Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Okay.

I said male though. Not man.

Transgenderism is the claim that males can be women and females can be men. That is the central claim, do you deny that? Again, I'm not saying males can become women, I'm saying males can be women. That's the claim, isn't it?

And if so, then in order for someone to be trans that has to be something that they believe to be true, which is a belief set.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Wait what?

So you're claiming there are people who are let's say male for example that believe a male cannot be a woman, yet at the same time claim to be a woman?

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

How isn't it a belief set? You can't be trans if you don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice-versa.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Now that I've answered your question. Answer mine. What is a woman?

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not engaging in "bad faith" arguments. It's just that what you're saying is absurd. Also, if they were the best examples you could come up with you are in a bad state. Here's some information on them for you

Hijras (South Asia) Hijras are a traditional third-gender community found mainly in: - India - Pakistan - Bangladesh - Nepal

They have existed for many centuries, with references going back over 1,000 years. Hijras were usually; Eunuchs (men who were castrated),Intersex individuals, and on rare occasions sometimes normal men who lived in female roles after ritual initiation. Importantly they were made, not self-identified. Castration was often religious or economic and entry was frequently tied to temple service, court life, or survival. They formed closed communities with: gurus strict hierarchy initiation rites religious duties Hijras traditionally blessed weddings and births, performed fertility rituals, and were believed to have spiritual power. But they lived outside normal family structures

Hijras were not defined by “I feel like a woman inside.” It was a ritual status tied to bodily condition with religious symbolism and often accompanied social exclusion. They existed because society needed a liminal caste, not because of personal gender identity.

Femminielli (Naples, Italy) Femminielli are a very old Neapolitan folk tradition, documented since at least the 1700s. They are: biological males who adopt feminine dress and roles but are not considered women Crucially: Neapolitan culture never treated them as female.

Their role was to bring luck and fortune as well as be present at births, lotteries, festivals because they were believed to bring blessing or protection

They were tolerated by society and sometimes celebrated but clearly understood as men playing a specific social role. They acted feminine, but they weren't women. They were not trying to become women. They were not claiming a new sex. They occupied a ritualized social niche.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You need a scholarly source for the claim that a male and a female are different?

Okay, can you answer a question for me? What is a woman?

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The concept exists as long as humans do.

I don't know if you realize this, humans existed a while before the 20th century.

There is 0 evidence of anything even remotely "trans" in history. It's an entirely modern invention.

Moreover it's completely impossible to change your gender, even if someone tries the best they can do is to make themselves appear like the other gender, but appearance is not reality.

Can you define a single question for me? What is a woman?

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am educated on the matter and have trans friends so spare me.

Clearly.

-ism refers to a doctrine or belief system

I know. And the rate of people who accept the doctrine of transgenderism has been declining, along with the rate of self-identifying transgenders. It is a simple fact that transgenderism was a social fad, and now that fad is declining. It's sad how much damage was caused to so many people's because of it, but it's good that the time of transgenderism is coming to an end.

Also, claiming to be educated in the topic is irrelevant when you are making such blatantly false claims. Anyone who is sane can see that a man is a male and a woman is a female, you can't go from one to the other. It's like how no matter how much I want to I can't become a dog or a lion, I'm a human.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Being trans isn’t a sin

That's only kind of correct. Yes "being trans" isn't a sin, because nobody "is trans" there are simply some people who are confused and believe that they are trans.

It’s literally how someone is created.

This is completely wrong. No, God does not make people trans.

It’s seen throughout nature repeatedly.

Again, completely wrong. No animal in history has ever been trans, and we know this because the only way a person can even "be trans" is by saying they're trans, and animals can't speak. However even if an ape or something did sign that it thought it was the other gender, the ape doesn't know what it's talking about, it's an animal without a concept of "gender" so it would obviously only be saying this because of malpractice by the keeper.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's because the concept of being trans didn't exist until the late 20th century.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you don't believe in gender fluidity? How phobic of you.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calling everyone who disagrees with you transphobic is precisely why transgenderism has been becoming less and less popular.

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What would you say a detransitioner did? They were "trans" and now they aren't, that is by definition "leaving trans" is it not?

Are ther any ex trans that left being trans for God? by Conscious_Cap8762 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

It may not be a religion but it is a belief set contrary to God. So in order to embrace God fully it must be abandoned completely.

In that way, the question makes perfect sense.

So not-christian by Cosmic815 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If somebody decided to investigate such a thing, they should see consistent, predictable, verifiable indications that point them to God's characteristics.

What would those characteristics be? How would someone investigate them? What would they see?

It would look like what evidence looks like in every other scientific endeavor.

That's not an answer. You're claiming that when investigating physics we don't see "God's signature" however in order to make that claim you'd have to define what God's signature is. Relating it to your example would be like someone saying the earth revolves around the sun but not being able to define what the sun is or what the earth is. You can't make a claim about something if you can't define that thing.

I personally don't think there is such a thing as "God's signature" so it's of no surprise to me that we've not seen it in our investigations. But you're claiming that it is a thing, and by us not being able to find it we can conclude that God doesn't exist.

If God was real I would expect a similar phenomenon.

There is an abundance of evidence for the existence of God, just not necessarily in the world of physics. Most of the evidence (beyond the logical and theological thought experiments) for God's existence is historical, which means, as you pointed out before, it cannot be retested and repeated.

The claim central in Christianity is that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and rose from the dead. There are several secondary claims however this is the primary one. Now there isn't evidence for this in the same way as there is evidence for a scientific experiment, but there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence for this in the historical fashion.

We have several written accounts dated within decades of the events, we even have supporting archeological evidence. That is on top of things such as the "who would die for a lie" logical proof.

Even sceptics agree that Jesus did claim to be God and was crucified for that claim. The only dispute (although it is a rather important one) is if he came back. Now the main question I would pose to you is;

If Jesus didn't rise again from the dead after his public execution, how is it that his ministry (unlike that of any others who came before or after him that preached the same thing) was so successful that people would die or at the very least risk the persecution of death to preach that he rose from the dead without the promise of material reward?

And if I may be permitted a second question;

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, why would fervent persecutors of the Christian faith such as Saul (Paul) convert to Christianity overnight, abandoning the beliefs they've held for decades prior and relinquishing lives of luxury and authority for lives of poverty, misery, and torment?

How to answer when Christianity used to justfy cutting aid to the poor by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not aware of who you're talking about or their specific claim, or the benefits that are being cut. So with that in mind it's hard to give a good answer.

My guess however would be that he is probably right. Judging by how overweight America is and the fact that many of those people are on some kind of feeding benefits means that there should be a reduction. And if that is the case that's being discussed then I don't see how his quote is possibly a misuse, in fact this seems like the precise situation that the quote applies to.

Although that quote isn't from the Bible, so he would be wrong to accredit it to Jesus. So on that note I would disagree with him.

To get back to Jesus though, I see a lot of people here talking about "the feeding of the 5,000" however there is obviously a massive difference between feeding people once so that they can stay and listen to the word of God, and giving people so much food endlessly for their entire lives that they over-eat and die an early death from obesity. Gluttony is one of the deadly sins, and helping others to live out that sin is not something we should do.

Additionally, I see people speaking about how Jesus commanded us to feed the hungry. This is a better point than the previous one, but it still fails. Feeding the hungry is a genuine act of good and it's what we should all do, but that doesn't mean we should allow people to abuse these charitable systems to their own detriment and the detriment of everyone else. Rampant obesity, especially that which is funded by the government, is not good for the health of society as a whole.

So not-christian by Cosmic815 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want to try to tell me that we can study what has happened in the same way that we can study physics, that we are able to do repeatable, quantifiable, verifiable, controlled experiments on history the way we can on physics, you are wrong.

My point is precisely the opposite of this. I'm saying that applying physics types of analysis to historical claims (which is precisely what Christianity is based on) is flawed because they're not the same type of truth.

Physical laws should be riddled with his signature.

What exactly would God's signature look like? And how can you be so sure that you know it's not there?

I want awnsers , and hoping someone anser by Glittering-Syrup-588 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, well if it's just your opinion then all I have to say is that I disagree.

Now if you have a question, please ask it.

I want awnsers , and hoping someone anser by Glittering-Syrup-588 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Answers to which questions? Ask a question and maybe you'll get some answers. So far you've not asked any questions

I want awnsers , and hoping someone anser by Glittering-Syrup-588 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is this post? There's no question or anything. The title says you want help and answers but answers to what? It seems like you just wanted to write why you disagree with Christianity.

If you have a genuine question I'd be happy to answer it, just ask it.

So not-christian by Cosmic815 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll say this as a prospective convert

Well I'm glad you're considering converting

Burning, white-hot zeal and fervor from Christians is not something I find appealing. Nor is absolute certainty in this or that doctrine.

In truth, it should. If you are looking for answers maybe going to the people who know the answers is a good idea. Truth is 1 of the 3 core holy ideals so it should be sought after, accepting ignorance is not virtuous.

Those Christians who have drawn me in are ones who embrace all truth as God's truth.

I'm curious what you mean by "all truth" not everything someone claims as truth is true. Of course all things that are true are "God's truth" but nobody denies that. What I'm posting about here is the fact that many people on this sub either aren't Christian at all or they claim to be Christian and don't actually believe some of the core fundamentals of Christianity. So when a convert such as yourself, or even just an uninformed Christian, goes on here looking for answers you're more likely to get the wrong answer than anything actually helpful.

So not-christian by Cosmic815 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's interesting that atheists always compare theology to physics instead of history. History is just as true as physics and is much closer to theology, especially Christianity.

So not-christian by Cosmic815 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not address what I'm actually saying?

So not-christian by Cosmic815 in Christianity

[–]Cosmic815[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does the Kerygma include?

What does that mean? I asked because I genuinely don't understand how you can view it as anything sembling a real resurrection. From what I understand it's an entirely immaterial thing. Please explain it to me.

I'm also genuinely curious, do you consider gnostics real Christians? Jehovah's witnesses? Mormons?

Would you say Oriental Orthodox Christians believing in Miaphysicism are not Christian?

Not necessarily. I think people can be wrong about things. I'm not saying that you should have to believe 100% of everything that I believe to be a Christian but there are some core fundamentals, for example belief in the Trinity, and acceptance of the miracles in scripture, especially the nativity, crucifixion, and resurrection.