Old Mike, new Christine
April 26th, 2007Los Angeles Times sportswriter Mike Penner writes about his upcoming sex-change operation. When he returns from his vacation, he’ll be Christine Daniels.
57 Responses to “Old Mike, new Christine”
Tim Ellsworth
About
Links
Christian parenting resources
E-mail me
Recent Comments
- Roger on It's Open Blog Friday: Thanks Craig. I hadn't heard that - I...
- Craig on It's Open Blog Friday: To this same point, here's a story...
- Roger on It's Open Blog Friday: Neuwman, Nobody in this country will...
- Di on Cubs to sign Edmonds?: Good points, Luke!
- Luke on Cubs to sign Edmonds?: Agreed Tony. He will be a waste of...
- neuwman on It's Open Blog Friday: Roger I do not disagree with that...
- neuwman on It's Open Blog Friday: Who was it who did the big study on...
Categories
Search:
Cornerstone Connection
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
I found this quote telling:
“I understand that I am not the only one in transition as I move from Mike to Christine. Everyone who knows me and my work will be transitioning as well.”
Can you say, self-absorbed? Everyone is expected to ‘transition’ with him/her, whatever, and if they don’t, well, of course THEY’RE the ones with the problem.
Oh brother.
So we should encourage manic-depressives to embrace their mania and depression. encourage alcoholics to stop avoiding it, tell racists just to be themselves, etc. after all, they’re natural conditions.
And what should we encourage the terminally stupid to do? Would they understand?
Previous commenters: Who cares what sex, or how self-absorbed, Mike/Christine is? If you can’t deal with someone’s life choice and it offends you, don’t read their column. Who cares what you think? I like good sportswriting by males or females. I don’t know this person and I’m not gonna waste time in my day even thinking about something that doesn’t affect me. Maybe you should, too.
I’ve often heard the term narrow-minded applied to Christians… but I think the above is case-in-point of how narrowly-scoped secular America is when it comes to “this doesn’t affect me b/c I don’t know him/her personally”.
I hope that I teach my children to think through things in such a way tha they can see the logical end of their means to that end.
Such short-sightedness is a great detriment to our current cultural climate in this country.
j razz
I like how he’s not going to waste time thinking about something that doesn’t affect him but yet he has time to offer his opinion on this blog. That’s right up there with those who say “I won’t be back” and then post another message an hour later.
Hey j razz- for such a smart and righteous guy you should be a little more transparent than to re-arrange my words when you paraphrase ‘em in quotes to fit your opinion. Much like most of the american media, plain fact, (my words printed above), is twisted to suit your own circular “logic”. That sure is Christian of ya! Maybe teach your children not to be so confident in skewing reality to meet ones’ own pathetic version of it.
Is it wrong to read this and think to myself “(three letter word)”?
In regards to commenter’s of previous: Self-absorbed, sex wasting time by males doesn’t affect me. I can’t deal with females or good sports writing. I don’t like this person because in my day even thinking about mike/Christine offends me.
When I have children I’m going to teach them to squeeze their eyes from the sides and see just how skewed reality can be.
Is it a him or a her?
A ma’am or a sir?
No!
It’s just Pat!
Andrew, In no way did I intend to quote you. If I did, I would have done this Hey j razz- for such a smart and righteous guy you should be a little more transparent…
What I did above was take a mode of thought that is currently prevalent in our society and express it by way of quotation marks; this is grammatically acceptable.
So, just so we are clear, I had no intentions of twisting your words and furthermore, I did not quote you or intend to caricaturize your statement.
j razz
“Transsexualism is a complicated and widely misunderstood medical condition. It is a natural occurrence — unusual, no question, but natural.”
I would say more of a mental illness, not exactly a medical condition like a disease.
I’m curious to know why he needs to change his surname too.
As Christians in a culture steadily glorifying more and more sinful behavior we’re called to identify sin for what it is - sin. We’re also called to approach a fallen world with Christ as our example.
When Paul singled out sexual sin as having particularly deep consequences on our souls (I Corinthians 6) he didn’t make a list of sexual sins in order of best to worst. I wonder what would happen if we, as Christians, viewed pornography (or some ‘less offensive’ sexual sin) with the same disdain we hold for homosexuality, transexuality, or someotherality. I mean after all, it’s all sin, right? And yet, we keep the porn tucked away between the mattresses of life and wag our finger at someone else’s sexual sin.
