It's

polecat (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:31 pm a

bryan (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:57 pm bad thing for someone to reject Christianity

if they are doing it based on someone

else's false notion of what Christianity is all about. I'm glad that Christianity has helped your life, helped you become more full and satisfied as a person... what would

bryan (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:57 pm the true notion of Christianity be, if I might ask?

](If Christianity were a law-based thing, then the old covenant would have sufficed. But in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, God said a new approach, a new covenant, was necessary: "I will w

rite my laws in their hearts...they will all know Me.")Just because it has new laws doesn't change the fact that it's law-based. There are many requirements to be Christian, many things you must do, otherwise not only are you not Christian, but by the doctrine you're in a heap of trouble. Laws are

bryan (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:57 pm good, when they help us get along better and make sense.

But Christianity is a living relationship with God, with consc

ience being formed and the heart renewed along the way.I'm not even sure what you mean. What is a living relationship with God? What does it mean for th

bryan (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:57 pm e heart to be renewed, and the conscience to be formed?

I sense peace

between me and the Lord. I'm happier now than before. It's so wonderful that you can sense those things; it's not something everyone can do I guess, and I'm glad that you can and that it helps your life, like I said.

So,

What do the authorities of the Catholic Church have to say about those who were born with sexual ambigity?

Do we just pretend that THEY (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-242822) don't exist? :-\

Are these (http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/4439_1209.asp) not God's children, too?

Should we just let them (http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec23/ch266/ch266a.html) die, or maybe help them along? Abortion? (http://www.infertilitydoctor.com/geneti ... tility.htm) Heaven forbid!

So, are the Catholic Church authorities totally stupid, or do they just appear that way? :shakemitk

Do they not know what can be God's way and that this (http://messybeast.com/mosaicism2.htm) also exists in people? :withstupi

Do they really think that they are qualified to judge this? (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00668.html)

With the facts as they are, can they prove that they are not just as ignorant of genetics today (http://health.enotes.com/genetic-disord ... ormalities) , as they were of Physics and Science when they sentenced Galleilo to house arrest? Islam is not arrogant in this respect. (http://www.islam.com/reply.asp?id=553663&ct=2&mn=553663) So how can this be that Catholicism is?

You know, it is truly tragic that those who suffer from sexual ambiguity (http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/003269.htm) are not recognized by organized religions.

Science wants to abort them. (http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002222.html)

Religion wants to deny their existance.

So why if there is a genetic abnormality (http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/apbio13.html) that has nothing to do with sex that they recognize it but if it has anything to do with sexual ambiguity that they simply "cop out" and call it "A SIN"?

Let me conclude this unsavory dialogue with three notes from this site of a renown Psychiatrist from John's Hopkins in Baltimore... (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0 ... mchugh.htm) ...

Even though he claims that sexual dysphoria is a mental illness, he should pay close attention to what he is REALLY telling us.

We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.

Without any fixed position on what is given in human nature, any manipulation of it can be defended as legitimate. A practice that appears to give people what they want—and what some of them are prepared to clamor for—turns out to be difficult to combat with ordinary professional experience and wisdom. Even controlled trials or careful follow-up studies to ensure that the practice itself is not damaging are often resisted and the results rejected.

Termination for Cause

Sir,

I had thought the terms of our agreement

Were quite clear.

You were to provide me length of days,

Model children by a docile wife, support for same;

Keep far away all disaster man-made

Or act of your own.

And a death if not quite painless

At least sudden, without humiliation.

I in turn would confess You Creator

Of all things seen and unseen, offering customary

Praise and adoration.

Regarding line four above

Your performance has been marginal at best,

And I have now confirmation

From two physicians

Of what I must deem willful disregard

As to length of days and dying.

I therefore recognize no further obligation whatsoever

To provide the aforesaid praise, etc.

Or, indeed, to acknowledge Your existence.

Any further communication should be directed

To my counsel,

Who assures me that he knows You

from of old.

James F. O’Callaghan

May God forgive them and have mercy on their souls for they know not what they do to humanity.

Physician, heal thyself and holy man, save thyself!

...But, for God's sake, give the rest of humanity a fucking break! O.K.?

