Posted on 01/28/2022 9:40:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
“God isn’t perfect.”
YES, He is.
I read the first three words, and quit.
Just a garbage, trash, filth, sewage, crap screed.
The article is a refutation of that & an argument against the idea that transgender surgery is valid.
You’re missing out. It’s a good article.
Let me simplify. You are a 5’7” woman who weights 92 lbs. You believe you are grossly fat. Which is more likely to be telling a lie: Your body or your mind?
You have a penis and Y chromosomes but think you are a woman. Which is more likely to be telling a lie: Your body or your mind?
“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” - Jeremiah 17:9
No. Neither G-d nor “sin” created the lie, and the obsession with the lie, that someone is “in the wrong body”. That is a mental condition, identity dysphoria, based on a lie the person has become convinced of. It can be corrected if the person is willing.
What can these days...it's ALL narrative/propaganda/projection/programming B.S....24/7.
The alternate view (as to why, for example, some of us have poor eyesight) is that we are fallen creatures. Sickness and death and all forms of corruption came into the world because of our sin.
As to gender ... you can be male and also have personality attributes normally associated with being female; and, visa versa. You actually cannot change being male, you are male in every cell of your body. You can maybe suppress being male, but think about it.
Cross-dressing ... the Bible warns us against cross-dressing (Dt 22:5). But, cultures differ from one to another place, and change over time. And, at any given time and place, there are differences in taste as to fashion.
I would say that if you, a man, like wearing female underwear, think about it. Maybe you can get a male version of what you like in female underwear, like silk underwear.
Think about it this way: what if somebody thinks dressing up like a Nazi is sexy. Wouldn’t you think that’s perverted? It’s glorifying power, along with receiving and/or inflicting pain. It is, essentially, demonic. With help, a person should be able to break out of perverted sexual obsessions.
Someone said before there is a stairway to Heaven and a highway to Hell because of the amount to traffic on each one.
XX and XY genetically define 99.9 percent of humans. True intersex (at the chromosome level) might not exist.
Some XXs and XYs are born with premature organs of the opposite sex.
“Ambiguous genitalia isn’t a disease, it’s a disorder of sex development.”
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ambiguous-genitalia/symptoms-causes/syc-20369273
The reference presumes the infant is either XX or XY and discusses the probable reasons for the development or partial development or mere appearance of organs of the opposite sex.
The bring us to XXYs. This accounts for almost all other persons (0.1 percent). These people aren’t intersex. They’re males. They have a Y, which makes them male. They have an extra X, but this extra X doesn’t make them female or make them male and female. It’s just an extra copy of the first X.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/
There are other chromosome-based disorders. To my knowledge, each is associated with people who are either male or female. Males, as per usual with disorders, appear much more at risk of chromosome-based disorders. But, females aren’t totally immune.
Excellent rejoinder!
2. Breaking laws of men has consequences as does obedience to them, likewise breaking laws of men (as well as of nature, even effecting affecting chromosomes). In this case breaking the law of men, working a divorce, resulted in bringing death and ill-effectingaffecting all that was given to men as stewards (yet not leaving man utterly helpless to deal with all effects). Thus final redemption reverses this. "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Romans 8:20-22)
Good point!
3. Mankind's sin" manifests itself in all innocent children. It is just a matter of degrees. But which does not mean that all who are negatively effected affected by choices of others in this life necessarily suffer due to them their own guilt, nor that the beneficiaries of the obedience of others are worthy of such. "For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:17)
Very good observation!
3. We exist as a mere speck in the sea of humanities 6,000+ years; and more so in this vast universe, and a exceedingly brief moment in the expanse of existence. And in which eternity makes up as close to 100% as you can get, and eternity is actually beyond time. Thus we should consider the actions of today in the light of more than today, but the future. But since we do not know all such effects and are not able to make evil work out for good in the final analysis, then we must act according to what we do know, with the word of God defining morality in precepts and principle and it is our choices in light of what we know that we are accountable for. (Rm. 2)
I've encountered this point before - but it was formulated a bit more concisely. I think that you're essentially saying that whatever ills we humans might suffer during our short stay on Earth will count for naught when compared to our (eternal) heavenly life, right?
4. The high and lofty One, who exist inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15) is the only Being who is omniscient (knowing all and from the perspective of eternity) and omnipotent and not limited to time and space, and this is the only one who is able to make what is a negative in this life, and what is objectivity evil, to work out for the good of others (airline crashes have resulted in safer air travel; A disabled child is to work to foster enlargement of hearts and against shallowness and selfishness, etc), and also in the light of eternity. And promises to do so, glory to God. Thus esp. in the final analysis evil is made to work for good, the good of those who love God and Good (by God's grace). "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28)
Yes, this is the place where the hoary old "unfathomable providence" or "divine will" is brought up. Sorry, but for me, that's a cop-out.
