Soldiers of the Cross

[John T]

IamRedeemed,

I am pushing the issue (not trying to annoy you) because I believe from your posts that you may not have expressed yourself clearly, or that you are confusing two distinct items, then adding a third element that is irrelevant to the issue of hermaphr*******: choice of gender identification

The American Heritage Dictionary defines that this way:

1. An anomalous condition in humans and animals in which both male and female reproductive organs and secondary sxl characteristics are present in the same individual.
2. The presence of both male and female reproductive organs in a plant or animal, as in an earthworm or a monoecious plant.

Notice that the dictionary defines it as an anomaly (something unlikely and rare) .

Homosexualism is defined as thus:

a sxl attraction to (or sxl relations with) persons of the s.s.

Please notice the differences: The first term has to do with the genitalia present in the organism, a physical statement; while the second term is a relational statement, having attractions to, or physical intimacy with a person of the s.s..
If you can see that important difference, and it is, then we are on the same terminology track.

Because the latter term is relational, it is a matter of choice. We all choose our friends or associates, and it is in that choice the sin begins or stops.
But the first term is not relational, it is descriptive of a body vis-à-vis, and it is no different than being wrinkly, obese, paralyzed or decrepit.

Where do I get the idea that you are confusing things? Please look at the title of the thread: Ethics and Morality concerning Hermaphr****** Then you wrote

Homsxls claim that fundamentalists are somewhat mute on this topic and run scared whenever the question is raised. They use that line of thought to promote their immoral views and promote tran****derism, which is a psychological challenge, not a physical one.

which is an utterly different topic than what the title says.

For the record, I do agree that Homsxlty is a sin, and in one church, I helped a young man once caught up in that practice to start anew. Likewise is surgical tran****derism. However, because hermaphr*****ism is neither learned, nor mentioned in Scriptures, I prefer to take a neutral stance.

If surgery is needed/considered it is emphatically NOT Tran****der surgery; instead, it is restorative surgery, taking what is there, and making it into whatever the hermaphrodite person and physicians deem best.

Can you understand my position? I do not see it as simplistic as you do, for I see hermaphrodite as a genetic issue.

Shalom

[IamRedeemed]

What you are pushing John, is as Rut called it. Non-sequitors and red herrings. When you actually begin to post according to the actual topic and point of it, I will be happy to respond accordingly, but first you have to arrive to the same page that everyone else is on. You cannot continue to pluck sentences out of my OP, away from their context, and force your own agenda. If you want to do that, start your own thread. Further, you are entitled to your opinion that the title does not match the OP, but I disagree. You point to a portion of the OP and cry foul and claim that the OP and title do not match, but the OP in its entirety most certainly does.

[John T]

Here is how I got mixed up by what you posted in the OP. I take nothing out of context, but break down some areas that had me confused

TITLE
Ethics and Morality concerning hermaphr*******

DEFINITION (1. An anomalous condition in humans and animals in which both male and female reproductive organs and secondary s** characteristics are present in the same individual.
2. The presence of both male and female reproductive organs in a plant or animal. )

Therefore, the rest of the OP should address the issue of morality and ethics of people having the above condition. Unfortunately, it does not.

Postby IamRedeemed on Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:57 pm
Homsxls claim that fundamentalists are somewhat mute on this topic and run scared whenever the question is raised. They use that line of thought to promote their immoral views and promote tran****derism, which is a psychological challenge, not a physical one. (that starts primarily with the entertaining of at some point,(as opposed to the rejection of), impure thoughts.

To whom does the “they “ refer? Is it to hermaphr******* or to Homsexuals?
tran****derism, Introduction of another new and different term DEFINITION FROM WIKIPEDIA the label Tran****der encompasses not only transsexual and Tran****der people but also transvestites, Dr** Qu**ns, dr** k**gs, inters** individuals, and anyone non-conventionally gendered. So now we are using three different terms

As it is with Homsxlty and any other sxl immorality.) So, I thought I would start the topic here, and show that not only are solid Christians able to address the topic, but that we are also not afraid of it.

You use a singular, “the topic” but you have introduced three different terms, and hang them under the umbrella of “immoral views”

So, the question they raise is in a case of persons born with an obvious abnormality as such, which should they choose to be or live their life as? Male or Female?

Now you ambiguously use a plural “they” and there is legitimate question as to what you refer, exactly. Then you say “persons born with an obvious abnormality ” and the definition of such a person is Herm*aphro*ditism. Then you use the pronoun “they” and the closest noun is describing Herm*aphro*ditism

I find the answer to be pretty straightforward. I'm not sure why people think this would be such a conundrum.

