|
Post by princess on Nov 27, 2022 19:55:13 GMT
What distinguishes "gender" from "sex" is not hard to explain or comprehend!
Gender is a view that sees the person as a disunity between mind, body and soul while sex is a view that sees the person as a unity of mind body and soul. To be even more precise the idea of gender merged the mind and soul together where the true person is a thinking soul residing in a meatsuit of the body.
Can the soul supply a coherent definition of what it means to be male or female? Nope! Can the soul supply a coherent definition of marriage? Nope! No coherent meaning can ever be derived from the soul because the soul cannot be observed.
This is the entire point of gender as opposed to sex.
Is transgenderism the product of sex or gender? Answer: gender! Is transgenderism the view of people who embrace what is predetermined or self determined? Answer: What is self determined! Just work your way backwards!
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 10, 2022 21:21:27 GMT
What distinguishes "gender" from "sex" is not hard to explain or comprehend! Gender is a view that sees the person as a disunity between mind, body and soul while sex is a view that sees the person as a unity of mind body and soul. To be even more precise the idea of gender merged the mind and soul together where the true person is a thinking soul residing in a meatsuit of the body. Can the soul supply a coherent definition of what it means to be male or female? Nope! Can the soul supply a coherent definition of marriage? Nope! No coherent meaning can ever be derived from the soul because the soul cannot be observed. This is the entire point of gender as opposed to sex. Is transgenderism the product of sex or gender? Answer: gender! Is transgenderism the view of people who embrace what is predetermined or self determined? Answer: What is self determined! Just work your way backwards! I agree that the current transgender phenomena is "self-determined," and is an attempt by people to align who they are, ie their soul, with the gender they prefer to assume. And I think I agree that the soul stands independent of the body, and thus resides in the body. We are not, in the end, male or female. We are simply human spirits encased by whatever body God chooses to give us. If God puts us in a female body, then we are a female. If He puts us in a male body, then we are a male. But if He put us in a male body, we cannot change our identity to female simply out of self-determination. God determines what body He wants us to have--not us!
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Dec 11, 2022 18:26:51 GMT
Wow. I hope you understand that you completely misrepresented my entire point? I also hope you understand your claim ends up supporting transgenderism? To make matters worse, this ends up supporting the reincarnational worldview of an androgynous soul.
Are you willing to admit that maybe just maybe sexual sin is blinding you?
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 13, 2022 3:12:29 GMT
Wow. I hope you understand that you completely misrepresented my entire point? I also hope you understand your claim ends up supporting transgenderism? To make matters worse, this ends up supporting the reincarnational worldview of an androgynous soul. Are you willing to admit that maybe just maybe sexual sin is blinding you? Not at all. To be honest, it's very difficult to even know what princess was saying. I was just trying to relate. And it's hard to tell the difference between Naama and princess--are you two separate people or one using two names? I wouldn't even use gender and sex the way princess is using the terms. To me, gender is simply whether you're male or female, determined by whatever body and its sexuality God happens to put the soul into. We are told that in the resurrection we will be genderless. Therefore, the soul will one day not be determined by the sexual body we were given. That's all I was saying. Sex can used for either gender or for intimate relations. Intimate relations can take place in either heterosexual or homosexual ways. Therefore, the word "sex" must be distinguished from "gender." I don't understand all of the technical jargon princess is utilizing, or where she's even coming from? I would have to suppose she believes a person should remain in the gender they were given when our soul joined the sexual body we were given? And I would suppose she believes sexual relations should only take place in a heterosexual manner? But for the life of me I don't understand this preoccupation with sexuality? From the start here on this forum there has been a regular focus upon sexuality and gender--perhaps I'm just getting too old and not keeping up with the current topics?
|
|
|
Post by princess on Dec 15, 2022 12:55:05 GMT
Sex and sexuality is the largest single issue Randy because sexual sin denies objective reality. Sorry, there is no way around this, and you keep proving my point.
There are two sexes and zero genders. But to arrive at this gender phony baloney requires the separation of the soul from the body...which is what sexual sin does. Sexual sin is a form of mental illness that causes people to deny objective reality by way of spiritualizing meaning away.
I am a woman in the unity of mind body and soul but you cannot accept reality and have to unsex me. Mmmmm...I wonder why? Your next statement sums it up nicely: "Sex can used for either gender or for intimate relations. Intimate relations can take place in either heterosexual or homosexual ways"
This is phony baloney. Sexual intercourse can only take place between two sexes. Pretty simple if you ask me! Everything else is masturbation.
