a site that explains or argues against each of these verses that may be heavy on your heart.

http://www.transchristians.org

It helped me when I was struggling with it too. It was enough for me to go to the Liberal side of Christianity....concentrating on God/Jesus' love instead of trying to interpret every single sentence of the bible.

Yay.. more of this. letter I got tonight.

So I finally am getting around to responding, I was hoping to do this much sooner. And I completely agree with you that this is before you and God in the decision process. I am simply honored that you are allowing me to at least see and respond to it. So thank you.

A contextual reason for why I find myself coming to a different conclusion from you Old Testament passages is a result of the deity and purpose I place on the scriptural mandates given to the Jews. I don't believe it was patriarchal and wealth motivated. It is simply that I believe that they (and we) serve a holy God. As ambassadors of His, God chose to set us a part. (This is a well repeated them, especially in Isaiah where God mourns the fact that they have become like the other nations). In His setting us a part, the lifestyle with which He calls us is higher than one which we can meet, simply so that He can provide for our need in that. (Does that make sense? God sets it so high that He has to be God in order for us to be able to live as He has called us to). So His mandate to the Jews was so that He could be their God and provide for them.

As a set part (hear ambassadors) it does not make us better or worse, it simply calls us to live rightly. For the Jews this had to be radical enough that they could understand that. Hence the standards that were set. But I also think these standards speak to the fact that God is holy. Because He is so holy nothing but the blood of His Son could cover even the smallest infraction. And thus we see our utter depravity and His utter desire to redeem us out of that depravity. Instead of a patriarchal or evil/selfish intention it is simply to make visible our complete dependence on God. Something we as humans resist the most of anything we ever have to hear. Hence also why I think nailing the reason for actions and standards to other reasons is so appealing (such as blaming the rules and regulations on the need for wealth and a patriarchal system).

Also I believe that the contradictions in Scripture serve to show a paradoxical statement. Either/Or statements are not the answer, it is not one and it is not the other because there is a paradox that shines through the tension the two opposing statements make. Typically this message has something to do with the heart not just the actions being right before God. So time does not erode God's message, and because He is timeless He is able to stretch across all of our existence with an unfailing message of love and hope in His salvation.

And in present day Jewish practices it is no where near strange to wear tassles on the clothes. Their obsession with following the OT rules is quite severe in the more conservative arenas.

I have also always understood the reference to eunuchs to be those who were unable to reproduce or have sexual intercourse or chose a lifestyle that did not include that (i.e. monks). Granted I haven't taken the time to study this in depth but there is a huge difference in my mind from refraining to reproduce (or being forced to) and choosing to actively change one's gender. Also, removing the foreskin and changing a lifestyle are two different actions. The stretch in my mind to put them in the same camp is too far to make any real connection. Maybe its because I did not follow what you were saying but I didn't find myself confused about what you were saying.

Also the passage from Mark needs to be taken into context. The structure of the passage is meant to be an exaggeration. Although there are other places where a radical statement is literal, this passage was in reference to a specific problem He was addressing. And that is that He was dealing with complacent people. How better to wake someone out of apathy than to make a dramatic statement.

And also I find myself struggling to find the logical progression in the steep slope from gender modification to corrective lenses. There is something so different in my mind from enhancing something to modifying something. Granted some things that enhancify I find difficult to justify but that is because I see a heart issue in what is going on. But nevertheless, the point still stands that the two – gender modification and corrective lenses - are categorically different.

