Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

The Christian Diarist ^ | April 26, 2015 | JP

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think that’s why the Catholic Church takes the position that surgery is not morally required.

[WhiskeyX]

VATICAN-TRANSSEXUALS

Jan-14-2003 (710 words) xxxi

Vatican says ‘sex-change’ operation

does not change person’s gender

By John Norton Catholic News Service

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/CatholicTSDecision.html

[NKP_Vet]

If Jenner had thought he was supposed to be female the majority of his life he would not have fathered, or had a desire to father SIX children. Jenner is a classic drag queen, and they have destroyed more families than Carter has liver pills. He didn’t care how his deranged, abnormal activities affected his children. And that’s sad, but typical of these characters. It’s all about me, me, me, and they could care less how they abnormal behavior affects those around them. Jenner needs Christ in his life, like all sinners.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That certainly shows the incoherence of using the word "gender" instead of "sex."

As commonly used, "gender" means affective, learned-social and cultural categorization.

"Sex" means genetic, anatomical, physiological categorization.

If we take these as the definitions, then "gender" is highly malleable, with change resulting in a wide range of repercussions, from undetectable to mild to personally or socially problematic; while "sex" can only be abled or disabled.

Our species, like all mammalian species, exhibits sexual reproductive differentiation. This is necessary for reproductive fitness; individuals who do not exhibit this differentiation are partially or totally reproductively disabled.<> The main criterion for sexual health should be objective fitness for reproduction.

[P.O.E.]

I’m guessing Christ would be all about bearing the cross one was given.

[WhiskeyX]

“Is there any rational basis for this spontaneous human sex change scenario other than BBC anecdotes ? I know the trannies would love it - I mean with mentally normal individuals.”

5-alpha reductase deficiency
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency

Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

[CynicalBear]

>>We are incorporated into Christ. That is faith.<<

Faith comes first Mrs. Don-o. And we can't even take credit for the faith because it's Christ's faith working through us. But let's take you list and look at it.

"believing"- the Greek word used their means "have faith in".

"repentance" - Greek-metanoeó - to change ones mind from faith in something to faith in Christ.

"baptism"Br> Jn 3:5 - being born of water is NOT baptism. It's the natural birth of humans.
1 Pet 3:21 - it isn't the ritual of baptism that saves. Baptism is symbolically being raised with Christ through faith.
Jn 6 - "the flesh profits nothing". "eating the flesh of Christ" is internalizing and having faith in the words of God.

All goes back to faith in Christ. The Catholic propensity to try to "merit" on man's part is blasphemy and will only lead to sorrow and doubt.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm getting used to these interpretations, CB. "No matter what it actually says, here's what it means..."

That's why it quickly turns into a non-productive discussion. If flesh doesn't mean flesh, and blood doesn't mean blood, and water doesn't mean water, and there's no "carne" in Incarnation, then Christ's words and actions can be systematically denatured and redefined.

It's easy to do. Just start with a particular human tradition (e.g. "faith alone") and then read it back into the text, no matter what the words say. Even though St. Paul says that if he has faith but not love, he is "nothing."

I suppose "nothing" don't mean nuthin'!

[CynicalBear]

>>If flesh doesn't mean flesh, and blood doesn't mean blood, and water doesn't mean water,<<

Oh but they do. Flesh means flesh but not always the carnal mortal flesh. Blood does mean blood and the Jews (Jesus and the apostles) were strictly forbidden to eat it. Water does mean water in that the amniotic fluid is water.

Now, if you want water to always mean water would you tell us that you have "rivers of water flowing from your belly"?

If bread always meant bread why aren't you eating bread instead of claiming to eat flesh?

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Is the word of God literally both milk and meat?

Should we continue with this literalism?