How would I want someone to confront/approach me about my own sins? How would Christ approach me? Mr. Penner chose a public avenue to disclose his personal struggles. How would Christ respond to him?
All I can say at this point is that I am now happier, more focused and more energized when I sit behind a keyboard. The wicked writer’s block that used to reach up and torture me at some of the worst possible times imaginable has disappeared.
My therapist says this is what happens when a transsexual finally “integrates” and the ever-present white noise in the background dissipates. -Old Mike
Tim, it looks like we have found the answer to your writer’s block
j razz
Shut up, j razz.
Amen to the shut up, j razz !
“There are some that call me Tim”
Don’t shutup J Razz Don’t do it!
Free J Razz!
Ahahaha.
I’m waiting for John Kerry to take this step. He’s changed his mind about everything else.
I’m going to take a wild guess here: the reason for changing the last name is Penner’s favorite 24 person is the VP.
Before reading Mike Penner’s column, I’d never heard of him. I can only wish Mike well in his transition to Christine Daniels, and I honestly hope that she will, indeed, find a certain amount of … I don’t know, peace of mind? Fulfillment?
I’m glad to see that Christine has a sense of humor about the entire situation, and I admire the strength that it took not only to come to terms with who she is but also to attempt, through writing a very personal column, to explain just a little bit about transsexualism to a society that, by and large, would rather label someone like her as a “freak” and just move on.
On another note: I’m curious (not overly curious, but a little) as to what aspect of transsexualism constitutes “sinful behavior.”
Struggling with transexualism is not sin; getting a sex change operation is. (I am inferring this by his comments that he is leaving for vacation as Mike and returning as Christine) Also, homosexual relations are sinful so fi they are having homosexual relations even if they feel they are the other sex inside, it is sin.
Before someone says that they are born with it, well, I am born with a predisposition to being selfish, to lying, to stealing, to coveting, etc. It is only sin if I act on it. We choose to sin or to fight it. Mike, in the end, those desires do not have to win.
j razz
To suggest that Jesus would shun a transsexual or that being gender dysphoric is a sin is conslusive proof of one thing and one thing only. If you ever walked into a church you did so only to escape the death rays from Mars or some other paranoid rationalization for entering God’s house, or you were asleep or drunk when the pastor spoke of Jesus’ seeking out, embracing and blessing the outcasts. All us preverted transsexuals were made according to God’s plan and God makes no mistakes. God Bless you Christine!
Obviously nothing anyone says is going to stop Christine from living life as a woman. I will let God judge Christine because it’s not my place to judge others. I hope Christine enjoys her new life. I also hope that Christians don’t scare away all the transsexuals from Christianity by the things they say. Better to keep Christine as a friend of Christianity than to turn her into an evil foe. As time goes on I think transsexuality will be better understood and I think there is no doubt that some people are born this away or born with a predisposition to lean in this direction when combined with life experiences. Demonizing transsexuals is pointless unless you want them to kill themselves.
Transexualism is sin because it denies the truth that God created the sexes as separate and distinct (Matt. 19:4), not as some sliding scale which varies based on how I feel today. If God made me male physically, it means I’m male, period. To deny that is to call God a liar and to go against His created order.
It’s also as sin because it violates a specific commandment of scripture for men not to wear women’s clothing or to present themselves as women (Deut. 22:5). Mike Penner is a male and will always be a male, he’ll simply from now on be a male presenting himself as a female, something that is an abomination to God.
Let’s just be clear on what transsexualism is and hence, what makes it sin. It is when a person of one sex takes on the pysical characteristics of the other and chooses to act in such a way as to deny the body they were given and the role that comes along with that body.
j razz
Susan I don’t think anyone suggested Jesus would shun a transsexual. Nor a homosexual. Nor an alcoholic. Or one addicted to whatever. Or any sinner.
But if we don’t repent from what God calls sin–not what Christians call sin–than we cannot have communion with Him.
I don’t label Mike/Christine as a freak. In fact I feel sorrow that he’s had such a painful struggle. I shudder to imagine the inner turmoil he’s experienced.
