What is a Woman?

[Sparko]

There is. But that is not the point I'm focused on for right now. We need to get past the focus on condemning and mocking first. Then we can talk about what is or is not sin.

I don't think we should mock anyone. But I don't think we should coddle their delusions or fantasies either. I have said before that if someone wants to dress and act like the opposite sex, that is their business. It becomes my business when they insist I have to indulge their fantasy and play along with it, especially when it can cost me my job or freedom if I don't.

Our calling is to love, not to condemn. And right now the evangelical church is focused on condemnation and hatred towards these sorts of issues. We are focused on how uncomfortable it makes us, about how to force people and society to do what we think is right.

You are confusing refusal to condone sin as "hatred" - and we ARE supposed to condemn sin. Especially if it is within our own church. Remember what Paul told the church 1 Cor 5 about the case of incest? When we welcome homosexuals and other such sinners into the church, it is on the condition that they cease sinning or at least try to cease sinning, just like we are to do with any other sort of sin. As you said, we are not able to stop sinning completely no matter what we do, but we are to keep trying and recognize it is sin. And we are not to embrace or excuse sin in our midst. We are to condemn the sin, not the sinner. But we are also not supposed to allow willful sinners to remain among us once they know they are sinners but don't care. If we had a married pastor that was having an affair with another woman, and he refused to repent or stop, we are to condemn his sin and kick him out of the church. If he repents we are to forgive him, but he should still face consequences and not be a pastor any longer. That is not "condemnation and hatred" is it? Why are you treating LGBT differently than any other sexual immorality?

[Sparko]

Yet there are rare instances of intersex individuals.

We don't make rules based on exceptions. Especially very, very rare exceptions.

[seanD]

There are two likely reasons that she didn't answer the question. Either she's an idiot or was being dishonestly disingenuous.

Neither bodes well for a SCOTUS justice.

I would say the latter. No one can be that dumb. But then it does beg the question why she's so loyal to a cultural cult that has distorted ideas about realty. Is she just scared of what that cult can and will do, or is it out of some kind of actual adherence because she admires the cult? But when all is said and done, it just means she has no principles outside of her loyalty to that cult.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We don't make rules based on exceptions. Especially very, very rare exceptions.

Yet the fact remains that such individuals exist. And if they happen to have both XX and XY chromosomes [as can sometimes occur] are they male or female?

[Sparko]

Yet the fact remains that such individuals exist. And if they happen to have both XX and XY chromosomes [as can sometimes occur] are they male or female?

I don't see anyway to have both XX and XY, That would involve having an entire extra pair of chromosomes. Maybe XXX or XYX or XYY. But regardless they would be neither. They would be hermaphrodites. I have no problem with them living whatever gender they wish. That is completely different than a normal biological male dressing like a female and then saying society has to treat him like a woman or you are a bigot and can be fined or face criminal charges as is happening many places in the world.

[Bill the Cat]

Given that an individual may have XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes, or even both, what of those rare individuals who possess both. Are they male or female?

From what I understand, their anomaly still leans all X or part Y. The little bit of research I did on Klinefelter's Syndrome pointed in that direction.

[seer]

I would say the latter. No one can be that dumb. But then it does beg the question why she's so loyal to a cultural cult that has distorted ideas about realty. Is she just scared of what that cult can and will do, or is it out of some kind of actual adherence because she admires the cult? But when all is said and done, it just means she has no principles outside of her loyalty to that cult.

The only way she could lose would from push back from the left - and that is exactly what she would have had. Self preservation?

[seanD]

The only way she could lose would from push back from the left - and that is exactly what she would have had. Self preservation?

She can't lose because she's Biden's quota black female judge. She might get pushback from some social media far left fringes, but not from the political Dems voting for her. I don't think that's what it is.

[seer]

She can't lose because she's Biden's quota black female judge. She might get pushback from some social media far left fringes, but not from the political Dems voting for her. I don't think that's what it is.

The worse possibility is that she actually buys into this woke narrative...Which will make her a dangerous justice.

[Gondwanaland]

Yet the fact remains that such individuals exist. And if they happen to have both XX and XY chromosomes [as can sometimes occur] are they male or female?

I'm not aware of such occurring in humans.


But in any case there are humans born without hands, yet we don't dismiss the facts of handedness

[Sparko]

I'm not aware of such occurring in humans.


But in any case there are humans born without hands, yet we don't dismiss the facts of handedness

I am ambidextrous but I identify as left-handed.

[Mountain Man]

But there's not a distinction. He says a couple verses earlier eating the detestable animals is an abomination, using the same word that is used to describe 'crossdressing'. Both are considered an abomination. I understand that you don't like what that implies because that doesn't suit your taste buds.

Those "couple verses earlier" don't say that it is detestable to God. A man dressing like a woman, and a woman dressing like a man, however, is explicitly said to be detestable to God.

Yes, that kind of nuance really does matter when interpreting the Bible.

[Mountain Man]

Deuteronomy 14.3 states:

"Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing." [תּוֹעֵבַה toebah/toevah/toevot]

That chapter then lists all those animals that may be eaten and those that are proscribed, including the pig.

That doesn't say that it is abhorrent to God. If you continue reading, the Bible says, "This shall be unclean to you." Nowhere does it say that eating pork is detestable to God. As I pointed out above, that kind of nuance really does matter when it comes to scripture.

[Mountain Man]

Just what sort of trap do you envision that question would be? And how would it work?

Confirmation hearings are designed so that tough questions can be put to a nominee to see how they respond. We got either stupidity or dishonestly disingenuous as a response. Not a great selection to pick from.

The fact that asking, "What is a woman?" is considered a "tough question" shows how morally degenerate this country really is.

[Mountain Man]

Our calling is to love, not to condemn.

False. We are called to speak the truth in love. And you know what? The truth isn't always pleasant. If the truth is that certain behaviors are a sin and detestable to God, then we do no wrong to say so plainly. If it upsets people, tough. The darkness always takes offense when a spotlight is shone on their sins. Look to Jesus as your example. He wasn't afraid to speak the truth even when it offended everyone around him.