We need a good topic to fight over.

voicecrying said:
Chopping off healthy body parts is abuse as well.

I've known kids at much younger ages say they want to get married right then. We laugh it off. Why is it OK to take a 13 year old seriously when he or she wants to change genders?

I've also known little kids say they wanted to be the other gender but are perfectly happy in their scientific gender as adults.
Click to expand...
So is "chopping off body parts" of Intersex kids bad as well? How about circumcisions?
 
HukNduck said:
That’s based on your modern societal norms, but if you had lived a hundred years ago, it wouldn’t necessarily be true. In fact, I had a great grandmother who was married at 14 years of age and another who was married at 16. A hundred years ago in rural areas of the South, it wasn’t very uncommon for such practices.
Click to expand...

And this actually makes an extremely valid point: culture is a big factor in determining what is or isn't ethical or even moral. But changes happen so how do we know that since medical science is learning more about transgenderism, that corrective surgeries won't eventually become the ethical thing to do for younger trans folks?

FYI, I've said over and over that this decision should not be made by a child. This is why they should get medical and mental health advice (not simply looking for a confirmation bias) as well as parental permission before making such a big decision.

But it isn't government's job to deny families in their choice to make that decision.
 
voicecrying said:
Circumcision actually lowers the risk of UTIs.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But it is also a "chopping off of body parts". How do you know a boy might want his foreskin back as an adult?

(yeah, I'm being corny.)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
And this actually makes an extremely valid point: culture is a big factor in determining what is or isn't ethical or even moral. But changes happen so how do we know that since medical science is learning more about transgenderism, that corrective surgeries won't eventually become the ethical thing to do for younger trans folks?
Click to expand...
That’s not difficult to answer: the Bible says that God created us in his own image. It doesn’t discuss whether 16 or 18 or 28 are the appropriate marital ages.
 
HukNduck said:
That’s not difficult to answer: the Bible says that God created us in his own image. It doesn’t discuss whether 16 or 18 or 28 are the appropriate marital ages.
Click to expand...
Genesis says God created male and female in his image, "male and female he created them". There is Jewish midrash that points out Adam and Eve were a conjoined being, one creature. The Hebrew word translated "rib" in the KJV actually means "side" in Hebrew. this is also why they believe men have estrogen and women have testosterone and recognized up to 6-8 different genders, all of which were created "in his image".

Concerning marriage, you are correct. But robbing convenience stores at gunpoint isn't mentioned either, That doesn't mean it is OK to do. In addition, biblical text was penned in a culture and era where women were literal property and girls were "married off" as business transactions. Doesn't make that right either.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Genesis says God created male and female in his image, "male and female he created them". There is Jewish midrash that points out Adam and Eve were a conjoined being, one creature. The Hebrew word translated "rib" in the KJV actually means "side" in Hebrew. this is also why they believe men have estrogen and women have testosterone and recognized up to 6-8 different genders, all of which were created "in his image".
Click to expand...
Except that the scriptures state in multiple places that Adam was created 1st and Eve 2nd.
 
voicecrying said:
Except that the scriptures state in multiple places that Adam was created 1st and Eve 2nd.
Click to expand...
And this is where problems come into play. The Torah stands on its own. That IS the context as determined by how it would be understood by the ORIGINAL reader. When other passages don't align with original context, we have inconsistency, if now downright contradiction.

FYI, I'm Ok with such inconsistencies and recognize them as such. I don't have to do acrobatics to force misc. passages together to make sure my ideology is confirmed. I'm even good with disagreeing with the Bible which is why I won't support slavery or genocide, even though both are contextually "biblical".
 
Smellin Coffee said:
And this is where problems come into play. The Torah stands on its own. That IS the context as determined by how it would be understood by the ORIGINAL reader. When other passages don't align with original context, we have inconsistency, if now downright contradiction.

FYI, I'm Ok with such inconsistencies and recognize them as such. I don't have to do acrobatics to force misc. passages together to make sure my ideology is confirmed. I'm even good with disagreeing with the Bible which is why I won't support slavery or genocide, even though both are contextually "biblical".
Click to expand...

The Torah clearly states Adam was created 1st and then Eve. There is no inconsistency or contradiction with that in any other scripture.

Where does the Bible support slavery (and by slavery, I suspect you mean the Roots/Kunta Kinte version)?
 
Smellin Coffee said:
And this is where problems come into play. The Torah stands on its own. That IS the context as determined by how it would be understood by the ORIGINAL reader. When other passages don't align with original context, we have inconsistency, if now downright contradiction.

FYI, I'm Ok with such inconsistencies and recognize them as such. I don't have to do acrobatics to force misc. passages together to make sure my ideology is confirmed. I'm even good with disagreeing with the Bible which is why I won't support slavery or genocide, even though both are contextually "biblical".
Click to expand...
It’s my opinion that the vast majority of people who use this “slavery” argument against the Biblical view of morality don’t actually care a whole lot about context, but rather are just looking to justify their biases.
 
voicecrying said:
The Torah clearly states Adam was created 1st and then Eve. There is no inconsistency or contradiction with that in any other scripture.