To claim we are sexless or genderless in the resurrection is incorrect. Jesus appeared in his own resurrected body and was still male (John 20–21) (John 20:15). Jesus’s resurrected body is the first fruits of our own resurrected bodies (1 Corinthians 15:20).
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 18, 2022 7:38:52 GMT
Sex and sexuality is the largest single issue Randy because sexual sin denies objective reality. Sorry, there is no way around this, and you keep proving my point. There are two sexes and zero genders. But to arrive at this gender phony baloney requires the separation of the soul from the body...which is what sexual sin does. Sexual sin is a form of mental illness that causes people to deny objective reality by way of spiritualizing meaning away. I am a woman in the unity of mind body and soul but you cannot accept reality and have to unsex me. Mmmmm...I wonder why? Your next statement sums it up nicely: "Sex can used for either gender or for intimate relations. Intimate relations can take place in either heterosexual or homosexual ways" This is phony baloney. Sexual intercourse can only take place between two sexes. Pretty simple if you ask me! Everything else is masturbation. To claim we are sexless or genderless in the resurrection is incorrect. Jesus appeared in his own resurrected body and was still male (John 20–21) (John 20:15). Jesus’s resurrected body is the first fruits of our own resurrected bodies (1 Corinthians 15:20). Jesus was resurrected in his old male body. He had not yet received his glorified body, which would be genderless. You make so many errant statements I can't keep up with them! 1) You're wrong. Obviously, sexual intercourse takes place between 2 of the same sex. That's what homosexuals do! 2) I have never "unsexed you," whatever that means! I don't even know how you're defining the difference between gender and sex. I gave you my definitions. But you just make assertions, assuming I know what your definitions are. I don't. You are hardly clear on anything you're saying about sex and gender. 3) What do you mean by saying sexual sin denies objective reality? If you're saying that homosexuals deny that gender differences matter in biblical sexuality, I would of course agree with you. I've been saying that all along. It really seems that you constantly read into what I've said things I'm not saying. We're not on the same wavelength at all. So you just seem to want to argue. In fact when have you ever not argued with me?
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 18, 2022 7:48:50 GMT
Let me comment on what led to my confusion about what princess was saying. She said: "What distinguishes "gender" from "sex" is not hard to explain or comprehend! Gender is a view that sees the person as a disunity between mind, body and soul while sex is a view that sees the person as a unity of mind body and soul."
It's the way this is said that makes it hard for me to understand. I can guess that what she is meaning is that a person, in all 3 facets of their being, must be united in order to distinguish his or her particular gender? If this is not done, and the 3 facets of a person are disunited, then it appears to her that a person of a particular gender is ignoring reality, and can consider himself or herself whatever gender her soul wants to be.
The problem appears to be the description of gender and sex in terms of fastening the soul to the physical gender. I don't happen to believe this is anything more than temporary, and restricted to our present state of being. A person must, to be objective, accept whatever gender God has given them now--their soul is attached to that. But in the future we are told that our soul will be given a new genderless body. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by princess on Dec 18, 2022 17:35:27 GMT
Randy,
When someone claims there are only TWO sexes and ZERO genders and sexual intercourse is between two sexes and everything else is masturbation. Would a logical mind conclude that two sexes means same sex? Two sexes is plural not singular! Would a logical mind conclude I was mixing sexual intercourse with same sex or even opposite sex sodomy?
Context is everything! I was addressing what you wrote here:
Randy, you wrote: "Sex can used for either gender or for intimate relations. Intimate relations can take place in either heterosexual or homosexual ways. Therefore, the word "sex" must be distinguished from "gender."
1. I clearly identified sex with being male or female 2. I clearly identified sexual intercourse with male/female vaginal intercourse. 3. I clearly distinguished sexual intercourse from the generalization of sexual intimacy.
The bible only describes and therefore prescribes and regulates sexual intercourse between the opposite sex not "intimate relations" between two genders or soulmates
You keep proving my point. You believe the true "you" is an androgynous thinking soul residing in a meatsuit. Then you attach this Gnosticism onto Jesus Christ. Wow.