We are each lovingly created in the image of God and Mr. Penner was created and born as Mike. Society would like me to smile, nod my head and warmly wish Mr. Penner peace in his ‘transition’. But society is far too fickle to guide my conscience or light my faith. My heart belongs to Christ who redeemed my life on the cross. My center of belief is found in scripture.
Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.”
Psalm 139:13-14 says, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works and my soul knows it well.”
1 Corinthians 6:19 says, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?
And so, I will smile, nod my head and warmly pray that Mr. Penner finds true peace that only God can provide.
Better to keep Christine as a friend of Christianity than to turn her into an evil foe.
To take this logic to its extreme, the German church took this same rationale with Hitler.
_________________
To expound on what this mode of thought produces as its logical end, let’s ask a few questions.
-What does this friendship look like?
-What does Jesus say about being friends with the world?
-Is this a right thought for Christians to have?
By the statement above, it would appear that the writer’s statement is to be taken as “be nice to the person who holds the pen or else he/she could do some serious damage to your cause”. Or maybe he meant that in general we should attempt to befriend those who oppose Biblical principles so that we won’t look bad to the rest of the world. Either way, what did Jesus say about fearing men? Is it not better to fear the one who can also destroy the soul? What does God demand of us? To be be holy as He is holy. Therefore, we must abhor sin and flee from it. We must also point the world to Christ and the only way they can ever come to the conclusion that they need Christ is for them to be made aware of the sin in their life. Without the acknowledgement of sin in their lives, there can be no logical need for a savior from that sin. What else would we need saving from?
Is this a right though for Christians to have? That we should keep our mouths shut and let the world be? By no means. We are to effect change in our culture. Now, here is where the dilemma comes in; how do we do that rightly? How do we do that in such a way that it brings glory to God and does not tarnish the world’s perception of our God?
Jesus gives great insight into this very thing. With the Pharisees he calls them out in public for their sin. In Luke, when Jesus went to eat with a Pharisee, He did not wash before reclining at the table. When the Pharisee was thinking about this and Jesus lack of being clean, Jesus rebuked him. A Lawyer spoke up and said to Jesus that He was offending him too. Jesus basically told him that he should be offended and went on with His rebuke. Now, Jesus was also questioned about an adulteress and whether or not she should be put to death. He told the accusing party that whoever was without sin, they should cast the first stone. All walked away and Jesus’ charge to the adulteress was that she should go and sin no more.
We have two very different responses to sin from our savior. So, how can we immulate Him in this? Discernment. Listen to the Holy Spirit. Learn from Scripture. Know God.
There is not a textbook guide for every situation, but there is a book, the Bible, that instructs us, us being all of mankind, on how to live. It tells us what God outright calls sin and what He is pleased with. It tells us how to have a relationship with Him. It tells us how to be in right standing with God. And just to answer the questions above, this mode of thinking which states we should be friends with the world for fear that they will become our enemies is purely antithetical to scripture’s charge; namely to be Christ-like. Furthermore, there are no friends of Christianity when it comes down to it. Either you are a Christian or you are not. There is not a special place for those who were “friends” of christianity. There are two places: in God’s favor or not. With God or in Hell.
If we truly love God and believe His word, we would be wise to share this truth with the world. It would be loving and kind for us to share the truths about God and His gospel command. For if we don’t, we defy scripture and, to our detriment, hold to ourselves the only thing by which man can be saved: the gospel. What would not be loving and kind of us is to allow Mike to go on and live his life as Christine and spend an eternity in Hell for never repenting of his sin and believing the gospel command. What some call intolerance, we call love. We do not force anyone to believe the gospel. We do not threaten anyone to believe the gospel. We present it as the truth of God, by which you can be set free. If I did not truly believe the whole of scripture, then I would have no reason to take this time to expound on the mode of thought above. If I did not have love for you, I would not take the time to show the logical end of this type of thinking to you.
In summary, if we let people sin without pointing them to their need for Christ (keeping them as friends to christianity), then we are in direct rebellion to God and doing them a great injustice. This also dilutes the church and muddies the perception of what a Christian should be like and who Christ is. What do I mean? Well, if we allow people to call themselves Christians, join our churches and stay members and yet they live in direct rebellion to God; we are giving the world a false impression of what Christ is like. This gives Him a bad name and it gives the Church a bad name as they are now associated with Christianity. I mean, afterall, if they are friends of Christians, then why not let them join and where the name? It is better to have them associated with us than against us right?
j razz
Now I’m wondering who gets to decide who gets to be a “friend of Christianity,” and who gets to be an ACTUAL Christian!