You are absolutely right in pointing out that God does look at the heart. And I am going to make a general statement that I believe that a lot of our problems comes from the fact that our heart wants to be the hero. In today's society gays, lesbians, and transgenders are heroes. A lot of things are glorified, especially the martyred state of transgenders, gays, etc. And so we seek after these things, especially the desire to be our own savior. I believe that feeling the freedom and choice to make changes to our gender or our orientation allows us to feel a sense of being our own savior. And our hearts desire is for those things that we have been taught to seek after, which all of North America is being taught right now to be their own god. But God does look at our heart and sees what it is that we are seeking out. Its a higher standard not a lower standard than having right actions. I know I am saying the exact opposite of what just about any major organization, even Christian, is saying right now, but that is because they are motivated by dollars and appeal, where as for now I have not succumbed to that (there are other things that I have succumbed to, but not that yet, by God's grace). Or a better way to put it is the "come as you are"/"be who you are" gets more numbers and prestige, not actual and authentic loyalty, especially in Christianity.

Please don't feel judged when I say all this. I only share so that you can better understand why I will always see you as Terri Anne. God made you beautiful in His eyes the first time. And to recreate yourself seems to leave you to yourself. I do not deny the struggle you have and the temptations you face now. I have recently come to understand the strength and magnitude of emotions, feelings and thoughts. I have never faced temptations so strong as when Kyle and I started dating and there are things that we have both had to repent of. I tend to be a pretty rational person, so to not be able to control away the desires is difficult for me. I am constantly reminded of my depravity and how much I am failing God, but I have to also trust that He will be my savior in all of this. So please don't hear either a belittling of your struggle. I also have been learning what it means to trust someone enough to let them lead. Which means I've been learning not to wear the pants in Kyle's and my relationship. He gently is present and I am learning to trust that. I feel that this is often the situation for us as individuals as we struggle to feel safe in this world. Why do I say all that? Because I honestly have to wonder if people do not go so far in their searching for safety as to change genders because it feels more right and safe. Tell me if I you disagree, but that is what I think.

Now that I have spilled my gut thoughts, hopefully they can be constructive not destructive to you. Love you dearly. (name)

My response:

The OT references were more a show that we as Christians do not follow them, we are free from the old laws. We eat shrimp and lobster, we have mixed blend clothing, we plant more then two types of seeds in a single feild and we don't consider it sin or whatever. Sure the more strict Jews still follow these laws, because that is still their religion/calling. (Note that many Jews do/have for a long time accepted trans but not homosexuality - they are completely seperate issues and should not be discussed in the same context at all.)

Like I said those were not my translations - however most of them were similar to what I've grown to understand in my own faith. It was one of many formal pieces written on trans issues by ministers.

You also need to understand that this is not changing one's gender. Sex and Gender are two very seperate things. Sex is the physical characteristics you are born with - whether you are born male, female, or one of the 1%+ born with ambiguous genitals. Gender is what one internally feels. Science points to it being hugely influenced during the natal environment and being permanently set between 18-30 months - hence why Transgender individuals can often be identified by age 2 or 3.

Sure there are many variations in the gender spectrum, and most people would never even consider thinking about gender because their gender alines with what is expected of their sex. However when gender and sex severely conflict - that`s where ->-bleeped-<- comes up. It`s kind of hard to explain what it feels like. But I guess I`ll try and explain how this feels. Your gender identity is a hugggeee part of your identity. Most people don`t realize this because this does not cause conflict. However when your identity is in conflict with your body - that causes alot of issues. It causes self loathing, fear of others and how they percieve you (eg as your sex not your gender)... honestly my life in the past felt like wearing a mask and having to lie about who I was to the world. Having to hide away who you are in the core is not an easy task which would explain the suicide attempt rate at 50% for transgender people before transitioning and close to 0% after. From my understanding God makes us as individuals - as in our consciousness (identity of who we are in many realms), the body is just a package that houses this person that God has made, and that this package is often less then perfect. Many people are born with things that are less then perfect, they are born intersexed, or with poor vision, or missing a leg, or born so mangled that they do not survive. However, giving these people a shot at living a normal life, getting them prosthetics, repairitive surgeries etc. does not change who they are as an individual - it just gives them a better quality life. I have to say the same when it comes to my issue - I don`t see much of a difference - there is me, and I come inside some packaging - a human body. If the packaging is a bit screwed up - what`s the harm in fixing that. It isn`t changing who I am as an individual. It`s just freeing me up to be who I always have been. In my own opinion, Terri-Anne the person has never existed, other then a fake persona thrown up to try and fit in with society. It was a lie, a sham, not much more. Something thrown on to try and protect myself from the wrath and disproval of others. But between me and God, I don`t think I was ever Terri-Anne, I was just me - the person who I have always been deep down inside.