To claim Jesus's resurrected body was some corrupted old male body as he awaited a glorified genderless body has more in common with gnosticism not with orthodox christianity.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 19, 2022 21:41:14 GMT
Randy, When someone claims there are only TWO sexes and ZERO genders and sexual intercourse is between two sexes and everything else is masturbation. Would a logical mind conclude that two sexes means same sex? Two sexes is plural not singular! Would a logical mind conclude I was mixing sexual intercourse with same sex or even opposite sex sodomy? Context is everything! I was addressing what you wrote here: Randy, you wrote: "Sex can used for either gender or for intimate relations. Intimate relations can take place in either heterosexual or homosexual ways. Therefore, the word "sex" must be distinguished from "gender." 1. I clearly identified sex with being male or female 2. I clearly identified sexual intercourse with male/female vaginal intercourse. 3. I clearly distinguished sexual intercourse from the generalization of sexual intimacy. The bible only describes and therefore prescribes and regulates sexual intercourse between the opposite sex not "intimate relations" between two genders or soulmates You keep proving my point. You believe the true "you" is an androgynous thinking soul residing in a meatsuit. Then you attach this Gnosticism onto Jesus Christ. Wow. To claim Jesus's resurrected body was some corrupted old male body as he awaited a glorified genderless body has more in common with gnosticism not with orthodox christianity. I don't honestly know what you're talking about. I never have fully understood what you're talking about. So when you denounce what I say, you're denouncing questions I have about what you're actually saying! Look at your 1st sentence--it doesn't even make any sense! "When someone claims there are only TWO sexes and ZERO genders and sexual intercourse is between two sexes and everything else is masturbation." What kind of a sentence is that? What is the subject and what is the predicate? I can only guess what your definition of "sex" is and what your definition of "gender" is? For me, the word "sex" can either mean sexual intercourse or be a synonym for "gender." It is used in both ways. For me, "gender" is quite simple. It is whether you're male or female. The confusion people are having today over whether they're male or female is pure corruption. Sure, some men have too many female hormones, and some women have too many male hormones. But this is no problem--this is just reality in a world that has physical deformities, which we all have to some degree. So I don't like to get into discussions about "gender" when the conversation makes no sense to me. I suspect someone will misperceive what is being said in this "woke" environment? I've never said two "sexes," referring to two "genders," equals "zero genders!" If there are "two genders," or "two sexes," then there cannot logically be "zero genders!" So you are producing massive confusion in my mind, because you're failing to define your words adequately. I said there is heterosexual and homosexual sexual intercourse both. That's just fact. If you're talking about what is acceptable to God, it is certainly *not* homosexual sexual intercourse, nor is it any kind of sexual intimacy between two in forbidden conditions, such as incest or bestiality or adultery, etc. When you talk about what the "soul" is, I believe we're talking about the "ego" of a person, ie his or her identity. In this time we have male or female egos. But in eternity I believe we will be genderless, and thus, the soul will be genderless, as well. Why is this controversial with you?
|
|
|
Post by princess on Dec 20, 2022 2:26:55 GMT
I cannot define something that exists in the mind/imagination. Hint: gender. You are an older gentleman and must remember ticking off the box that said Sex: M F . Then it switched to gender: M F . Do you recall this fact?
Then years later gender turned into many more genders than M F. Do you accept this fact?
This was no mistake. You see, Gender is a modern idea and you won't find gender in the Bible, Koran Homer, The Illiad, Josephus or the many philosophers...that is, unless it was a recent reprint. You see, biological sex is different from gender. So when you argue on the grounds of two "genders" you are arguing by the standards of their rigged game. A rigged game that switched sex to gender.
You are worth time but I just don't have the time to sort this out if you are not able to understand. We don't have to agree! No biggie! But it seems like you are asking and answering your own questions having an argument with yourself.
I bow out!