5. Thus, as exceedingly finite and fallible creatures who essentially exist in a darkened world with relatively very limited knowledge of our present existence in totality much much less in eternity, cannot stand in judgment of God (who as the Author of life and Source of all that is good, has the right to take it) without presuming omniscience ourselves.
That's little more than a repetition of #4.
[...]
As for negative effects, we would overall be even more shallow and selfish if everyone in this life was health and living without want.
Your weakest argument yet (not counting the fact that #5 is a mere repetition of #4). You are, in essence, saying that "evil" (as manifested in the - I argue: undeserved - illness / birth defect of an innocent child) is necessary to contrast "good." That, without "evil," we wouldn't appreciate "good."
Written in hast before I shovel snow, yet God knows what all the effects will be for even the second I work up today,. glory to Him who needs nothing, and whose command to make Him our God and all that means is for our benefit, versus finite failing creations.
My respect and thanks for a very well thought-out response! I have pointed out a few weaknesses in your argumentation (or maybe I just haven't properly understood you), but will give it some more thought.
Regards,
She has accepted what is happening and now lives life as a boy, since that is exactly what her hormones are telling her.
I suspect the title was worded that way deliberately...
Thanks. If such as that is all you can find then I am doing good!
"I've encountered this point before - but it was formulated a bit more concisely. I think that you're essentially saying that whatever ills we humans might suffer during our short stay on Earth will count for naught when compared to our (eternal) heavenly life, right?"
Not only, but that that the final and correct judgment as to what actually are "ills" can only be in the light of Divine omniscience, omnipotence and Eternity. So one loses a beloved child, and even blames God for it, yet God not only gave that child (and if we are going to blame God for taking something then the question is, how often did we ever thank Him for giving what we irrationally blame Him for taking?), but in taking Him then the God of the Bible did what is right and best in so doing (and saved innocent Canannite kids from becoming as their generationally decadent society). Which if not also manifest as regards this life (you might have heard the story of the man who lost his horse) will be for eternity.
"Yes, this is the place where the hoary old "unfathomable providence" or "divine will" is brought up. Sorry, but for me, that's a cop-out."
Sorry, but if you are going to deal with this subject and the God of the Bible, then you must deal fairly with what the definitive source of revelation of Him says, and all the dimensions of the Big Picture that He exists in and deals with, even if you do not see it or like how the pieces are presently fitting together. Of-course, if one does not want to deal with the God of the Bible as revealed in holy writ, then they can blame whatever conception of deity they choose.
"That's little more than a repetition of #4."
And no less true. Logically, one cannot stand in judgment of any uniquely omniscient and omnipotent Being who can and promises to make all work for what is good and just and yet with mercy, since what is truly good or evil in effect must be judged in the light of the knowledge of such for time and for eternity - unless one at least presumes omniscience.
The issue then becomes the existence of such. In which (as I see it) you have 4 basic (they are subsections) options:
1. Deny there is any intelligent creator, or that this belief (often even as a hypothesis) fails of warrant, that an exceedingly complex yet systematic ordered universe (in which disorder in an aberration), which is finely tuned for our unique life, and including our incredible DNA, came to be without any Creator, that energy created itself, which means pre-existence, a unique attribute of deity, thereby effectively making energy to God.
2. Allow for or believe in an intelligent creator, but deny the such takes a personal interest and management of what this Source creator (watchmaker god), thus while being the Author of laws of nature that govern the universe (violations of which have effects), yet this Source seemingly could care less about instituting moral laws for man, and holding man accountable f for response to the same. 3. Allow for or believe in a creator, but come up with various conceptions of such and how this Source should run the universe (including various proposals in regards to Theodicy), and govern man and respond to him.
4. Believe in the God of the Bible. Since that is the only one I am really going to defend, then I need not really deal with objections to a god that is not based upon that revelation, such as one which only deals with the present, and even only as we see it, and thus what He does and allows is only to be restricted to that minuscule realm and our finite knowledge."My respect and thanks for a very well thought-out response! I have pointed out a few weaknesses in your argumentation (or maybe I just haven't properly understood you), but will give it some more thought. Regards, "
Thanks for the correction. I do not do much proof reading. Came in from the snow and cold for a while since it is coming down so much that it seems futile for now. LIVE UPDATES:......... Powerful Winter Storm Kenan Hammering East Cast..... But God knows!
I agree
RE: Alan, God is Perfect.
Why are you telling Alan? the author of this article, this? He is just quoting the transgender’s arguments, not agreeing with them.
End of my reading.
Although I knew from the headline there would be trouble. And trouble there is! The troubled mind of a God-hater.
RE: I read like 5 words. I am done.
Which five words did you read that made you stop reading?
RE: End of my reading
The author is just quoting the transgender’s arguments, not agreeing with them. This article’s purpose is to refute what made you stop reading.
Okay... Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.