Therein lies the problem: You throw out three different terms, and say “the answer is straightforward”

DNA identifies each of us as male or female. So, it is not a matter of "feelings" or "preference". Science is a dependable witness. On a side note, I also believe it is a parent's duty to such a child to address this issue early to begin with. It is not something someone should have to grow up with and then try to sort out. By then, there would obviously be some deep seated mental issues. I believe that any parent who would neglect to address this responsibility early is truly guilty of criminal negligence. (in the case of finances, at least here in the US and other non-third world countries, where there is a will, there is a way, so that is no excuse. I am speaking generally as rule, there are always going to be exceptions, ie., poverty in third world countries, so please don't even go there if you are going to try to rebut my take on it. Stick to modern society because in reality, that is where this debate is taking place anyway.)

This paragraph is all over the place; it begins with DNA, moves to parents, then mental illness and concludes with modern society. You should limit the thoughts in a paragraph to one.

So, since DNA is the vehicle that clears the road of confusion, DNA should be sought. Once the sox is determined then of course the next step would be corrective surgery. End of issue, problem solved.

I know that this analysis might “annoy you off” but that is NOT my purpose. I wanted to point out the confusion inherent in your post through the usage of different terms, and perhaps your assuming that they were all the same. That’s OK we all make mistakes.

Each of these three groups you mention have to be treated differently. I made my position clear on those with birth defects.

The other two are psychological behavioral issues: choices. Surgery can not change behavior. What it can do is enhance the physical attributes, primarily the secondary soxual apparatus unique to each gender. And since bad behavior is addressed in the Bible, it is proper to address inappropriate soxual behavioral (according to the Bible) as sin.

So, the bottom line Iamredeemed is that we are closer than you first believed, especially if the definitions are made clear, and not jumbled.

Still friends?

[IamRedeemed]

Here is how I got mixed up by what you posted in the OP. I take nothing out of context, but break down some areas that had me confused

TITLE
Ethics and Morality concerning hermaphr*******

DEFINITION (1. An anomalous condition in humans and animals in which both male and female reproductive organs and secondary s** characteristics are present in the same individual.
2. The presence of both male and female reproductive organs in a plant or animal. )

Therefore, the rest of the OP should address the issue of morality and ethics of people having the above condition. Unfortunately, it does not.

Postby IamRedeemed on Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:57 pm
Homsxls claim that fundamentalists are somewhat mute on this topic and run scared whenever the question is raised. They use that line of thought to promote their immoral views and promote tran****derism, which is a psychological challenge, not a physical one. (that starts primarily with the entertaining of at some point,(as opposed to the rejection of), impure thoughts.

To whom does the “they “ refer? Is it to hermaphr******* or to Homsexuals?

I already cleared that up for you in my last post, when I pointed out that you plucked one sentence out of its context twice attempting to make it "appear" I was saying something that I wasn't so that you could continue down the path of your agenda and avoid dealing with the actual topic head on. IN CONTEXT who I am referring to is quite clear. It only becomes unclear when you pluck my sentence (in two previous posts) OUT of their context.

Please read the OP again, slow-ly and in good conscience. It is not the jumbled mess you believe it is.


tran****derism, Introduction of another new and different term DEFINITION FROM WIKIPEDIA the label Tran****der encompasses not only transsexual and Tran****der people but also transvestites, Dr** Qu**ns, dr** k**gs, inters** individuals, and anyone non-conventionally gendered. So now we are using three different terms

However, we are not discussing three different topics though. Please refer yourself again to the OP and see how the other two terms correlate in the actual point of the topic.

As it is with Homsxlty and any other sxl immorality.) So, I thought I would start the topic here, and show that not only are solid Christians able to address the topic, but that we are also not afraid of it.

You use a singular, “the topic” but you have introduced three different terms, and hang them under the umbrella of “immoral views”

See the statement I just made above.

So, the question they raise is in a case of persons born with an obvious abnormality as such, which should they choose to be or live their life as? Male or Female?

Now you ambiguously use a plural “they” and there is legitimate question as to what you refer, exactly. Then you say “persons born with an obvious abnormality ” and the definition of such a person is hermaphr*******. Then you use the pronoun “they” and the closest noun is describing hermaphr*******.