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 20, 2022 2:34:22 GMT
I cannot define something that exists in the mind/imagination. Hint: gender. You must remember ticking off the box that said Sex: M F ? Then it switched ...right to gender M F Then some years later gender turned into more than M F This was no mistake. You see, biological sex is different from gender. So when you argue on the grounds of two "genders" you are arguing by the standards of a rigged game. A rigged game that switched from sex to gender. You are worth time but I just don't have the time to sort this out if you are not willing or able to understand. Disagree? Sure! But this is not working I agree, it's not working. Of course I argue on the grounds of "two genders," because there are, in fact, only two genders! Gender does not just exist in the mind/imagination. The way you're using the word "sex," it is a synonym for "gender." So you've failed to make any distinction between "sex" and "gender." In fact, there is no distinction when "sex" is used as a synonym for "gender." Of course I'm confused. You make no sense whatsoever!
|
|
|
Post by princess on Dec 20, 2022 2:38:51 GMT
Then you are correct and I am I wrong.
|
|
|
Post by princess on Dec 20, 2022 4:19:28 GMT
In the meantime maybe some others may want to sink their teeth into this:
The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[26] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[26] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[27]
Before sexologist John Money and colleagues introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1]
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 20, 2022 7:58:57 GMT
In the meantime maybe some others may want to sink their teeth into this: The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[26] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[26] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[27] Before sexologist John Money and colleagues introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1] That's ridiculous. Male and Female, aka as "gender" in our language, has been around since Adam and Eve. The loss of any sense of distinctions is a product of the loss of truth in Western society. And that sense of objective truth has slowly been lost since the rise of modern philosophy, which questions everything from "I think therefore I am" to today's ambiguity over sexual differences. Here's the thing, princess. Throughout history there have been those who reject God and who therefore are left without divine revelation, which comes only to those willing to receive it. In rejecting revelation there is no objective basis for truth, except for what we *want to believe* about the physical world. Gender differences may appear to be artificial differences, when one does not understand our spiritual endowment, in which God places a spiritual being, or soul, within a particular body, male or female.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 20, 2022 8:18:41 GMT
I would add that many years ago I was schooled in psychology, and was taught behaviorism, or behavior modification of the BF Skinner variety. I was amazed that all these principles that really did seem to work seemed to leave no room for God.
We are all conditioned to respond in a particular way. When we are reinforced for behaving good, we want to behave good even more. When we are punished, we don't want to be punished anymore, and we stop doing what deserves punishment.
Where is there room for God in all this?, I asked myself. Well, the fact is, conditioning only works to the degree it fits within the orbit of God's will. When God wants to punish us or reward us, then it works when we choose God. There is such a thing as free will, and we can either receive God or not.
Money, as I read about it, was like Skinner (see "Beyond Freedom and Dignity"). He tried to create his own world based on the assumption God wasn't needed. But when he initiated a sex change operation on David R., it ruined his life because God's word speaks to the individual soul. David obviously saw himself as male, no matter how much someone wanted to transform him into a female.
People who choose to change genders are choosing against God's word. When they do that they are defying their Creator--He does not allow them to make their own world, or believe what they want, without consequences.
That is the Gospel. You either accept God's Word, or you don't. And the appropriate consequences will follow. We don't determine the outcome--God does. We only make the choice and cooperate with God or not.
|
|
|
Post by princess on Dec 20, 2022 14:09:45 GMT
The article was obviously wrong and you are right Randy!
I have been deceived and cannot trust my senses because satan obviously removed the original word "gender" from every piece of literature written before the sexual revolution and replaced it with the word "sex".
Obviously, sexual morality/immorality is a social construct and not a choice but an inborn identity. Pronoun that identifies where western Christianity is heading would be: "was" "were"
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 20, 2022 14:25:43 GMT
The article was obviously wrong and you are right Randy! I am deceived and cannot trust my senses because satan obviously removed the original word "gender" from every piece of literature written before the sexual revolution and replaced it with the word "sex". You are just talking about "words." Words are fashionable ways of expressing realities. The concept of "gender" was around long, long before Money was even a twinkle in his mother's eyes. The concept of gender was created by God and recorded by Moses. The idea that Money invented anything about gender is a product of modern humanism and progressivism, as it's now called. It leaves out the spiritual basis for thought and expression issuing from God's word, and tries to fashion its own ideas, void of any spiritual sense whatsoever. The "soul" is hung out to dry. Words are always being re-defined by liberals who want to create modern concepts that are excised from any religious connotation. That's why "gay" now means something other than "happy." Without the basis of spiritual meaning they are left, however, without any human purpose other than pragmatism and utilitarianism. Man becomes an animal, and not a soul created in the image of God to hear and to understand meaning for his or her life. The word "sex" likely didn't have this reason for being used in a variety of ways. It does not appear to be conspiratorial to render "sex" equal with "gender" and at another time equal with sexual intimacy. Rather, it seems to be the product of turning words into something more palatable for open discussion. To use "sex" for sexual intercourse is both shorter and less explicit.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 20, 2022 14:49:18 GMT
I have to say, just for your interest, that I'm witnessing a complete breakdown in morality here in the US. There is a sudden leap, under Democratic leadership, to move in a progressive, woke manner, resulting in all kinds of moral perversions. And Christianity is pushed out as outmoded, and bigoted.