I can`t even really identify with your - being your own saviour point. I very much disliked Gays/Lesbians/Trans etc. even in past deciding to transition myself. I viewed them as sinners, as freaks. I've only grown to accept trans people through realizing that I was condemning myself in the process. I don't know where you are from that gays are seen as heros - because here most people still hate them. And honestly I still can't say whether homosexuality is okay with God or not. It's not something that I have had to struggle with. However I have to think it is okay with God, because it is not a choice. Even the largest Ex-Gay Christian programs like Exodous and Narth will tell you that. Take a look at their sites. Whle they believe that all this stuff is very wrong, they say that orientation and gender identity is not a choice, and that they cannot change it. All they can do is teach you to repress it and deny your nature. They say that the most successful way to do this is to avoid any situations that will bring up these issues, and get married - even if the marriage is just to try and live properly and not out of love. They often end up being people just survivng, not particularliy happy. Then if you look at their statistics - they brag when they are able to claim a 10% success rate. Then you look at their leaders - most of them are ex-gays, ex-trans - and most of them have to leave after a few years because they themselves cannot even handle trying to repress who they are. Many of them become ex-ex gays and ex-ex trans, or kill themselves, etc. I don't know why I am saying all of this, but if this was something that God wanted individuals to overcome - I would think that it would be a more impossible task. Rather it seems that the only possible outcome is living in a repressed state - which isn't really being true to yourself, to others, and perhaps to God. I had to struggle through all this with God, and while I can't say what I believe about homosexuality as that isn't really an issue I have to deal with, i can say that between me and God this is okay. God made me who I am, as an individual I am his creation. The packaging that I came in was less then perfect, and in seeking to solve this and find a solution - my faith is only becoming stronger.

Trying to continue the sham of living as a female and trying to fit in as one would be living a lie. Not showing the world who God created me to be. Not allowing me to be me.. probably would be the cause of my death in a few months few years, because it's way to hard to continue to repress such issues. I am a surviver, but this seems to be an issue that would destroy me if not dealt with. Is this recreating myself? I really don't think so. perhaps in societies eyes it is and in your own eyes it is - because oh I'm changing my name, and my physical appearance will change a bit, however it is not changing the essential me - who God created me as.

Now I think that I can understand some of your fears - I think that depending on what certain body modifications mean- tatooeing, piercings, surgeries, sex change, etc. it could be something God has offence with. It just depends on what these actions are a result of, what the real meaning is behind them. If the intent is to take control, to prove something, to worship another god, then yeah - it is wrong. But I can't say that on my fact it is any of those. It's just modifications on the outside to reflect who is on the inside. It's a fix of the packaging.

I really can't expect you to understand, I don't think anyone can even begin to understand unles they have to deal with an issue like this themselves. I've had problems with certain sins in the past - and this kind of issue isn't even remotely the same in terms of emotions, thinking processes etc. (though I don't see this as sin... and between me and God this isn't from what I've grown to understand over time, so I can't really compare them anyways).


Gah. This is difficult. I know eventually I'll have to give up on trying to make people understand, but I figure everyone gets one free attempt at trying it. Thoughts, opinions, better ways I could have explained this?

Tad.

For many, certainly myself, argement is countered by ingorance. We make up our minds and treat the counters of those closest to us, with what amounts to contempt.

I tend to think it's tiresum to spend too much time examining the counter arguments of others, in any great detail. And often, these counters are as intellectually haphazard as our own thinking.

I would like to say it has been a pure pleasure to read these two exchanges. They both come from a position of mutual and self respect. They are both reasoned, and well thought out.

Thank you for sharing them

Let me quote a lot of your what your friend said:

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PM
A contextual reason for why I find myself coming to a different conclusion from you Old Testament passages is a result of the deity and purpose I place on the scriptural mandates given to the Jews. I don't believe it was patriarchal and wealth motivated. It is simply that I believe that they (and we) serve a holy God. As ambassadors of His, God chose to set us a part. (This is a well repeated them, especially in Isaiah where God mourns the fact that they have become like the other nations). In His setting us a part, the lifestyle with which He calls us is higher than one which we can meet, simply so that He can provide for our need in that. (Does that make sense? God sets it so high that He has to be God in order for us to be able to live as He has called us to). So His mandate to the Jews was so that He could be their God and provide for them.

I'd agree with your friend here.  But I also think that the law was a *compromise* by God, knowing that people wouldn't actually follow a completely holy law - hence allowing slavery, being patriarchal, and treating women like property.  God knew they wouldn't accept anything else.  Mark 10:1-12 seems to show that Jesus believed that the law was a compromise, because of the Israelite hard hearts.  Perhaps treating women as property transactions in the old law was similar - God felt it wrong, quite likely, but the Israelites wouldn't have accepted the truth here, and God wasn't going to quite give up on them.

The law is certainly not perfect.  Hebrews 7:18-19: "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God."  This is talking about the Levitical law.  God never intended people to think that following it would be the path to God.  This better hope is why Peter is shown he can eat pork, why Paul gets into arguments with people to say that they don't need to be circumcised; both of these were pretty big deals in the law.  We can "ignore" them because by *not* ignoring them we would be trying to use the law when we have something better with which to approach God.  In fact, it would be a sin to teach that following the law in these areas is necessary - it would be going against scripture.  And scripture here is showing a general principle, and is not limited to just pork or circumcision.

Romans 14 is *awesome* for this.  The whole chapter is good, but verses 1-4 introduce it: "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."  Basically, the "weaker brother" in this context was the person who felt you couldn't eat pork, possibly all meat.  The *weaker* brother was the one that couldn't walk in the freedom of Christ.  But Paul is very clear - it's a disputable matter, and doesn't really matter in the end.  And both will go to heaven.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PM
I have also always understood the reference to eunuchs to be those who were unable to reproduce or have sexual intercourse or chose a lifestyle that did not include that (i.e. monks).

Wouldn't a homosexual be choosing not to reproduce, typically?  So that's right but not dressing in accordance with your genitals is wrong?  Weird.  (that said, I don't believe either is wrong, and I suspect this person writing feels homosexuality is wrong but just wasn't very clear here about the distinction)

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PM
Also the passage from Mark needs to be taken into context. The structure of the passage is meant to be an exaggeration. Although there are other places where a radical statement is literal, this passage was in reference to a specific problem He was addressing. And that is that He was dealing with complacent people. How better to wake someone out of apathy than to make a dramatic statement.

By this standard, the entire old testament law is meant to be an exaggeration - a teaching tool.  Galatians 3:24-25: "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."  I guess the question here is, "When did faith come to a Christian?"  If it is at moment of salvation, then it's at moment of salvation - and they should be welcomed to live in faith, rather than by the law.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PM
You are absolutely right in pointing out that God does look at the heart. And I am going to make a general statement that I believe that a lot of our problems comes from the fact that our heart wants to be the hero. In today's society gays, lesbians, and transgenders are heroes. A lot of things are glorified, especially the martyred state of transgenders, gays, etc.  And so we seek after these things, especially the desire to be our own savior.

We also seek after rules we can follow, as a substitute for faith.  Lots of people will make rules the savior.  As for heroism, I believe that would depend on someone's hearts and the reason for doing it - which someone else can't and shouldn't presume to judge.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PM
I believe that feeling the freedom and choice to make changes to our gender or our orientation allows us to feel a sense of being our own savior.

Perhaps for your friend this would be true.  But I would caution your friend against this judgment.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PM
Its a higher standard not a lower standard than having right actions.

Yes, it is to live out of a living relationship with Christ.  I would call your friend out, if I was in your shoes, if your friend doesn't believe that you have faith and a living relationship with Christ, and you do.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PMPlease don't feel judged when I say all this. I only share so that you can better understand why I will always see you as Terri Anne.

There is judgment there, whether the author wants you to feel it or not.  And they can be honest and admit that they have (1) judged you to be in violation of God's will, (2) judged you to be a woman, and (3) judged your heart (being trans is a desire to be your own savior).  That's pretty significant judgment, particularly #3.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PMPlease don't feel judged when I say all this. I only God made you beautiful in His eyes the first time. And to recreate yourself seems to leave you to yourself. I do not deny the struggle you have and the temptations you face now. I have recently come to understand the strength and magnitude of emotions, feelings and thoughts. I have never faced temptations so strong as when Kyle and I started dating and there are things that we have both had to repent of. I tend to be a pretty rational person, so to not be able to control away the desires is difficult for me. I am constantly reminded of my depravity and how much I am failing God, but I have to also trust that He will be my savior in all of this.

There's a huge difference between accepting Christ as savior and not doing anything to change one's own situation.  One is Biblical, one is not.  If I was born poor, I wouldn't say it's not allowing God to be my savior if I found a high paying job and took it.  Certainly, the job would NOT be salvation - and would be irrelevant to salvation.  If I took it to "save myself" rather than depend upon God, yes, it'd be sin.  But a follower of Christ can easily work (Paul did) and not be trusting in work over salvation.  The same goes for accepting one's true gender - that doesn't eliminate the need for Christ in the slightest.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PMWhich means I've been learning not to wear the pants in Kyle's and my relationship.

Hopefully this person means to say that Christ is leading the relationship, not that it requires a male to lead a woman.  But that's a different subject.  Sadly much of the church also gets this wrong.

Quote from: Tad on December 23, 2010, 11:07:50 PMWhich means I've been learning not to wear the
Gah. This is difficult. I know eventually I'll have to give up on trying to make people understand, but I figure everyone gets one free attempt at trying it. Thoughts, opinions, better ways I could have explained this?

I think your response was loving and a demonstration of a Christian's desire to maintain fellowship with others, even when disagreeing over disputable matters.  I also think your friend is acting out of the heart, however sometimes the heart is misguided - but I think your friend cares for you from the letter.  So there may be hope.  That said, if someone didn't accept who I was, I would probably eventually have to leave for my own health - but that's a call you'll have to make.

I've already made my boundaries. I'm dealing with a group of friends here from Bible college that were considered very good friends - big influences in my life. I decided that they would get a few attempts to reason this out with them (more then the average person), but they wouldn't get much more then 2 or 3 letters, and that they would get cut off at any point if it started to stress me out. I don't need people eating away at me. Strangely though, with every letter of this type that I have to answer - I just feel more comfortable and confident... hahaha. My answer just flows out, I don't really have to think about it anymore. The biggest challenge is thinking of words that I can use to try and explain this to individuals who are set in very conservative christianity. (I went to a Bible college that was very conservative - no PDA, no dancing, no watching movies over PG, no being out of dorms after midnight, no alcohol aside from communion, no smoking, etc. etc. etc. We signed a covenent saying we would not do any of this even when at home - til graduation. - So it typically drew the really conservative types).

I'm still waiting on the 'judgements' of a few friends. I got one reply saying that they would have to think about this before they could determine whether they could support me in this or not.

First of all christianity was distorted by Constantine to take control over the populations follwing Yahshua er Jesus.

Some say Peter and paul were spies for the romans and jews to keep and eye on what Yahshua / Jesus was up too.

James his brother and his mother follwed him as any family might feel more inclined to do.

You have to hear from those who have heard from God and that takes those who know the distortions of christianity.

Whatever you do you can still be forgiven if you think its wrong in Gods eyes.

You have to try to understand just really why are you transitioning???

Then and only after these things are realized can you begin to know if your right or wrong.

There are people who believe in three eternal destinies and so they believe those who have never heard the truth won't be condemned for never knowing God and they unlike the christians believe those who don't know ( verses those who deny) will be saved just at a different time.

Quote from: Tad on December 24, 2010, 12:41:25 PM
Strangely though, with every letter of this type that I have to answer - I just feel more comfortable and confident... hahaha. My answer just flows out, I don't really have to think about it anymore.

With respect Tad, Pride comes before a fall, or for the scientifically minded, overconfidence leads to folly.

If you want to make every effort to bring your friends over to you, you might think a bit harder about what you write.

It's easy to push people away with argument. Done that meself with most people. But that just leaves you alone and isolated.

You are a pretty smart fellow and full of confidence. But somehow, I don't see you wanting to be alone.

Sorry if I'm talking out of turn to you. I'm incredably impressed with the reasoning and thought that went into your last exchange. Be sad to waste that now.

Quote from: spacial on December 24, 2010, 02:16:42 PM
With respect Tad, Pride comes before a fall, or for the scientifically minded, overconfidence leads to folly.

If you want to make every effort to bring your friends over to you, you might think a bit harder about what you write.

It's easy to push people away with argument. Done that meself with most people. But that just leaves you alone and isolated.

You are a pretty smart fellow and full of confidence. But somehow, I don't see you wanting to be alone.

Sorry if I'm talking out of turn to you. I'm incredably impressed with the reasoning and thought that went into your last exchange. Be sad to waste that now.

Spacial is right about not wanting to be alone but if your a loner before transitioning chances are you will be one after. Thats the one thing that many don't think about before transitioning. They don't resolve their personal issues and think transitioning will solve everything. I know this to be true because i am a loner (and i always have been) and well for me i will probably always be one due to my being bipolar. I do get along with people in working situations but i am probably destined to be single as i have always been. So make sure your resolving personal issues before transitioning especially at your young age. Myself i found a spirituality that sufices me and being post op and only interested in women who desire a spiritual life leaves me single. However, you need to know that you have built relationships with your friends at college but time will tell if they will let you go due to transitioning and if that is worth the loss.

hugs :-)

PS: i do serve a great purpose in life helping the elderly which is one thing i do well and many can't deal with it. Having a purposeful life is one of the main things all people need to keep on keeping on and know Love of self which is the greatest love of all. One needs to love self before one can ever love another

if your a loner before transitioning chances are you will be one after.

QFT

Matter of fact, you could pretty much make that a universal.
if your a ______ before transitioning chances are you will be one after.

It might change a little bit of what you are, it can not, and does not change who you are.

Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2010, 03:15:03 PM
if your a loner before transitioning chances are you will be one after.

QFT

Matter of fact, you could pretty much make that a universal.
if your a ______ before transitioning chances are you will be one after.

It might change a little bit of what you are, it can not, and does not change who you are.

ahhh haaa   

takes one to know one 

ya guys went off on some tangent that I'm not even following.. O_o. ?

Can't say anywhere that I was demonstrating pride.. confidence yes, but pride no. Confidence is a big thing for me to be gaining, after spending years in hiding out/anxiety groups/social anxiety disorder. Last year I wouldn't have even been able to open an email like this, instead I would have tried to pretend it didn't exist while having a panic attack. Replying would have been an impossible feat, and if somehow I had managed to - I would have paniced until I got a reply back... not been able to sleep... and this would have been about any topic - grades, religion, argument with friends, etc. Transition has gotten rid of that for me. I no longer have to repress and hide, and I can just be me and my confidence has actually become.. like that of a normal individual?

Same with friends - in the end it does not matter if I lose these friends or not, I've made plenty of new friends since then. Transitioning has allowed me to become, confident in myself, able to make new friends, not be scared of people and their judgements of me, to finally just be myself - and this has created a lot of new, great friendships for me.  I don't even see these Bible College friends anymore - just talk to them on facebook/etc. once in a while - I'll likely only see them once or twice again in my lifetime. I KNOW that I will not be able to win them over, all I'm really asking for them is to not judge me - because it's not their place, it is between me and God. However that is likely an impossible task. Just the same I felt the need to give some reasoning, some explanation of why I am at peace with this with God.. so I tried my best to explain it. That's all this is.

BTW, how would you suggest I reply better to not push them away. I can't say that I thought my writing would have such an effect anymore then her writing would. You can't debate a subject like this without being somewhat firm to a side. I mean, in the end, the only way I can see not pushing away is admitting that being trans is wrong.. and go ex-trans.

Can't say anywhere that I was demonstrating pride. . .

I am at peace with this with God.

There.  You see?  You just did it.  As my Jesuit teacher would have told me - and did, repeatedly - the question of how much you're at peace with god is worthless, the only issue is 'Is god at peace with you?"

It makes no difference if I believe in god or not.  It makes a huge difference, if you believe, if god believes in me.

A faith-based person would have written that so god is first, not second, and that, is pride.

Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2010, 06:49:45 PM
Can't say anywhere that I was demonstrating pride. . .

I am at peace with this with God.

There.  You see?  You just did it.  As my Jesuit teacher would have told me - and did, repeatedly - the question of how much you're at peace with god is worthless, the only issue is 'Is god at peace with you?"

It makes no difference if I believe in god or not.  It makes a huge difference, if you believe, if god believes in me.

A faith-based person would have written that so god is first, not second, and that, is pride.

But I can't be at peace with God unless God is at peace with me I believe. (This was discussed in an earlier writing that wasn't posted here). And you can't grammatically restructure that sentance to have God first in the writing. God, I am at peace with, over this issue? Grammatically it's wrong and is just choppy. however.. whatever.

Tad,

I'm sorry, that was me. I do apologise for my presumption. I'm pretty sure you know what you're doing and what you want to achieve.

I assumed you were hoping to bring these friends round to you could keep them. I fully understand now.

Best of luck and have a wonderful Christmas.

I know I'm an idiot - and proud of it - but do this.  Go to your journal or diary or whatever and under the heading, December 24, 2010, write this.

Today a total fool told me I've already lost the faith, I just don't know it yet.

Get back to me in two years and tell me I'm wrong.  But either you're right, or you're bible study buddies are, can't have it both ways.

No problem spacial. I was kinda cofused there.. still am, but it's fine.

If I can keep them I will, I'm not going to work overhard to do it though. If they are going to judge me, I can't see the reason as to why I would want to keep them as friends. Now if I felt there was some truth to their judgement (aka I was in the wrong with God) - I'd want to keep them around to help me get back on the right path, but I can't say that God has given me any sign or conviction that I'm in the wrong here so I will only put up with correspondance for so long before I let this go. Still I partly welcome their arguments in an attempt to perhaps see if I can find conviction, to see if my eyes will be opened to this as sin, I donno... I think it's just to make sure that I have thouroughly investigated my faith and stance on this matter? In essence, I'm trying to make myself vulnerable and open at every point, in case I've just been to calloused to see the truth, opening myself up for the voice of God in case he has more to say on the issue. However, with every correspondance, with every situation in life, all I can find is that I am more at peace on this issue; at Peace with God/He with me.


Edit: Dear Tekla. Still don't get the point of your post - what are I or my bible study buddies wrong about? About trans being wrong? And even if it is wrong or right - does that mean I've lost my faith or they have or whatever?

Matt 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

If god is perfect, then god can not make a mistake.  If god made a mistake, then there is no god as you now have a concept of god.