[wardaddy]

In my experience the only folks who pretend Oklahoma and Texas aren’t southern are some Yankees who’ve moved there for work and have superiority complexes

As usual

As proof.....drive from leave Texas or Oklahoma into New Mexico or Colorado or Kansas and watch the accent change at state lines

And sweet tea disappear

Or go to almost any county seat square and tell me why that CSA statue is there

You know I had barely been on this forum a month when a Yankee in Houston lectured me Texas ain’t southern

Lol

And Oklahoma. I got books on Oklahoma as southern stock

That Grissom guy

Census bureau as well

Again the accents don’t lie

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's my point. It's literal when it suits you; and when not, not.

It's not just a few passages here and there. What I see is a lack of real criteria to say what's meant when there can be conflicting interpretations. For instance:

---

2 Thess 2:11
"God shall send them a strong delusion, so that they should believe a lie."

BUT

1 Cor. 14:33
"God is not the author of confusion."

---

Acts 2:18
"And on my handmaids on that day I shall pour out my spirit, and they shall prophesy."

BUT

1 Tim 2:1-2
"I suffer not a woman to teach, but to be in silence."

---

Prov. 13:22
"A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children."

BUT

Matthew 6:34
"Therefore, take no thought for the morrow."

---

Num 6:5
"In all his days dedicated to God, no razor shall come upon his head. He shall be holy, and let the locks of hair grow freely."

BUT

1 Cor 11:14
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

---

Gen 2:3
"And God blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy."

BUT

Isaiah 1:13
"The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot abide: it is unrighteous."

BUT

Exodus 21:8
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

BUT

Romans 14:5
"One man esteemeth one day above another; another man esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

---

My point is that none of these things are obvious in their meanings, unless you have the advantage of a long-lived, coherent interpretative community of believers.

Which you reject from the git-go.

So if I have the choice between trusting either a many-centuries-long interpretive community, OR Cynical Bear -- well, don't be surprised if I decline to privilege your POV over that of a hundred generations of believers.

[CynicalBear]

1. delusion is NOT the same as confusion

2. Prophesying is NOT teaching.

3. Did you ever notice there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament and "take no thought for tomorrow" simply means that God will provide and we don't have to worry about it? Worrying about tomorrow simply shows a lack of faith in God.

4. Numbers 6 is speaking of a very special vow taken voluntarily for a period of time. Again, the New Testament changed things.

5. Isaiah 1:13 is speaking of corruptions of His Sabbath and Romans 14:5 is New Testament and all those laws and "Holy days" have been set aside through Christ.

>>My point is that none of these things are obvious in their meanings,<<

WRONG! They are all explained either within the passage or within scripture itself.

>>So if I have the choice between trusting either a many-centuries-long interpretive community, OR Cynical Bear<<

No one said you should "trust" me or any other man. It's scripture and the Holy Spirit you should trust. Putting your trust in that "interpretive community" is against what scripture teaches. At least it is for a true born again believer who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Why do Catholic replace the Holy Spirit with the "magisterium"? Or do they not individually have the indwelling?

[Star Traveler]

When I moved from Texas to Oregon many years ago, I was asked if I brought my six-guns and horse with me ... based on my accent ... :-) ... I don’t know what’s happening with my accent, now, since I came back to Texas, and then Oklahoma.

I’ve always considered Texas and Oklahoma to be part of the South, but I have noticed that, at times, there were others who didn’t.

[Mrs. Don-o]

John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

BUT...

Scripture isn't for personal interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.

Some things in Scripture are hard to understand.
2 Peter 3:15-16
Our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

The Holy Spirit directs us toward teachers.
Acts 8:30-31
Philip ran up and heard him [the Ethiopian eunuch] reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?”

God has appointed teachers.
1 Cor. 12:28-29
Some people God has appointed in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?

"Why do Catholic replace the Holy Spirit with the "magisterium"? Or do they not individually have the indwelling?"

Catholics do not "replace the Holy Spirit" with the Magisterium (which means, authoritative teachers.) It is the Holy Spirit who inspires the teachers. It is God who appoints them in the Church, as Scripture says. It's not wise to resist being taught by God through the teachers He has appointed.