I was on another moderated Christian forum for a few years, which suddenly became broken, due to a constant hacking into the website by perverted people, who advertised pornography on the website. After the Christian forum collapsed, some of the members moved to another forum, led by a guy who turned the forum over to another guy.
With this new leadership things began to go funny for me, with the leader focusing on his own powers of moderating conversations. He was annoyed with me, but let me speak my peace until he began to express his own personal experience of dysphoria.
He had been transitioning into a female, apparently! At least he is taking hormonal treatments. He said this was necessary to maintain his peace of mind and to relieve him of stress.
When I didn't express the same "support" other Christians did on this forum, I was temporarily cancelled. And I've never looked back.
I've gone to a couple of other forums, one of which was dominated by a guy who did nothing but promote Amillennialism (I'm not putting down Amillennialism, however). When others held to a different opinion, he accused them of willful ignorance. A number of others followed his lead. It seems that this shut down all debate on that forum. The forum no longer allows debate as a category.
Now, on the last forum, besides this one, that I'm on, this same guy expresses his Amillennialism with the same kind of dogmatic ire, being unwilling to "disagree agreeably." Again, there is a group that follows along, and who do not believe they are being "unloving." And others, who hold to different doctrinal positions, are arguing their cases with the same kind of unloving venom.
Between this unloving dogmatism and outright perversion I think Christian discussion is being sunk. There are just too many corrupting influences entering into these discussions, and I wonder what the future holds?
|
|
|
Post by princess on Dec 20, 2022 15:19:41 GMT
Yes! Words are used to express and communicate reality! I said it before and will say it again: sexual sin is blinding you? Why would I say such a thing? Because your words communicate and express this reality.
It's easy to criticize trannies but maybe what led to this perversion leads back to you? Maybe the inability to define marriage is derived from not being married? Maybe unrepented sexual sin followed people into marriage and destroyed it? Pharisees would never hide their sin behind a piece of paper or pomp and ceremony.
I would like to add that me and my husband were schooled by a psychologist who changed and repented from her sin.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 20, 2022 21:40:45 GMT
I have to say, just for your interest, that I'm witnessing a complete breakdown in morality here in the US. There is a sudden leap, under Democratic leadership, to move in a progressive, woke manner, resulting in all kinds of moral perversions. And Christianity is pushed out as outmoded, and bigoted. I was on another moderated Christian forum for a few years, which suddenly became broken, due to a constant hacking into the website by perverted people, who advertised pornography on the website. After the Christian forum collapsed, some of the members moved to another forum, led by a guy who turned the forum over to another guy. With this new leadership things began to go funny for me, with the leader focusing on his own powers of moderating conversations. He was annoyed with me, but let me speak my peace until he began to express his own personal experience of dysphoria. He had been transitioning into a female, apparently! At least he is taking hormonal treatments. He said this was necessary to maintain his peace of mind and to relieve him of stress. When I didn't express the same "support" other Christians did on this forum, I was temporarily cancelled. And I've never looked back. I've gone to a couple of other forums, one of which was dominated by a guy who did nothing but promote Amillennialism (I'm not putting down Amillennialism, however). When others held to a different opinion, he accused them of willful ignorance. A number of others followed his lead. It seems that this shut down all debate on that forum. The forum no longer allows debate as a category. Now, on the last forum, besides this one, that I'm on, this same guy expresses his Amillennialism with the same kind of dogmatic ire, being unwilling to "disagree agreeably." Again, there is a group that follows along, and who do not believe they are being "unloving." And others, who hold to different doctrinal positions, are arguing their cases with the same kind of unloving venom. Between this unloving dogmatism and outright perversion I think Christian discussion is being sunk. There are just too many corrupting influences entering into these discussions, and I wonder what the future holds? You have indeed experienced questionable christian sites Randy. Respectfully sharing of openings is important for a Christian public forum, keeping in mind that the Gospel message is the primary importance.
|
|