I have not refered to anything as a mistake and if I did I did not mean so in the presumption you have made. I do not view what I am as a mistake, I am not whether people tell me so or not - no less is a mistake that a man is born blind or deaf. Rather I view myself as an individual that was created flawed in societies eyes and not God's eyes. He made me as he meant to make me. I view the soul, the individual as the item that God really cares about and not the body. The body is just packaging for an individual. The body can have flaws in our eyes - because we as society have standards for what is normal and what isn't. However these flaws do not mean we are not perfect in God's eyes - rather he has built us with challenges to overcome - whether it be to live life with a handicap or find a way to get past the handicap. These circumstances help to shape us as individuals, to become the people we are meant to be.  Since I view myself as an individual in a piece of packaging, changing the packaging doesn't come up as a sin for me.. because it's just a piece of packaging - of no real significance when it comes to relationship with God.  At this point in time, well as in pre transition - I was not able to live withint the world as who I was internally created to be. My body was restricting me, it was causing me to lie about who I really am. If I can show the world the truth of who I really am, shouldn't I be compelled to do so?

I also believe in conceptually understandings of the bible, not literal. That is what I am lead to believe from reading the NT. I follow the basic principles that are outlined throughout the bible, not word for word belief - because there are many many contradictions throughout it, and we must remember that the Bible was written by man, and approved by another group of men. In the end I think it boils down to loving one another - even if one looks at the 10 commandments - if you loved one another, you would commit none of those 10 commandments, because they would be hurting God or hurting another man. And I do believe that's why much of the old testament law can be set aside - while the new testament focus's on faith and living God's love, the old testament was more about following rules to set the chosen peoples apart from other individuals, as well asmany of them  were good basic rules for health at the time. The OT was more a literal following then a conceptual following. However since as  Christian and not a JEw, the Law (OT) is negated through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry if I'm not good at clearly presenting my ideas, it is a flaw of mine. I write rather poorly.

I'm writing this before taking the time to attempt to slog through this thread (your friend is even more wordy than I am!)

One quick point - if you are trying to resolve this within the normative of the Christian Faith, tekla - with all due respect - isn't going to help you do that. Tekla is going to tell you to get over the myths, maybe not directly but still - there's not going to be any real help in finding peace with god about this.

That said...

I think too many people, well intentioned and not untaught though they may be, overlook something very basic about the Christian faith - something god drew a picture on right from the first few chapters of Genesis.

We live in a fallen world where bad things happen. Not because god "makes a mistake" every time there's a tornado or an earthquake or a car wreck - but because the whole system is broken.

One can, of course, have a theological debate about whether god made a mistake to ALLOW the fall to happen, that's for another day. but if your premise is (and this is the premise of the Christian Faith) that the Fall was part of God's ultimate plan and not a mistake, then you need not ascribe any bad thing which derives from that as a mistake.

Among the "bad things" that happen are human disease, illness, deformity, accidents, and birth defects.

Now, in any of these cases - when we have the medical science to alleviate suffering, all mainstream Christianity (JW's aside) believe that we should act.
there is no argument offered, nor would it be rational to offer it, that those who are suffering continue to suffer because God allowed the suffering in the first place. No one says to those with cancer "If god hadn't wanted you to have cancer, he wouldn't have let it happen - therefore we wil not act to try to cure you"

Thus, the proposition that "if you are born into some circumstance in which you are suffering, you should therefore endure the suffering and not act to alleviate it because it's god's will that you endure through suffering"  is clearly and entirely incorrect.

Yet - it seems to me - that is the argument being offered to you (I base this only on your OP, having not read the rest of the thread). you were born female, thus for whatever reason God expects you to endure through the suffering that arises from that, even when a relief for it is available.

The counsel is based on an obviously and demonstrably  false premise.

One can, i suppose, take some other tactic to argue that God would not want us to transition - but the whole business of "you were born like that thus God wants you to stay like that" is laughably easy to disprove to anyone with the tiniest hint of logical thinking about them. (and no cracks about how logical people are not religious please).