I know nothing of Christine’s religious beliefs. What if she is already a Christian? What if she and God are already on good and kind and loving terms? What if she already knows Jesus?
Again: Just wondering.
As for the idea of taking “this logic to its extreme”: We’re not talking about Hitler or the German church! We’re talking about a person who has undergone (presumably*) a lifetime of denying/fighting against who she was, as a person, and has finally come to terms, completely, with who she is. She doesn’t appear — to me, anyway, based on the column I read — to be someone who is out to conquer the world or, really, change it any way … except, perhaps, to help people understand the issue just a little bit better and to help someone else who might be going through what she has feel that maybe there is a chance to be “normal.” Whatever that is.
* — I say “presumably” because Mike Penner mentioned having struggled with this issue for 40 years. I have no idea how old Mike is.
Di, knowing Jesus and actively, consciously choosing sin do not go hand-in-hand as a matter of course. Being a Christian is utterly soul and life changing - from the inside out, top to bottom. An individual is not on ‘honkey-dorey” terms with Christ if each day he or she actively lives his or her life in a manner that explicitly goes against Christ’s word (the Bible).
In American society today we just want everyone to be ‘okay’ - whatever that looks like. But that’s not what Christ calls us to through a new life in Him.
We can volley ideas back and forth in this forum, but at times it’s an ineffective way to express what matters most with any degree of completeness. The best way to learn about what it means to be a Christian is to go to the source. Pick up a Bible at your local library and read the book of Matthew, for starters.
Di as Lisa pointed out, if God has regenerated the heart, we won’t be ‘out and proud’ with our sin.
We will still struggle with sin certainly and sometimes give in to it but we won’t call something good that God calls evil and an abomination. If we do that, we are God’s wrath is upon us (John 3:35-36) and we are in no way on ‘good and kind and loving terms’ with Him.
I’m with Lisa, read the Book. In it you see, among many other things, Jesus telling us that we know a tree by its fruit, bad fruit doesn’t come from good trees (Luke 6:43-45).
As for the idea of taking “this logic to its extreme”: We’re not talking about Hitler or the German church! We’re talking about a person who has undergone (presumably*) a lifetime of denying/fighting against who she was, as a person, and has finally come to terms, completely, with who she is.
Better to keep Christine as a friend of Christianity than to turn her into an evil foe.
The portion that you state above Di, was in reference to the quote directely above; especially regarding …an evil foe. So, in a sense, I think that Joseph S. had something along those lines in mind when he wrote what he wrote above. As Hitler would be a poster-child for an evil foe.
j razz
I do not believe that Christine consciously chose this so-called “sin.” Granted, the physical act of having a sex change or “gender reassignment” or whatever the politically correct terminology of the moment happens to be is a conscious one, but honestly: Would anyone make a conscious choice to do this if it were not a step in a process of becoming one’s true self? I don’t think so. And I’m sure many people who have gender identity issues do not take the actual step of having a sex change; do they sin, then, if their transsexuality exists only in their minds?
This is what I believe: If being transsexual is a sin (I don’t believe it is, but there do seem to be a few snippets of Gospel to support that point of view), then a person most certainly may have a sex change, repent of the various sins that he or she has committed and then be truly OK in God’s eyes.
Why, then, would any Christian not accept this person, as he or she is?
Lisa M., you’re right: A forum is a difficult place to have such an exchange, and I appreciate the responses from you and Larry and j razz and others on this topic. (For the record: I have two Bibles of my own — the one I received in 5th grade and the Nave’s Study Bible I probably broke at least a couple of commandments by “borrowing” from my parents! — and I’ve been known to read various parts of both books.)
: )
Di,
I think we are confusing what actually constitutes the sin. Having transexual tendencies is not a sin, just like having a bent to being sexually promiscuois is not a sin… the action that follows is sin if the action is in agreement with that bent.
Would anyone make a conscious choice to do this if it were not a step in a process of becoming one’s true self?
Have you ever read about the people who choose to be amputees? They don’t feel right with their legs being there so they often tape up a leg or both and ride in a wheelchair. Or, the same with an arm. Some even go to the extent of freezing their legs in dry ice to the point that there is no hope to repair the damage so they can get them amputated. I read a story on one guy who did this and after doing it, realized the mistake he made (several years later and after therapy). He said that his mind was messed up and at the time, he was doing the right thing, but now he realized the right thing was not really what was right, but was a malfunction in his brain that he is using medication to combat.
I recount that to say that what you ask is a loaded question. It depends on what you mean by true self. If you mean a fallen creature who struggles with sin nature and is always bent towards opposing God (according to scripture this is true), then yes. If you mean by “true self” the one who God intended for him to be but somehow along the way God messed up or could not keep him from getting some wires crossed when He knitted him in his mother’s womb, then no.
I hope this helps you to think through this issue a little more. Have a good weekend all.
j razz
I just wrote a bit more concerning repentance, but when I attempted to hit ctrl+c to copy I hit ctrl+v and pasted my last comment here. So, I will not type the hole thing.
Basically Di, I was just saying that God is not such a fool that He would believe someone repented if that was their mode of thought concerning repentance. (If being transsexual is a sin, then a person most certainly may have a sex change, repent of the various sins that he or she has committed and then be truly OK in God’s eyes.
If someone believed that way, they would assume that God is naive and their view of repentance and sin is very low indeed. That is not the view the bible holds of God and that is not the view the bible holds of sin or repentance.
j razz
Tim,
I wonder if you would still have a job if you announced that you were trans-denominational.
J razz, I don’t think I’d ever try to characterize transsexuality as a case of God “messing up.” Nor do I think God is a fool, or naive.
I don’t think the amputee comparison is apropos. It seems like a case of comparing apples & oranges … or, in this case, arms and legs with … well, certain other body parts that would probably be filtered-out if I tried typing them in here.
Right, I wouldn’t assume you would (or most for that matter), but if you follow out your thought as stated above on that, it is the logical conclusion.
Di, I hope you have a great weekend. I am off to spend some time with my wife.
j razz
Can I just say that it’s quite refreshing to have a discussion that includes disagreement without degenerating into hyperbole, ALL CAPS shouting matches or useless generalizations.
I’m actually praying and thinking and reading instead of repeatedly sighing deeply while shaking my head in utter frustration.
“I do not believe that Christine consciously chose this so-called “sin.”
“Why, then, would any Christian not accept this person, as he or she is?”
If the standard we use to determine the sinfulness of something is whether the person actively chose it or not should we not just accept paedophiles as they are Di? I mean I doubt if anyone wakes up in the morning and decides to be sexually attracted to children either.
Perhaps we should stop persecuting them and let them live their life in the way that gives them the most ‘peace’ and the ability to be their ‘true selves’.
“Perhaps we should stop persecuting them and let them live their life in the way that gives them the most ‘peace’ and the ability to be their ‘true selves’.”
Do what you want, but I’m not going to stop persecuting pedophiles…
Scott,
Obviously (I hope) I was not adovcating that. I’m simply trying to show the logical conclusion of the thought process in question.
What if all 300 Spartans were transsexuals?
Nah, they fight too well.
Don’t worry Larry, I didn’t really think you thought that way. I just point out those type of things, that’s just the way I am.
Larry, I don’t see where your “logical conclusion” comes into play. And, quite frankly, I find it tiresome when a discussion on an aspect of sexuality that happens to be anything other than heterosexuality results in the playing of The Pedophilia Card.
You cannot compare what happens in happy, healthy relationships between two (or, what the hell, maybe more!) consenting adults to pedophilia. Yeah, yeah, I know: A sin is a sin is a sin. Blah blah blah.
No, once you’ve tossed that card, you’ve lost the argument or debate or whatever it is, as far as I’m concerned. In highly unoriginal style, I might add.
And, still, I ask my original question, regarding someone who is transsexual (or bisexual or homosexual or whateversexual): Why, then, would any Christian not accept this person, as he or she is?
If this person has repented of his or her so-called sin to God, then what right does anyone have NOT to accept him or her?
Again, I’m just wondering.
…regarding someone who is transsexual: Why, then, would any Christian not accept this person, as he or she is?