Where does the Bible support slavery (and by slavery, I suspect you mean the Roots/Kunta Kinte version)?
Click to expand...
I trust Jewish interpretation of Torah for context over Christian since Christianity misuses Jewish texts to try to give itself confirmation bias.

For the second point, simple Wikipedia search would do some good.

en.wikipedia.org

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
ALAYMAN said:
It’s my opinion that the vast majority of people who use this “slavery” argument against the Biblical view of morality don’t actually care a whole lot about context, but rather are just looking to justify their biases.
Click to expand...

I also would contend that using the Bible as confirmation bias is the very nature of all religions that base their faith practices on the Bible, so you aren't wrong.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
I also would contend that using the Bible as confirmation bias is the very nature of all religions that base their faith practices on the Bible, so you aren't wrong.
Click to expand...
It’s an imperfect world, which has been stated by better theologians than me as being the most empirically verifiable fact of mankind.😉 That doesn’t mean we should conflate meanings of words like “slavery”.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
I trust Jewish interpretation of Torah for context over Christian since Christianity misuses Jewish texts to try to give itself confirmation bias.

For the second point, simple Wikipedia search would do some good.

en.wikipedia.org

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
It seems Genesis is pretty clear to anyone that Adam was created and then Eve. Really not much to interpret there.

Your link doesn't show that the Bible supports the Roots/Kunta Kinte slavery. Got anything better?
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Genesis says God created male and female in his image, "male and female he created them". There is Jewish midrash that points out Adam and Eve were a conjoined being, one creature. The Hebrew word translated "rib" in the KJV actually means "side" in Hebrew. this is also why they believe men have estrogen and women have testosterone and recognized up to 6-8 different genders, all of which were created "in his image".
Click to expand...
I’m guessing that you didn’t realize that “made in God’s image,” doesn’t mean in a physical sense, but rather spiritual….
 
HukNduck said:
I’m guessing that you didn’t realize that “made in God’s image,” doesn’t mean in a physical sense, but rather spiritual….
Click to expand...

Well, the first three chapters of Genesis are myth anyway (they are symbolic due to them being written as Hebrew poetry) so yeah, it isn't literal. The imagery is taken as to how the subject views it. That what happens with art forms (music, art, poetry, etc.)

But the lesson (for me) still stands: we observe those who (parabolically) are created in God's image and view them as if we were looking at the Creator/Originator itself. IOW, we treat the marginalized in society with the dignity and respect we would treat a deity. Jesus pretty much backed up that idea in Matthew 25 when he referred to our treatment of "the least of these".


Again, I trust Judaism's teachings about Torah over Christianity's, not in the matter of being truth, but rather in the place of better interpretation due to cultural experience and direct teachings of Torah. IOW, Judaism is the best source of contextual commentary that Funda/gelicalism chooses to misrepresent to spout their relative agendas.

So "if" Adam and Eve were represented in Genesis 1 as a singular being, it shows a non-binary was the original creation and gives "image bearer" application to ALL of the recognizable (and perhaps non-recognizable) genders.

 
No offense intended Smellin’, but it seriously appears you have your own religion going there. One that you are the sole arbiter of its meaning and practice, and one that is so squishy-reactionary that it screams of your opposition to much of what you saw and experienced at FBCH/HAC. It’s a free country and I’m a libertarian-leaning soul-liberty- lovin’ baptist, so more power to ya, but your postmodernism and relativism just isn’t convincing.
 
ALAYMAN said:
No offense intended Smellin’, but it seriously appears you have your own religion going there. One that you are the sole arbiter of its meaning and practice, and one that is so squishy-reactionary that it screams of your opposition to much of what you saw and experienced at FBCH/HAC. It’s a free country and I’m a libertarian-leaning soul-liberty- lovin’ baptist, so more power to ya, but your postmodernism and relativism just isn’t convincing.
Click to expand...


No offense taken because you are making a very truthful observation about me. I would add to that in the end, we ALL are arbiters of our own truth: we gravitate toward beliefs that best fit our bias. The difference between mine and say, Evangelicals' is twofold: 1. I admit I am arbiter of what I choose to believe and 2. I don't get my interpretations from a singular source with a specifically-guided hermeneutic.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that my purpose is NOT to convince you or anyone else that I have the source to truth and that you don't. I don't care to convince anybody to adhere to my belief system because my system is geared toward me specifically. I'm just identifying with everyone differences I have come to as opposed to what I held in the past. Believe me or don't, really doesn't matter to me nor does it affect me in any way. The LAST thing I want is to be looked at as some kind of spiritual guru.

You are welcome to carry on as you choose and point out my flaws (of which there are many, I'm sure) and I will continue to point out flaws AS I SEE THEM in Funda/gelicalism, whether anyone on this platforms agrees or not. Doesn't mean my critique is right or that it won't change but it is my honest critique in the moment.
 
ALAYMAN said:
It’s an imperfect world, which has been stated by better theologians than me as being the most empirically verifiable fact of mankind.😉 That doesn’t mean we should conflate meanings of words like “slavery”.
Click to expand...


The "Christian" position is whatever it takes to justify slavery. Just like MacArthur...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top