Are Transgender People Sinners? Theists?

[DuraGizer]

Chaos is a cruel, insane god - It likes nothing more than to see It's creation suffer. Transgenderism is just part and parcel of this twisted unintelligent design.

[Whag]

Chaos is a cruel, insane god - It likes nothing more than to see It's creation suffer. Transgenderism is just part and parcel of this twisted unintelligent design.

You'd think God would know the curse would cause homosexuality and the intersexed and be a little more understanding about it.

[ZackMartin]

Chaos is a cruel, insane god - It likes nothing more than to see It's creation suffer. Transgenderism is just part and parcel of this twisted unintelligent design.

Is trangenderism purely negative? Sure, it involves a lot of suffering and unpleasantness, and I think any transgender person would much rather they had been born in the "right" gender to begin with, than to be transgender.

But maybe something good comes of that suffering? I can think of some possible good things to come out of it. Maybe it is an opportunity for society to learn to be more accepting of difference. Maybe it teaches us a deeper understanding of gender and human psychology. It could serve other goods we are unaware of at present. If good can come out of it, maybe God created it intentionally as a way of producing that good?

My own belief is, God creates every evil and all suffering, but God creates evil and suffering as a means, not as an end, so all evil and all suffering is necessary somehow for some greater good.

[Rolo megatheist]

If good can come out of it, maybe God created it intentionally as a way of producing that good?

I think part of the confusion people have on this issue as evidenced by your above quote is the idea that God created transsexuals, homosexuals, etc. The problem with such a view is that it confuses God's role as primary creator of the universe with the effects of the Fall. While God did in fact create the Universe with all the matter and energy in it, he did not originally design it to includes transsexualism. Things like transsexualism only arose when God's design was muddled by the effects of sin. At best things like transsexualism can only be described as deviant variants on God's original design.

[Whag]

I think part of the confusion people have on this issue as evidenced by your above quote is the idea that God created transsexuals, homosexuals, etc. The problem with such a view is that it confuses God's role as primary creator of the universe with the effects of the Fall. While God did in fact create the Universe with all the matter and energy in it, he did not originally design it to includes transsexualism. Things like transsexualism only arose when God's design was muddled by the effects of sin. At best things like transsexualism can only be described as deviant variants on God's original design.

"Muddled by the effects of sin"? How exactly does human action corrupt biology, and how would you explain birth defects in the fossil record that antedate human beings by hundreds of millions of years?

[Rolo megatheist]

"Muddled by the effects of sin"? How exactly does human action corrupt biology

Human actions themselves didn't necessarily corrupt biology, but the consequences of human actions. In this case, man sinned and God punished mankind by forcing man to live in a fallen world where everything from human biology to psychology has been corrupted.

How would you explain birth defects in the fossil record that antedate human beings by hundreds of millions of years?

As someone who leans on the side of theistic evolution, I would say that those simply represent hominids or other creatures that existed before God's crowning creation of Man in his own image. The fall left what was supposed to be God's own image tarnished.

[Whag]

Human actions themselves didn't necessarily corrupt biology, but the consequences of human actions. In this case, man sinned and God punished mankind by forcing man to live in a fallen world where everything from human biology to psychology has been corrupted.

Pardon, but I still don't understand. Did the curse entail God's corrupting DNA (making it "fallen")? I'm confused only because thorns aren't a corruption or defect of botany but simply a mutation that ends up extending the lives of some plants. Girrafes, for example, aren't deterred in the least by thorns.

As someone who leans on the side of theistic evolution, I would say that those simply represent hominids or other creatures that existed before God's crowning creation of Man in his own image. The fall left what was supposed to be God's own image tarnished.

There's no evidence for that, but ok.
Btw, to lean toward evolution is like saying you lean toward geocentrism or deep time. It's as certain as scientific theories get.

[Rolo megatheist]

Pardon, but I still don't understand. Did the curse entail God's corrupting DNA (making it "fallen")? I'm confused only because thorns aren't a corruption or defect of botany but simply a mutation that ends up extending the lives of some plants. Girrafes, for example, aren't deterred in the least by thorns.

Yes, it would have an effect on the biology or DNA of post-Adamic humanity. Since I believe Genesis to be "myth" so to speak the thorns and thistles represent the fact that Man will no longer have an easy time working the land the way they did before the curse.


There's no evidence for that, but ok.
Btw, to lean toward evolution is like saying you lean toward geocentrism or deep time. It's as certain as scientific theories get.

Yes, there is. The evidence can be found both in the world around us and the Bible which I would argue are both reliable sources of information pertaining to the nature of our world. Also when I say I lean theistic evolution I'm not denying the compelling evidence for evolution, rather, I'm simply stating my theological position on the relationship between the Bible and empirical data about the natural world.

[Whag]

Yes, it would have an effect on the biology or DNA of post-Adamic humanity. Since I believe Genesis to be "myth" so to speak the thorns and thistles represent the fact that Man will no longer have an easy time working the land the way they did before the curse.

There's no evidence for land being easier to tend tens of thousands of years ago. The earth has always been uncooperative in bringing forth harvests because of the unpredictability of climate, competition, and limited resources.