It depends really Di.
1. God does not accept them as they are if they are indulging in sin as God is holy and has nothing to do with sin.
2. Christians should not tolerate sin, including that in their own lives.
Counter points:
-1. God makes atonement for sin through His Son for those that believe in Him and repent of their sin (see definition above of repent).
-2. Christians are no different than any other human save for God bestowing the gift of eternal life on them. Therefore, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and the only way to have a right relationship with the creator is to believe that His Son died for your sins on a cross and was buried, then 3 days later He arose from the dead and was seated at the right hand of the Father until all His enemies could be made a footstool.
A question for you Di. What do you mean by “accept” in Why, then, would any Christian not accept this person, as he or she is?
If you mean as a “christian” who claims Christ as Lord but denies them with their actions, then scripture certainly condemns the notion of accepting them as a fellow Christian.
If you mean as a person who is not a christian and does not pretend to be one, then yes, we accept them in that they are what we once were: enslaved to sin and bent towards our own destruction. We accept them and point them to the only thing that can free them from their sin (and ours), namely Christ Jesus: the One who has defeated Satan, Sin and Death. The One who lived a perfect life and was both completely man and God at the same time.
What is more Di, in both examples above, a Christian’s ultimate goal is to point them to the savior. Unless they are “born again” they will spend eternity in Hell. So we accept them and love them enough to point out their sin so that we can indeed point them to their need for a savior; namely Christ. We accept them in that we attempt to help them just like someone helped us.
As for your second question about repentance: as long as we understand the biblical definition of repent, then no one has a right not to accept them.
j razz
Di,
Its a sexual orientation. Either all sexual orientations are ‘unchosen’ and therefore acceptable or they are not. If they are not, the burden of proof is on you to say why pedophelia is somehow unchosen and worthy of sanction whereas others that you may want to justify are not. If they are all ‘unchosen’ you must apply the same standard across the board as you want to apply to homosexuality/transsexuality.
So I’ll ask you again, why, using your own standard, would we not just accept a pedophile for ‘who they are’?
As to your last comment, the person we’re discussing here has clearly NOT repented of this sin but is flaunting it for all to see. True repentance is a turning from sin to ‘go and sin no more’ as Christ told the woman caught in adultery.
There is no “burden of proof” on me to do any such thing, Larry.
First of all, even if I could prove ANYthing regarding any aspect of sexuality, there would still be those who would doubt me, so why bother? Secondly, I have no idea how or why one person is straight and another one is gay and yet another is transsexual — which could very well be more an issue of gender identity than one of sexuality or sexual identity. (For example, what if Christine, sexually, prefers women? Then what? Is she a transsexual heterosexual male, or a lesbian?) Maybe we’re all “born that way,” maybe it’s in the water, maybe the hows and whys aren’t really all that important, anyway, who knows? I don’t … and to be quite honest, I don’t have that many opinions or theories on any of it.
My understanding was that the topic of discussion in this thread was Mike Penner’s transsexuality/transition to become Christine. From that, I presumed that we were talking about an adult who had struggled with how she identified herself, gender-wise and sexually, for her entire life and had, as an adult, made an informed decision to complete the process.
I believe that you are throwing the issue of pedophilia in as a sort of smokescreen and are attempting to compare non-related issues. Sorry, but I’m not taking the bait.
Well, j razz, let me ask this:
Let’s say Mike Penner was a Christian, and now he has made the full transition to Christine. Let’s assume she is still a Christian and has even repented her “sin” — but what’s a girl to do? I don’t know if there even IS such a thing as a reverse sex change, and I’m not trying to make light of the situation in any way, but what would everyone have her do? Switch back to her male identity? Or should she continue in her female identity? Or would this be, as Larry puts it, “flaunting” her sin?
Or would it be better for everyone if she simply locked herself in her house for the rest of her life and never came into contact with anyone else, ever again?
I hope she continues to flaunt whatever she’s supposedly flaunting by living her life as happily and as healthily as she possibly can … and I suspect that, even post-op, she has a bigger set of stones than many who would dare to cast them her direction.
While not attempting to put words in Larry’s mouth, I believe he’s getting at “what makes pedophilia wrong” (improper, sin).