Every baptized person individually has the indwelling Holy Spirit. In fact, Jesus says God will send the Holy Spirit to ANYBODY who asks:

Luke 11:13
"If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?”

And here's where your argument breaks down. Because if you believe, as you must, that the Father in heaven has given the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him, then you have to believe that He has given the Holy Spirit to the 100 generations of Christians who came before you.

How do you, a single individual, set your judgment against that of the previous 100 generations of Spirit-indwelt Christians?

I do not accuse you of the particular errors found in the writings of the so-called "Gay Christians," but their argument is similar: they have interpretations of Scripture which contradict what all generations said before, and so what? They have careful word-study, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit!

You know it's bogus, and I know it's bogus, but there's no way to prove it's bogus if you, like they, show scant respect for what was believed by the 100 generations of believers who came before you, who also asked the Father in Heaven for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

You appeal to the Holy Spirit as if the Holy Spirit kinda petered out at the death of the last Apostle, and then came back to guide the Church at 'round about 1530, or 1930, or --- well, what year were you born, CB?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Umm--- besides---

The Holy Spirit told me you need to be a Catholic.

[Faith Presses On]

I don’t understand what you’re asking.

[Iscool]

Oh mercy. "YEP."
Ya could look it up (LINK).
Ya could look it up (LINK).

Oh, I see...It has to have the phrase 'faith alone' or you don't get it...

Even worse is the concept of faith without love.
Ya could look this up, too (LINK).
You will notice I did not misquote Scriptures. That's documented at the links.

Well, not this time...

[CynicalBear]

>>Scripture isn't for personal interpretation.<<

You must have missed this part of the verse: "But as his anointing teaches you about all things". And you neglected to include verse 21 which shows the same Holy Spirit that gave the prophecy teaches.

>>Some things in Scripture are hard to understand.<<

"that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction". Are Catholics mostly "ignorant and unstable"? Scripture was written that we might know.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

There are reasons for not understanding.

1 Corinthians 2:14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know them, because spiritually they are discerned;

Ephesians 4:18 being darkened in the understanding, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart,

And there is a way to understanding.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

It's the writings of scripture that we check what is being taught, NOT the other way around.

Acts 17:11 and these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all readiness of mind, every day examining the Writings whether those things were so;

>>The Holy Spirit directs us toward teachers.<<

See Acts 17:11.

>>God has appointed teachers.<<

See Acts 17:11

>>then you have to believe that He has given the Holy Spirit to the 100 generations of Christians who came before you.<<

If you are insinuating that those were in the Catholic Church you would be mistaken. The Holy Spirit would never, ever inspire to incorporat pagan beliefs and practices. He would NOT inspire to teach something the apostles didn't after inspiring Paul to write that anyone who taught something they didn't should be considered accursed. If you want to put your faith in those fallible men rather than what Jesus and the apostles taught that's up to you. I'll stay with what the apostles taught.

>>then you have to believe that He has given the Holy Spirit to the 100 generations of Christians who came before you.<<

See Acts 17:11

>>and then came back to guide the Church at 'round about 1530, or 1930<<

How absolutely arrogant to think that the Catholic Church was the only group of believers throughout history. It was the Catholic Church who many times in that history was the entity that persecuted true believers.

It is those who put the magisterium above scripture that refuse the counsel of the Holy Spirit and find scripture hard to understand. If they find scripture hard to understand perhaps they should read Luke 24:45 over and over to understand why.

[NKP_Vet]

“and now you perversely condemn him for doing so by denying Bruce Jenner believed he was supposed to have been in a female role from birth”.

GOD decided the sex of Jenner, not me. I also desired to be astronaut all my life, but GOD decided I would not be. Bruce Jenner is a sick man that needs help not encouragement for his mental problems. You should really quit questioning God. He does not make mistakes.