It is not ambiguous. It is clear that the Homsxl faction challenges the Fundamental Christians with this topic because they believe it will cause a conundrum and they claim that Christians are "mute or run away scared" any time they bring it up. They, (the Homsxl faction), believe that if they can succeed in that, then they can use it to justify tran****derism, which in turn they use to justify Homsxlty. This topic has been started to show that their (the Homsxl faction's) belief IS FALSE. That Christians are not mute on the topic, that they do have a moral and ethical response and that the topic does not scare them. Do you have a hold of it now?

I find the answer to be pretty straightforward. I'm not sure why people think this would be such a conundrum.

Therein lies the problem: You throw out three different terms, and say “the answer is straightforward”

Read my above statements in this post that already addresses that erroneous charge.

DNA identifies each of us as male or female. So, it is not a matter of "feelings" or "preference". Science is a dependable witness. On a side note, I also believe it is a parent's duty to such a child to address this issue early to begin with. It is not something someone should have to grow up with and then try to sort out. By then, there would obviously be some deep seated mental issues. I believe that any parent who would neglect to address this responsibility early is truly guilty of criminal negligence. (in the case of finances, at least here in the US and other non-third world countries, where there is a will, there is a way, so that is no excuse. I am speaking generally as rule, there are always going to be exceptions, ie., poverty in third world countries, so please don't even go there if you are going to try to rebut my take on it. Stick to modern society because in reality, that is where this debate is taking place anyway.)

This paragraph is all over the place; it begins with DNA, moves to parents, then mental illness and concludes with modern society. You should limit the thoughts in a paragraph to one.

The OP is thorough, but it is not "all over the place." Everyone else involved in this thread, completely understood what was being said. I would have to say that based on that alone, the problem more than likely has to do with your viewpoint. Maybe you should try tilting your head to the right a little when you read it next time. Just a suggestion.

So, since DNA is the vehicle that clears the road of confusion, DNA should be sought. Once the sox is determined then of course the next step would be corrective surgery. End of issue, problem solved.

I know that this analysis might “annoy you off” but that is NOT my purpose. I wanted to point out the confusion inherent in your post through the usage of different terms, and perhaps your assuming that they were all the same. That’s OK we all make mistakes.

LOL! I hope you will be as gracious to concede that the errors are yours in many ways when you come to that knowledge. I have not confused the terms, that I can assure you. You have apparently "speed read" my post and glossed over some of the keywords that would have proven invaluable to you in helping you to comprehend the full content of the post in its actual context.

But if you start reading something with a predetermined mindset, what you have is a pretext and it forces you to be blinded to the context. And I believe that is what occurred here.

Each of these three groups you mention have to be treated differently. I made my position clear on those with birth defects.

The other two are psychological behavioral issues: choices. Surgery can not change behavior. What it can do is enhance the physical attributes, primarily the secondary sxl apparatus unique to each gender. And since bad behavior is addressed in the Bible, it is proper to address inappropriate sxl behavioral (according to the Bible) as sin.

So, the bottom line Iamredeemed is that we are closer than you first believed, especially if the definitions are made clear, and not jumbled.

Still friends?

We'll see...lol

Now that you have made your position clear on the two we are not discussing, perhaps we will finally be able to discuss the actual topic. Which incidently, I believe that through it all, you have already revealed your viewpoint as in opposition to parents doing the compassionate, responsible, ethical and moral thing for their child based on non-variable information. In other words, doing the right thing. But just so you know, I believe it would be just as unethical and immoral for the parents of a hermaphrodite to turn their child into something according to their own preference as it would be for us to do it to ourselves. Just for FYI I would also like to mention a fact that your earthworm reference fails to mention. MOST Hermaphr****** are infertile. Such is not the case with earthworms. Earthworms ARE naturally the way they are. But when it happens to a human that is unnatural. It is the ethical and moral responsibility of such a one's parents, as Rut said, to make every effort to restore the child to what they should be. Just like you and I, what they should be their chromosomes will dictate, just as ours do, the vast majority of the time. Do not attempt to use unreasonable logic by throwing up extreme cases. Those have to be considered as individually as they are as to what should be done and everything carefully considered and every fact there is to be gathered is gathered before anyone should do anything. To look to apply a liberal application to all, based on an extreme possibility or extreme rarity of some of these cases, would not be ethical or moral. Let us reasonably evaluate the overall picture and then after we accomplish that, we can discuss the extreme rarities. Fair enough?

[Rut]

We can make it very straightforward and simple. If the child has the chromosomes XY he a male and the corrective surgery should be in that direction. If the child's chromosomes are XX, she is female and the corrective surgery should be toward female. End of argument. Anything else is wrong and immoral.