It isn’t our constitution, our logic, our cognitive ability, etc… It’s The Word of God. And if The Word of God says that a certain expression of sexuality is wrong (i.e. pedophilia), then we should also be paying attention to how the Bible characterizes all “unnatural” (Romans 1) expressions of human sexuality (homosexuality included).
Those who think that they need a sex-change operation in order to be complete are very clearly suggesting that God makes mistakes. I’m bothered by that attitude.
I don’t know if there is such a thing as a reverse sex change either, but if he truly repented then he would not pursue relationships with males and he would not take hormone therapies that helped him to look female. He would live with the physical, mental, and emotional effects of his actions and move on with the rest of his life. I believe it would be a lot harder to find a wife seeing how he cannot give her children or fulfill her sexually in the same way that he would have been able to before. It would also presumably be harder to find a woman who would be fine with his lack of male reproductive organs.
With that being said, he probably is not attracted to women anyways and would be better suited for a life of celibacy. Why? 1. He likes men as far as I can tell by reading the article. 2. it is a sin to be a man and to have sexual relations with men inside or outside of marriage. Therefore, him being with a woman probably would not be in the best interest of the woman knowing tha he could never love her as he should.
It would not be better for him to lock himself away. It would be better if he repented of the sin and lived with the consequences of his sinful actions to the glory of God as that should be his lot in life if he does indeed go through with the operation. What is even a better option is for him not to go through with it and to repent now.
In contrast to your statement, I hope that he doesn’t flaunt whatever he is supposedly flaunting. I hope/pray that he humbles himself and subjects himself to the Lord our God in hopes that the Lord may have mercy on him and bring about new creation in Christ. That is what I hope.
j razz
Di. this is not ‘bait’ its simply asking you to be consistent with your world view. Something you’re clearly unwilling to do.
Oh, Larry, I’m pretty consistent with my world view … except that, as a part of life, the world itself seems to be in a constant state of flux, and I try to keep that in mind. (Doesn’t always happen, but I try. And fail. And succeed, sometimes. And, sometimes, my world view changes. It does happen!)
Also, I don’t think anyone can be expected to have what you might term “consistent” outlooks on issues that are not the same. I don’t follow the kind of logic which would imply that:
1. Everyone sins.
2. Pedophilia is a sin.
3. Everyone who sins is a pedophile.
And, really, if someone wants to compare a transsexual who has completed his or her transition and happens to be involved in a consenting relationship with a fellow adult, regardless of gender, to a pedophile, then I suggest you go ahead and take it a step further and compare anyone and EVERYone who sins — because we ALL sin, no? — to pedophiles. Hopefully, then, you might see how ridiculous such comparisons are.
Tony, I agree with you: I don’t think God makes mistakes. I think He gives us free will and lets us make our own decisions/messes, and I imagine it’s all part of a master plan — one that’s not necessarily set in stone or anything, but takes human judgment/error into consideration and makes adjustments as we all go merrily along.
That being said: If, ultimately, this is all about saving our souls, then does all the stuff on the outside matter, really?
Finally, j razz, why could this repenting not take effect starting right now? Starting, for Christine, at the instant she completes her transition? Isn’t it possible that God is more concerned with her soul than He is with her surgery-altered, hormone-assisted appearance? I mean, I’m not trying to put thoughts in God’s head, but isn’t one of the overriding themes of the Bible, God is love?
…why could this repenting not take effect starting right now?
I think you are confusing what biblical repentance is with what most americanized christians think it is. True repentance is not equivalent to the “it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission” mentality.
Isn’t it possible that God is more concerned with her soul…
Yes. But I believe that the bible has a different take on what this looks like than what you are implying by your statement.
…isn’t one of the overriding themes of the Bible, God is love?
No. It is not. It is one of the many attributes of God. It is not overriding nor is it to be neglected. It is, however, to be taken in its proper context along side of God’s holiness, His justness, His etc. Love does not cancel out His justness. It coexists with it. It compliments it as seen by Christ’s death on the cross to atone for the sin we have committed. God’s wrath was poured out on His Son because He loved us. See: both love and justice are being demonstrated here.
Love is not the end all be all for God. It has its proper place alongside His other attributes. If you choose to place love above the others, then you make an idol for yourself that is not the God of scripture.
j razz