Yes, there is. The evidence can be found both in the world around us.

In what way? Certainly there's no evidence for this utopian time in archaeology, anthropology, or paleontology.

and the Bible which I would argue are both reliable sources of information pertaining to the nature of our world.

I agree that science is a reliable source of information pertaining to the nature of our world. Science has no record of this period of time when land was easier to tend, so I'm not sure what you mean by the "world" demonstrating this through evidence. What evidence?

Also when I say I lean theistic evolution I'm not denying the compelling evidence for evolution, rather, I'm simply stating my theological position on the relationship between the Bible and empirical data about the natural world.

In that case, I don't understand what you mean by "lean," since you believe a) God exists and b) evolution is true. Theistic evolution is the only interpretation that makes teleological sense in that regard. Is there a reason you lean toward rather than commit to theistic evolution?

[Whag]

Sorry, what I said was stupid:

" The earth has always been uncooperative in bringing forth harvests because of the unpredictability of climate, competition, and limited resources."

Climate and competition can prevent and/or destroy big yields. "limited resources" makes no sense. I meant that, by default, resources are limited and there's no evidence that humankind experienced large-scale providence and protection. That seems to be your thesis.

[Rolo megatheist]

There's no evidence for land being easier to tend tens of thousands of years ago. The earth has always been uncooperative in bringing forth harvests because of the unpredictability of climate, competition, and limited resources.

If you mean there's no evidence from archaeology,anthropology, or paleontology I would agree that we don't currently find any evidence for Adam or the Garden of Eden, but absence of such evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Like I said I take the Bible to be another reliable source of information about our world which I'm using for the sake of this discussion on transgenders. If you want to talk about the reliability of the Bible that's a whole other issue.

In that case, I don't understand what you mean by "lean," since you believe a) God exists and b) evolution is true. Theistic evolution is the only interpretation that makes teleological sense in that regard. Is there a reason you lean toward rather than commit to theistic evolution?

I say lean, because although I find compelling, legitimate reasons to at least see the opening chapters as "myth" and to accept evolution, I haven't looked into the issue with nearly as much depth as I'd like to at least for now.

[Whag]

If you mean there's no evidence from archaeology,anthropology, or paleontology I would agree that we don't currently find any evidence for Adam or the Garden of Eden, but absence of such evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Like I said I take the Bible to be another reliable source of information about our world which I'm using for the sake of this discussion on transgenders. If you want to talk about the reliability of the Bible that's a whole other issue.



I say lean, because although I find compelling, legitimate reasons to at least see the opening chapters as "myth" and to accept evolution, I haven't looked into the issue with nearly as much depth as I'd like to at least for now.

If you haven't studied natural history with any depth, it might be premature to make claims about the specific role god plays in determining sexuality. The presence of biblical myth and metaphor that you acknowledged should inspire caution about making such sure teleological claims.

One must have a decent idea of the story contained in the earth's crust and biology before saying he knows what god did and didn't do with respect to mammalian sexual development, IMHO.

[Rolo megatheist]

I'm well aware of the fossil record and such, but I don't find it challenges a theistic evolutionist understanding of Genesis. I see no reason why the fact that the opening chapters of Genesis are "myth" means I must be cautious in using them to make theological claims. When I say myth I'm referring to the fact that the opening chapters of Genesis present a simplified, non-scientific account of creation. That does not mean they present a false or wrong account of creation. That said Genesis does present us with certain fundamental truths about God and the world around us.

[Whag]

I'm well aware of the fossil record and such, but I don't find it challenges a theistic evolutionist understanding of Genesis.

That's why "leaning" toward theistic evolution is unduly cautious. Evolution occured. You believe God exists. Therefore God would have to have created through a succession of steps because that's what the evidence clearly shows.

I see no reason why the fact that the opening chapters of Genesis are "myth" means I must be cautious in using them to make theological claims. When I say myth I'm referring to the fact that the opening chapters of Genesis present a simplified, non-scientific account of creation. That does not mean they present a false or wrong account of creation.

I would disagree with you there. Clearly, it is false that the first human female was extracted from the first human male's rib, and the metaphoric significance of that hasn't been clearly explained as far as I have seen. You can say the same thing about other Genesis events such as Babel, which describes the multiplication of languages as thwarting a large-scale human project. Clearly human beings are innovative enough to get projects going even with language barriers. The deluge is also false. Even if local, it's pretty dubious that a cosmic conscious was behind the catastrophe. Catastrophes are part and parcel of a dynamic planet.

That said Genesis does present us with certain fundamental truths about God and the world around us.

Which fundamental truths are you referring to?

[Leonhard]

Its a technological problem. We don't have the power, currently, to turn a biological male, into a biological female. The question remains whether a 30% solution, that can be done with the best plastic surgery so far, and hormones, is a good solution to people with gender dysphoria. The day a one hundred percent solutions exists, where there's no (except for surgical scars from the procedure itself) any difference between the post operative female and a natural born woman, there won't be any further discussion about this.