I am surprised...

[Gondwanaland]

There sure is. Right at the beginning. Genesis 1

²⁷ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

I'm guessing a trans christian would argue that is not anti-trans but religious proof that they are male or female like they claim.

[mossrose]

I'm guessing a trans christian would argue that is not anti-trans but religious proof that they are male or female like they claim.

Sure, they can argue it, but taken with the whole of scripture, they won't be correct.

[Gondwanaland]

Sure, they can argue it, but taken with the whole of scripture, they won't be correct.

Well, they won't be in agreement with the majority of Christians, sure. Not necessarily 'they won't be correct' - as we can see just simply from the many denominations, every Christian group has their own interpretations, and things they consider 'correct' and think other Christian groups are incorrect on.

[mossrose]

Well, they won't be in agreement with the majority of Christians, sure. Not necessarily 'they won't be correct' - as we can see just simply from the many denominations, every Christian group has their own interpretations, and things they consider 'correct' and think other Christian groups are incorrect on.

And as I said to HA, not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" is one in their following scripture. Many people will take verses out of context or add or subtract to God's word to make it fit their narrative.

However, I won't bother to discuss it further.

[Starlight]

Genesis 1:27So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Yeah that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for sexual fluidity.

Have you reflected on the fact that some people are born hermaphrodites in such a way that their sex is both scientifically and observationally neither male nor female? We could say that constituted empirical proof that this passage of the bible is false.

But assuming you want to avoid that conclusion by employing a defense like, "well this passage just refers to how God created people in the beginning, it doesn't speak about all people throughout history" or "this passage is just a generalization, saying that most people are male or female and talking about the sexual differences we generally see in humanity, and isn't speaking about literally everyone"... then your claim that it "doesn't leave a lot of room for sexual fluidity" doesn't follow at all. If you endorse either of those interpretations in order to escape the passage being literally false and disproven, then you are introducing abundant room for sexual fluidity.

[Gondwanaland]

And as I said to HA, not everyone who calls themselves "Christian" is one in their following scripture. Many people will take verses out of context or add or subtract to God's word to make it fit their narrative.

However, I won't bother to discuss it further.

But that just proves my point. Other CHristians would say the same about you and that you are not 'Christian' and that you take verses out of context, add or subtract, etc. (which we see you do in an earlier post by you with the gymnastics of agreeing that the verse rogue posted was evidence of anti-trans, but quickly resorting to 'new covenant' mental gymnastics to dismiss having to follow other verses surrounding it)

[Gondwanaland]

Once again, you don't understand the concept of the new covenant brought in by Christ. If you read Acts, and the other NT books, you will see how the Lord did away with the old covenant.

And you've made my point for me, that no matter what you are presented with, you will reject it.

Thank you for the reminder of why I'm so glad I left Christianity. The level of mental gymnastics and cafeteria Christianity required to make things fit what your particular flavor of Christianity believes, is utterly exhausting (especially when it comes to gymnastics to try to pick and choose which parts of the OT are relevant, despite your own founder stating that not one jot or tittle of the law would change until he returns at the end-times).

[mossrose]

Thank you for the reminder of why I'm so glad I left Christianity. The level of mental gymnastics and cafeteria Christianity required to make things fit what your particular flavor of Christianity believes, is utterly exhausting (especially when it comes to gymnastics to try to pick and choose which parts of the OT are relevant, despite your own founder stating that not one jot or tittle of the law would change until he returns at the end-times).

Well, since Genesis has nothing to do with the laws brought down from God by Moses, you really can't honestly say that I am cherry picking passages.

As I'm sure the majority of believers here would agree, Christ brought a new covenant to fulfill the law, and God Himself proclaimed, in the NT, that many of those laws were abolished in the new covenant. One thing that was not changed was the issue of sexual sin, which is mentioned many times in the NT.

Now, I understand that you are unable to understand how the new covenant works, and I will pray that God will work in you to bring you to a saving understanding of His word. The entirety of His word, which never contradicts itself.

Carry on.

[Starlight]

Thank you for the reminder of why I'm so glad I left Christianity. The level of mental gymnastics and cafeteria Christianity required to make things fit what your particular flavor of Christianity believes, is utterly exhausting (especially when it comes to gymnastics to try to pick and choose which parts of the OT are relevant, despite your own founder stating that not one jot or tittle of the law would change until he returns at the end-times).

You forget that it's easy:

Any verse that agrees with what Mossrose happens to already believe or prejudices she happens to hold, is taken as literal and important, and anyone who thinks otherwise is "not really a Christian". Any verse that disagrees with what she happens to already believe or runs against prejudices she happens to hold, is Old Covenant and no longer applicable.

No thought is needed, just gut agreement or disagreement with any given verse. It's all about the feelings, not thoughts.

[mossrose]

You forget that it's easy:

Any verse that agrees with what Mossrose happens to already think, is taken as literal and important, and anyone who thinks otherwise is "not really a Christian". Any verse that disagrees with what she happens to already think, is Old Covenant and no longer applicable.

No thought is needed, just gut agreement or disagreement with any given verse. It's all about the feelings, not thoughts.

I will pray for you, too.

[Gondwanaland]

Well, since Genesis has nothing to do with the laws brought down from God by Moses, you really can't honestly say that I am cherry picking passages.

As I'm sure the majority of believers here would agree, Christ brought a new covenant to fulfill the law, and God Himself proclaimed, in the NT, that many of those laws were abolished in the new covenant. One thing that was not changed was the issue of sexual sin, which is mentioned many times in the NT.

Now, I understand that you are unable to understand how the new covenant works, and I will pray that God will work in you to bring you to a saving understanding of His word. The entirety of His word, which never contradicts itself.

Carry on.

Oh, I'm most certain that many believers here conduct the same mental gymnastics as yourself to try to ignore the Old Testament (but only when it suits you, as we see with Rogue quoting it and your agreement with it up and until other verses nearby were brought up)

I very much understand the mental gymnastics and contortions surrounding the 'new covenant' and how you and many other Christians conveniently ignore Jesus' statement that not one jot or tittle of the law would change until his second coming, because it's too hard for you to have to not eat pork and shellfish, and not wear combined clothes, etc., etc., etc.. I know all the little tricks that you guys use to make your particular interpretation of the Bible work for you and tell others they're not real Christians when they don't agree with your interpretation. I did it myself. In seminary, I even learned the tricks that pastors use amongst themselves that you laypeople probably never even hear about.

You're welcome to your beliefs and your expert Twister playing to justify them, but just remember, you're just as much one of those scarequote Christians to someone else as people are to you when you use them.

[Gondwanaland]

You forget that it's easy:

Any verse that agrees with what Mossrose happens to already believe or prejudices she happens to hold, is taken as literal and important, and anyone who thinks otherwise is "not really a Christian". Any verse that disagrees with what she happens to already believe or runs against prejudices she happens to hold, is Old Covenant and no longer applicable.

No thought is needed, just gut agreement or disagreement with any given verse. It's all about the feelings, not thoughts.

Oh, certainly. Sadly I remember when I used to be just the same, decades ago.

[Gondwanaland]

I will pray for you, too.

I'll think for you. Or open a fortune cookie. Whichever you prefer.

[Cow Poke]

All Christian denominations are Christian.

Cool.

[mossrose]

And now we've all gone down HA's rabbit hole. I'm sure she' chortling in glee.