A-1

Just a few observations from A-1's links:

The author at the Firstthings.com column

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:27 pm (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0 ... mchugh.htm),

may wish to learn more about history. The first attempt at male to female sex change(s) occured in 1930 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res ... da7qB6TSjA), not the 70's as the article claims

Second observation might be a little more interesting: notice the term doctors in Western society use for intersex conditions: "ambiguous genitalia". Notice how the wording places the cause of the condition squarely with that part of the body itself. If we were to say "it is a boy" or "a girl" we are speaking more of social role than of genitals, even though this is how we determine the expected role.

Looking at a newborns' genitals can determine if the person - as a whole - is male or female. Yet when it is clearly neither, the trend is to distract, by focusing on the genitals as the source of some (supposed) problem.

When in fact, the root of the problem lies in a social structure that does not recognise anything that is neither male nor female.

A-1 has done an incredible job of pulling together a wide variety of sources in his post. It's well worth your time to read through the set.

Like thefraj and A-1, I have tremendous problems with the essay by Paul McHugh, MD, PhD. He's proof that being formally educated does not necessarily confer wisdom. I find his essay quite disturbing, as I think most here will.

"Disturbing"?

I don't have words for this idiot.

Hi Polecat,

polecat (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:11 pm Just because it has new laws doesn't change the fact that it's law-based.

Law is intended to restrain bad desires (i.e., "Thou shalt not..."). If one has good desires, however, there's no need for restraint. Why restrain someone from being nice?

polecat (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:11 pm I'm not even sure what you mean. What is a living relationship with God? What does it mean for th

e heart to be renewed, and the conscience to be formed?

I'll try to explai

polecat (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:11 pm n. What is a living relationship with God?

Eighteen years ago, I asked God for power to avoid adultery. I also said, "If I do things that are wrong, make sure I'm caught." So there was the expectation He would be active in my life. And He was: providential things would happen, like meeting a Bible publisher's representative on an airplane. Later on, I asked Him to take control of my life, thus putting Him in the driver's seat. In practice, this meant submitting decisions to Him and not pursuing things aggressively if they didn't go my way (i.e., He overruled my decision). I don't hear words from Him in prayer, but thoughts do come to mind: things I should do, reassurring Scriptures, ideas to help me at work, and a sense of how things are between us. If I do wrong, I apologize to Him immediately. He's available all the time, and I keep the communication lines open. I can tell when He wants me to act because immediately there will be a "burning" in my spirit which gets uncomfortable the longer I put it off.

What's it mean for the heart to be renewed? Since Christ died in our place, we can be forgiven and accepted by God. If that's all there was to it, we would still keep on sinning -- since it's in our nature -- and we still wouldn't be fit company for God. Fortunately, God (the Holy Spirit) comes to live inside. He shares His nature with us. There's a fusion which changes our nature for the better. You end up having a love for people.

One doesn't reach this point, however, unless they are willing to surrender to God and accept things on His terms. When I committed adultery, I knew I was out of control since I always considered adultery wrong. I reasoned further: "I consider murder wrong, but I have no guarantee I'll never murder. Guess I'm as bad as the rest. Please, God, don't let me ever murder somebody!" I had made a mess of things, felt like a failure, and handed the reins to Him.

What's it mean for the conscience to be formed? After enough sinning, our consciences become deadened. (In my case, I actively fought my conscience in my teen years, figuring it was a product of the nuns who taught me in grade school. Turns out I was wrong -- I was fighting God.) For most people, conscience is something which bothers them AFTER they do wrong. When the Holy Spirit dwells inside, however, it's like having a re-activated and pro-active conscience. This is a conscience which guides BEFORE one does wrong. And if that isn't sufficient, it will bother you DURING sin and afterward. When you realize it is God you are dealing with and that angels are looking into your life, there's powerful incentive to change.

Contrary to what you may think, God isn't far from unbelievers. It's just that they don't recognize Him. I believe He is what people call 'conscience.'

So, did I say anything about church? No. It's not the focus. It's no replacement for daily interaction with the Lord and reading Scripture.

Here are some verses to back up the ideas expressed above:

The world cannot accept Him [the Holy Spirit] because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. (John 14:17)

God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:27-28)

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws. (Ezekiel 36:26-27)

But the fruit of [having] the Spirit [in you] is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners -- of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life. (1 Timothy 1:15-16)

Here I am! I stand at the door [to your heart] and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

Hope that all makes sense.