Thursday, 19 May 2016

Jesus: The First Transgenderism man? Response to lies of the Huffington Post

I came across a horrific and offensive article, which is a testament to how theologically bankrupt the Huffington Post is.

The original can be found here and I hope by God's grace it will be dissected and refuted:

Let us take a look.

"The current flap in conservative Christian circles about bathroom access is a bit baffling. They shout about God not making mistakes, as if God only works in binaries and anything falling outside of black and white cannot be from him. But we don’t have a black and white God; creation is so full of color and variation that it’s incomprehensible how we Christians struggle to pare him down to the limited palette of our individual expectations."

What has our claim that God doesn't make mistakes got to do with supposed claiming he is black or white or full of colour and variation? Don't you think it is a problem that there are transgender men who are trying to share a bathroom, thus there would be a risk of young women being attacked, groped or even raped? Is this not a legitimate concern for anyone who has any moral decency?

"The worst offenders are the Christian’s who claim to take the Bible literally. Of course they don’t actually do that; they impose their own filters on stories and phrases to fit their particular ideology. If they really did as they claim to do, they would quickly see that Jesus must be, by their own exegetical rules, the first transgender male."

A claim to be disputed and debunked.

"Let’s take a look at what the Bible and Christianity tell us.
The teaching of the church from ancient days through today is that Jesus received his fleshly self from Mary. The church also teaches that Jesus is the new Adam, born of the new Eve.
Now Eve is a fascinating creature for many reasons. The Bible tells us she is the first example of human cloning, which I touched on in this post. But the fun doesn’t stop there. If we take the Genesis account in it’s literal meaning, as conservative Christians demand that we do, she is also the first case of a transgender woman. God reached into Adam, pulled out a bit of rib bone, and grew Eve from that XY DNA into Adam’s companion. She was created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into woman.
Then along comes Jesus and the whole pattern is both repeated and reversed. The first couple’s refusal to cooperate is turned around by Mary’s yes, and the second act of cloning occurs. The Holy Spirit comes upon the second Eve, and the child takes flesh from her and is born. Born of her flesh. Born with XX chromosome pairing. Born genetically female, and yet trans-formed into man."

It is incorrect to say that Eve was cloned, but even if she were "cloned", This is flawed reasoning. Changing the chromosome of Adam's rib has nothing to do with transgenderism endorsement. Considering the fact that God created chromosomes, do you honestly think he cannot change the chromosomes of a rib into the appropriate gender? If he did do with Eve, would not give credence to transgenderism. For that matter, it is nothing but speculation and speculation that is in vain at that.

Also, God is quite capable of giving Jesus the correct chromosomes without causing his gender to be changed in the process. Putting aside the issue of a fetus being male or female upon conception, the biological system God set up to determine our sex is not to be used to support any idea of transgenderism. It completely disarms the point of chromosomes in the first place. Even if it was a gender change (which it wasn't) it is God who is changing the gender BECAUSE OF HIM BEING THE CREATOR AND NOT BECAUSE WE SAY SO!!!! This is a case of reading into the text something that isn't there on the part of the Huffington Post. The human writer, Moses, who was inspired to write Genesis, would never of had transgenderism cross his mind when recording Adam and Eve's existence.

"States that do not support trans persons’ right to choose the restroom that fits their identity demand that bathroom usage be based on a person’s “biological sex.” One can imagine a future in which state licences require not only a vision test, but also a genetic test so that bouncers proofing at bathroom doors have something tangible to review. And that means that if Jesus and Eve were walking around today, perhaps shopping at the mall for a Father’s Day gift, they’d have to swap restrooms. Now Jesus could surely manage to finesse his way around a woman’s room, but poor Eve...
A quick look at the dictionary for the prefix “trans” tells us that it means “across,” “beyond,” “through,” and “changing thoroughly,” all of which are great terms for the person of Christ. He cuts across all boundaries. He is beyond our understanding. He is through all and in all. He changes us thoroughly into new creations.
In his person, and in his salvific actions, Jesus is truly the first and forever trans man."

What the word trans means in the dictionary is irrelevant, not in the sense that the word doesn't mean any of those things, but in the sense that even if it meant those words, this still wouldn't validate transgenderism and Deuteronomy 22:5 would not have been written to safeguard the differences between men and women:

The meaning of the word in question doesn't prove Jesus to be a trans human. This is ridiculous and perverse to suggest that he is the first and forever trans man. Saying regarding Jesus "He cuts across all boundaries. He is beyond our understanding. He is through all and in all. He changes us thoroughly into new creations" does nothing to bolster transgenderism when Jesus himself quotes the book of Genesis, establishing that there is only male and female, not trans:
"Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a]"

Genesis (since the Huffington Post speaks of those who take the Bible literally) clearly says this:
"5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man[a] when they were created."

The Huffington Post are doing nothing but babbling and are not really saying anything. Give the Huffington Post no credence or credit at all, they are not trustworthy when it comes to scripture.

Answering Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment