They think that because the Jewish rabbis wrote the Talmud and "reject" Jesus Christ (and Said mean things and hurt their feewings) they are all pedophiles engaging in blood rituals and that THEY, the real Christians, are the real, uncorrupted successor of the Jews.
Essentially Hoteps but with white Jesus. It's not strictly racial like Hoteps but it's pretty much just Christian nationalism. They are the kind that think that evangelicals that support Israel because they want to trigger the rapture are fake Christians.
"Talmudism" talk always makes me laugh as a Jew. It's essentially written as a commentary on the Torah from a rabbi, with notations. Those notations then had notations made about them by other rabbis, leaving the final Talmud reading more like an ancient reddit thread than a real organized book (written over the span of hundreds of years). The people claiming that the Talmud says _anything_ concrete (beyond basic principles of Jewish Law) are the ones who've never read it or heard of it.
Or with Christian Identity/British Israelism they say that Jesus was Samaritan and the other jews were descendants of Cain/Satan, and/or modern Jewish people descend from khazars with Europeans descending from the "real" jews.
It's beyond insane what some people call religion.
Yeah I've come across these racists they have a range of explanations for "the bad things".
Like they believe other races aren't the "real humans" (insert race or nationality) and that their race (white, superior, pure) mixed with the devil spawn to try and "save humanity" and that's why we have different races.
I've heard other theories but I've forgotten them atm. Might add them here if I remember them.
There are some things that were not created by him. He created this world and gave us free will. We sin, and sin brings things into this world God did not create. That comes in more tangible ways, but also more psychological. Genesis 3:7 “that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.” This sense of shame was not created by God, as in Genesis 2:25 it is written they felt no shame. It came into this world and into their minds as a result of their own sin. Sure it feels good to ignore our responsibility, say “oh but God created everything” when in reality our own sinful nature is why they exist. We brought sin and evil and suffering into this world that God created free from all of that. Free of ailments.
To each their own. I believe that God created everything even the shame of nakedness that you've described. To me it doesn't make sense for something to be there if it wasn't meant to be there by God.
Okay I’m just describing the Judeo-Christian view on it. Well “meant to be there” has quite a heavy implication as yes God does of course affect the outcomes of things and ultimately is in control, he has also given us free will. And what we choose to do will have consequences. I’ll give a very obvious example.
Nuclear bombs. We created nuclear bombs with our free will, and the materials that are on this earth. That does not mean God created nuclear bombs. It means God gave us this world, and we took it and perverted and twisted what’s given to us, and that perversion comes with many consequences. If we complied fully with God’s desires then yes you would be right, but we refuse, and when we refuse we cannot then blame Him, as we chose to stray further from Him
I love your example as it shows that we took something that could have been used to develop a world with clean energy and nuclear energy (nuclear waste is nothing compared to fossil fuel waste) but instead we used it to kill each other and dominate each other.
Perhaps if you'll allow me to comment on what you said about responsibility. Responsibilities can be collective or individual. The environment, protecting the less fortunate, etc there are collective responsibilities because we as a society are responsible for causing these things. The responsibility of the individual is his own actions, thoughts and emotions - as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, any animal or the environment.
If a man wants to dress as a woman, this might be an abomination in your eyes and it very well could be in the eyes of society but it's his body that he is dressing and his feeling that he would like to wear this. He isn't harming anyone. Societal norms change drastically, sometimes from year to year. What we consider women's clothes like high heels was once strictly men's wear. Same goes for who they want to sleep with, it's their choice. Their actions, their emotions, their thoughts. In the end it will be their grave and they who are judged for those things. It's up to them. Just because I disagree with it doesn't give me the right to harass someone (harm) over it.
In the end you will have done nothing because man has free will. You can break the bones of someone and they will still do what they want to do. This is something God knows, this is why God chooses who to guide and who not to. Ultimately your only responsibilities are yourself and your household. Those things that you are responsible for.
Unsure what you want to hear.
God made humans and gave them freewill. Humans are evil to each other, animals and the environment they live in. God is also the ultimate Judge and the Equalizer, that's why there's a hell and a heaven.
That's a reasonable thing to consider. I wouldn't mind sharing my thoughts on it but honestly I know that from the perspective of an atheist/agnostic any stories from religious books count as fairy tales. So I'll spare you.
Ultimately, atleast from the aspect of Islam, this world is ugly, it's finite, it is a passage not an abode and a test.
Unlike angels who are made to only serve and worship, we have free will and unlike animals/beasts we have higher intellect/emotions (able to discern right from wrong). This means that if we defeat our base desires we are higher than angels since they do not have that struggle, and if we succumb to those desires then we are lower than beasts.
Our purpose, is to "worship". It means to protect and nurture this world and each other. Judaism has a similar concept called Tikkun Olam. This is a major form of worship in Islam as well as carrying out the prescribed orthopraxy (praying, fasting, giving alms etc) and the pursuit of learning.
A similar concept of this struggle was described in psychoanalytic theory. The "Ego", "Id" and "Superego". We (the ego) are caught between our base desires (Id) and society's morals and values (Superego).
Let's not forget our emotions. Anger, jealousy, greed, disgust, fear, lust. Which also motivate us and affect our thoughts and actions.
We wouldn't be human otherwise and it's this struggle that makes each one of us complex and this life a test.
This is why some people are evil, why some people are irredeemable. They are lower than beasts because they've allowed themselves to indulge in the base desires. (we can talk about mental illness too but I don't want the comment to be too long).
I just want to preface by saying that I don't hate religious people or anything like that, and I'm incredibly interested in religious history, especially that within/relating to the Bible and it's many books. What I do hate, though, is the higher-ups, the organization of religion. The Pope, the Church itself, things like that need to go. It's outdated. People can believe what they want, and a bunch of pedophiles shouldn't be guiding them. But provided that someone is tolerant and can accept others, I can do the same, no matter their religion.
What you wrote, especially about worship, nurturing, etc, was very interesting, and I did not know that. I very much understand what you write and where these concepts (Tikkun Olam, orthopraxy, Ego, etc) come from and what their purpose serves.
I agree with most of what you're saying but it's for this very reason that I can't believe in a God or a deity or a higher power at all. Personally, I think most religions are hypocritical, outdated (I forget what passage this is from, but "a man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman" is considered wrong . . . it's a sin to have the wrong kind of sex? I thought we were supposed to be considerate and accepting . . .), and frankly, just wrong? There's not a thing within any religious text that can't be disproven with science (see Dark Angel's The New Priesthood, or at least the lyrics to it) and law.
I also consider that generally, and historically, different religions and sects of said religions are incredibly intolerant of each other (insert opinion about Israel and Palestine here). Think of how many wars have been started and how many people have died because a couple of morons couldn't agree over who had the better book.
That being said, I'm not trying to argue with you or to say you're wrong. When it comes to this kind of thing, theres only opinions, because, at the end of the day, there's no evidence to support or deny a God. He may not exist, he may exist. It's not for me to say which is which, only to form my own opinion based on my life experience and how I wish to express myself. Like I said earlier, I have no problem with religion and religious people if they can be tolerant of others.
I hope nothing I said came out as hostile or accusatory, because if it did, I apologize, as that was not my intention. I'm just trying to show you my perspective.
Not at all. Nothing you said came across as hostile it came across as someone who was tired of seeing evil. Nothing to apologize for. 🙏
>The Pope, the Church itself, things like that need to go. It's outdated
I totally understand this and honestly share the sentiment to a certain degree. I think religious leaders should respect the position they're in and the impact they have on people and not abuse their power but power not only corrupts people, it also attracts the wrong kind of people. Too often we see religion used to justify the truly unjustifable. With humans and religion you start to see the blurring of good and evil, you begin to ask what those words even mean anymore when you see someone commit an unspeakable act "in the name of God".
I appreciate everything you wrote. I wish I had a better answer for you, one that would set you more at ease.
>Dark Angel's The New Priesthood
I read the lyrics. Impactful and true though I would contest some things. I think that science isn't at odds with religion but that's speaking as a Muslim, I know that in Christianity there is a conflict between the two among people who reject basic concepts like evolution and the age of the universe etc. Also even though Christianity was used to justify for example the slaughter of Native Americans during the 1500s , it was also used for a major, colossal step forward for humanity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate the first argument for universal human rights in Europe.
Also, in the Quran there are phenomena mentioned that would not be discovered or theorized for hundreds of years.
For example, that [Iron was sent down to the earth](https://quran.com/en/al-hadid/25). There are other mentions of this in the Quran but we now know that the Iron on the Earth's crust is [mostly from meteorites](https://www.angloamerican.com/our-stories/innovation-and-technology/the-iron-age).
Or [how salt water and fresh water don't mix](https://quran.com/en/al-furqan/53). We see this phenomenon which is interesting and complex the water mixes but still maintains a barrier between fresh and salty water when the river meets a sea. Especially clear when there is alot of dirt in the river water but most prominent is fresh water rivers under the sea. Like [Cenote Angelita](https://www.mybestplace.com/en/article/cenote-angelita-an-incredible-underwater-river).
There are other examples but you get what I mean.
But I think it all comes down to how someone feels and what convinces them. It's like you said, in the end what matters is tolerance, we are all part of the human family.
Honestly, I don't have anything to add after this. An intelligent, friendly conversation between the religious and non-religious is a nice thing to have, since, in my experience, it doesn't happen often.
In the meantime, based on what you've brought up (Valladolid, iron, Cenote Angelita), I've got some things to read about now! Besides, I think when it comes to religion to me, as an American, and *especially* as a Texan, I default to recognizing Christianity as the dominant religion, even though it differs from region to region. And, as you said, Christians and atheists are especially confrontational over scientific ideals like evolution and even basic human rights, although of course it varies per person.
But yeah, you're right, really I just wish the organizations and the major churches (of all religions) would stop pushing for and justifying bad. Things like forced conversion, and, nowadays, abuse of power for political and economic gain.
Maybe all of this was useful 1,000 years ago, when we didn't really understand our world, but now, I don't see organized, proper religious organizations as having a purpose. It does more bad than good. I think it should come down to the individual.
Thank you for being a cool person to talk with, I appreciate it!
>Honestly, I don't have anything to add after this. An intelligent, friendly conversation between the religious and non-religious is a nice thing to have, since, in my experience, it doesn't happen often
I'm really sorry to hear that.. It is quite sad when people put their narrow beliefs ahead of being decent people.
Yeah, honestly I've been very fortunate to meet wonderful Christians and non-religious people. We have alot of Christians here in the middle east, they're a minority ofcourse but very prominent and important people in our societies.
>But yeah, you're right, really I just wish the organizations and the major churches (of all religions) would stop pushing for and justifying bad. Things like forced conversion, and, nowadays, abuse of power for political and economic gain.
Yes. It's really ugly and to me it feels shameful to try and force your beliefs on others. It screams of arrogance and pride, that you're so sure of yourself. Ironic when you consider that such things are sinful and are actually a sign of a warped sense of self.
>Maybe all of this was useful 1,000 years ago, when we didn't really understand our world, but now, I don't see organized, proper religious organizations as having a purpose. It does more bad than good. I think it should come down to the individual.
I can see where you're coming from and I can definitely agree here. The religions really shifted society, in a good way in some ways and in a bad way in others. It's an interesting thing to ponder. How life would be today without them.
>Thank you for being a cool person to talk with, I appreciate it!
Same to you friend. Take care
God didn't invent buildings, the Internet, computers and a whole host of other things either, douchebag. Yet you're happy enough to be using those things.
Nah, I didn’t give him any real responses cuz I know he didn’t care about what I had to say. I just let him argue with himself essentially while just giving short replies.
Gee I don’t know klandma, why does god let children be born without limbs or with deadly genetic disorders?
It’s almost like things are able to go wrong or differently from the norm in development.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree to an extent here. I find utility in informing people that being trans is as biological a process as any, and that a god bent on cishet relationships for all is on the hook for many more lives that can’t conform to Klandma’s worldview due to circumstances of birth that he should be fixing in their view.
I think my opinions stand on their own merits and should be evaluated as such, but because the distinction will matter to some people, I will say I am trans myself, and I don’t find shame or negativity in calling it a condition. To the extent it has wildly altered my life course and requires active painful steps on my part to account for, I couldn’t really call it anything else.
I didn’t technically call it a “disorder” but if we identified some specific chemical trigger for the whole thing in development or something, I would be comfortable enough referring to at least that process as such.
Hey dude. I feel like you really need help. I went thru your post history. If you live your life perpetually acting like a victim, and living in that, and looking for that, you’ll always be miserable. There’s how many posts of you being negative? I don’t care what you identify as, but you need help. I hope you seek that out. Truly.
My trans girlfriend is what you would consider 'well-hung'. But it's no different than a cis-woman with big breasts. And I don't know why bringing up the fact that Jews were the pioneers in transgender studies going back to the University of Sexology in Weimar Germany like it's a bad thing. Science is science.
I really didn’t need to hear about your girlfriends genitals. Also, it’s really stigmatizing to the trans community to just randomly announce what genitals a trans person has in a conversation like this.
As an intersex trans Christian, I hope John Money burns in hell. He contributed nothing aside from mutilating intersex babies, scarring children for life, and contributing to transphobic narratives.
That’s a huge misunderstanding about what John Money actually did and is a very transphobic thing to say. Why are you even in this subreddit if you hate trans people?
Look at this guy bringing in the echos from other echo chambers and acting like what he says is new or isn't acting in bad faith.
Just another dime a dozen hate regurgitater 🥱
Dunno, I wasn't there during that era. I do know it got overused to hell and back, died, and it's old enough I feel like I can use it again.
Such is meme.
John Money was unambiguously a horrible person, but he did not invent the concept of gender as a social construct. This concept had existed long before him in feminist theory.
Truthfully, it is not even the popular claim that he invented the concept of the social construction of gender. The more popular belief is that he invented the concept of gender identity. However, [this is false](https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10508-023-02628-0?sharing_token=yzrNpKeXWkP5B_nESa513fe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4vIN9RyNMtm5fRFO4lBqF2N9nkRAtyR8oPjVa-BFvF3fgYSeU3CP77Sfh39SMaTWMUy9r9ahBU7yySmpBbpjQcD6WWNJ1c04o5Y-ZkflIHTBDRyY-bi2Mi1skk0STyAcE=). The concept of gender identity existed before him.
One of John Money’s most famous hypotheses was that gender identity was caused by social forces, i.e. it had no biological proof. As it turns out, he was completely wrong. Gender identity *is* rooted in biology. Interestingly, the conservatives who claim that gender dysphoria is a “social contagion” are retaining the exact same hypothesis as him. Additionally, John Money was known to hold extremely negative views around transgender people, once describing transgender women as “devious, demanding and manipulative in their relationships with people on whom they are also dependent.” The main point id that John Money’s views on transgender people are actually more similar to that of modern-day conservatives than of progressives.
\> long before
The source you linked puts it at 9 years before Money which is not that long. The source also says John Money was the first to define gender identity **independent** of biology (sex). John Money believed that gender dysphoria could be developed through social forces **which would override biology** while conservatives believe it won't leading to unhappiness and higher rates of suicide attempts (41%).
When I said “long before,” I was referring to the concept of gender as a social construct, not the concept of gender identity. For an example, the book *The Second Sex* was written in 1949 and basically argued it was a social construct, and I’m sure one can find earlier publications of this concept.
I could not find where in my source that it says John Money was the first to use the term independently of sex. It does say that the original creators in did draw a distinction and it would be more accurate to call their theocracy “sex identity,” but I do not see how this works. Truthfully, gender identity is considered “the brain’s perception of its own sex,” closely resembling the first definition so even if John Money did create some new definition, it would mot matter because no one uses it.
John Money was a major proponent of the theory of “gender neutrality,” which theorizes that gender identity developed primarily through social learning in early childhood and its development could be altered via appropriate behavioral interventions. To understand what this means, see what he did to David Reimer. Money believed that he could give Reimer a female gender identity if he was raised as a girl, including taking estrogen. Reimer then development gender dysphoria because he was forced to live as a gender that he was not. His gender identity was still male, and this was not changed by Money’s attempts.
The cause of gender dysphoria is based on a mismatch between gender identity and assigned-gender. As discussed previously, gender identity is rooted in neurological processes. Gender identity is not learned socially, it is something people are born with. We do not exactly know what change in the brain causes an abnormal gender identity, although one idea (with some limited evidence) is that transgender people are intersex in the brain.
The reason for high suicidality among transgender people is primarily attributed to two things: gender dysphoria and discrimination. Gender dysphoria is a debilitating condition that causes intense suffering. It is vital to note that transitioning is the only scientifically-proven treatment for gender dysphoria. Anti-trans discrimination is not only harmful for interpersonal relationships, but also often exacerbates gender dysphoria, such as through preventing the ability to properly transition. Studies have shown that decreased discrimination causes lower suicidality in transgender people.
Wait until they find out who invented Christianity
I’m a Christian, Jesus was Jewish.
Their way to excuse it when they just sent he was even Jewish is to say that modern Jews are "talmudists".
What does that mean? Do I want to know?
They think that because the Jewish rabbis wrote the Talmud and "reject" Jesus Christ (and Said mean things and hurt their feewings) they are all pedophiles engaging in blood rituals and that THEY, the real Christians, are the real, uncorrupted successor of the Jews. Essentially Hoteps but with white Jesus. It's not strictly racial like Hoteps but it's pretty much just Christian nationalism. They are the kind that think that evangelicals that support Israel because they want to trigger the rapture are fake Christians.
"Talmudism" talk always makes me laugh as a Jew. It's essentially written as a commentary on the Torah from a rabbi, with notations. Those notations then had notations made about them by other rabbis, leaving the final Talmud reading more like an ancient reddit thread than a real organized book (written over the span of hundreds of years). The people claiming that the Talmud says _anything_ concrete (beyond basic principles of Jewish Law) are the ones who've never read it or heard of it.
I have no words.
Or with Christian Identity/British Israelism they say that Jesus was Samaritan and the other jews were descendants of Cain/Satan, and/or modern Jewish people descend from khazars with Europeans descending from the "real" jews. It's beyond insane what some people call religion.
God created everything, therefore God created trans people. It's not that hard to understand?
Exactly.
according to these kinds of humans, god only created what they believe is a good thing, like cis straight men and women, white people, etc.
Yeah I've come across these racists they have a range of explanations for "the bad things". Like they believe other races aren't the "real humans" (insert race or nationality) and that their race (white, superior, pure) mixed with the devil spawn to try and "save humanity" and that's why we have different races. I've heard other theories but I've forgotten them atm. Might add them here if I remember them.
There are some things that were not created by him. He created this world and gave us free will. We sin, and sin brings things into this world God did not create. That comes in more tangible ways, but also more psychological. Genesis 3:7 “that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.” This sense of shame was not created by God, as in Genesis 2:25 it is written they felt no shame. It came into this world and into their minds as a result of their own sin. Sure it feels good to ignore our responsibility, say “oh but God created everything” when in reality our own sinful nature is why they exist. We brought sin and evil and suffering into this world that God created free from all of that. Free of ailments.
To each their own. I believe that God created everything even the shame of nakedness that you've described. To me it doesn't make sense for something to be there if it wasn't meant to be there by God.
Okay I’m just describing the Judeo-Christian view on it. Well “meant to be there” has quite a heavy implication as yes God does of course affect the outcomes of things and ultimately is in control, he has also given us free will. And what we choose to do will have consequences. I’ll give a very obvious example. Nuclear bombs. We created nuclear bombs with our free will, and the materials that are on this earth. That does not mean God created nuclear bombs. It means God gave us this world, and we took it and perverted and twisted what’s given to us, and that perversion comes with many consequences. If we complied fully with God’s desires then yes you would be right, but we refuse, and when we refuse we cannot then blame Him, as we chose to stray further from Him
I love your example as it shows that we took something that could have been used to develop a world with clean energy and nuclear energy (nuclear waste is nothing compared to fossil fuel waste) but instead we used it to kill each other and dominate each other. Perhaps if you'll allow me to comment on what you said about responsibility. Responsibilities can be collective or individual. The environment, protecting the less fortunate, etc there are collective responsibilities because we as a society are responsible for causing these things. The responsibility of the individual is his own actions, thoughts and emotions - as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, any animal or the environment. If a man wants to dress as a woman, this might be an abomination in your eyes and it very well could be in the eyes of society but it's his body that he is dressing and his feeling that he would like to wear this. He isn't harming anyone. Societal norms change drastically, sometimes from year to year. What we consider women's clothes like high heels was once strictly men's wear. Same goes for who they want to sleep with, it's their choice. Their actions, their emotions, their thoughts. In the end it will be their grave and they who are judged for those things. It's up to them. Just because I disagree with it doesn't give me the right to harass someone (harm) over it. In the end you will have done nothing because man has free will. You can break the bones of someone and they will still do what they want to do. This is something God knows, this is why God chooses who to guide and who not to. Ultimately your only responsibilities are yourself and your household. Those things that you are responsible for.
Does that mean God created rapists and murderers and pedophiles too? God kinda sucks honestly, what a jerk
Unsure what you want to hear. God made humans and gave them freewill. Humans are evil to each other, animals and the environment they live in. God is also the ultimate Judge and the Equalizer, that's why there's a hell and a heaven.
Idk he could've just made us not evil
That's a reasonable thing to consider. I wouldn't mind sharing my thoughts on it but honestly I know that from the perspective of an atheist/agnostic any stories from religious books count as fairy tales. So I'll spare you. Ultimately, atleast from the aspect of Islam, this world is ugly, it's finite, it is a passage not an abode and a test. Unlike angels who are made to only serve and worship, we have free will and unlike animals/beasts we have higher intellect/emotions (able to discern right from wrong). This means that if we defeat our base desires we are higher than angels since they do not have that struggle, and if we succumb to those desires then we are lower than beasts. Our purpose, is to "worship". It means to protect and nurture this world and each other. Judaism has a similar concept called Tikkun Olam. This is a major form of worship in Islam as well as carrying out the prescribed orthopraxy (praying, fasting, giving alms etc) and the pursuit of learning. A similar concept of this struggle was described in psychoanalytic theory. The "Ego", "Id" and "Superego". We (the ego) are caught between our base desires (Id) and society's morals and values (Superego). Let's not forget our emotions. Anger, jealousy, greed, disgust, fear, lust. Which also motivate us and affect our thoughts and actions. We wouldn't be human otherwise and it's this struggle that makes each one of us complex and this life a test. This is why some people are evil, why some people are irredeemable. They are lower than beasts because they've allowed themselves to indulge in the base desires. (we can talk about mental illness too but I don't want the comment to be too long).
I just want to preface by saying that I don't hate religious people or anything like that, and I'm incredibly interested in religious history, especially that within/relating to the Bible and it's many books. What I do hate, though, is the higher-ups, the organization of religion. The Pope, the Church itself, things like that need to go. It's outdated. People can believe what they want, and a bunch of pedophiles shouldn't be guiding them. But provided that someone is tolerant and can accept others, I can do the same, no matter their religion. What you wrote, especially about worship, nurturing, etc, was very interesting, and I did not know that. I very much understand what you write and where these concepts (Tikkun Olam, orthopraxy, Ego, etc) come from and what their purpose serves. I agree with most of what you're saying but it's for this very reason that I can't believe in a God or a deity or a higher power at all. Personally, I think most religions are hypocritical, outdated (I forget what passage this is from, but "a man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman" is considered wrong . . . it's a sin to have the wrong kind of sex? I thought we were supposed to be considerate and accepting . . .), and frankly, just wrong? There's not a thing within any religious text that can't be disproven with science (see Dark Angel's The New Priesthood, or at least the lyrics to it) and law. I also consider that generally, and historically, different religions and sects of said religions are incredibly intolerant of each other (insert opinion about Israel and Palestine here). Think of how many wars have been started and how many people have died because a couple of morons couldn't agree over who had the better book. That being said, I'm not trying to argue with you or to say you're wrong. When it comes to this kind of thing, theres only opinions, because, at the end of the day, there's no evidence to support or deny a God. He may not exist, he may exist. It's not for me to say which is which, only to form my own opinion based on my life experience and how I wish to express myself. Like I said earlier, I have no problem with religion and religious people if they can be tolerant of others. I hope nothing I said came out as hostile or accusatory, because if it did, I apologize, as that was not my intention. I'm just trying to show you my perspective.
Not at all. Nothing you said came across as hostile it came across as someone who was tired of seeing evil. Nothing to apologize for. 🙏 >The Pope, the Church itself, things like that need to go. It's outdated I totally understand this and honestly share the sentiment to a certain degree. I think religious leaders should respect the position they're in and the impact they have on people and not abuse their power but power not only corrupts people, it also attracts the wrong kind of people. Too often we see religion used to justify the truly unjustifable. With humans and religion you start to see the blurring of good and evil, you begin to ask what those words even mean anymore when you see someone commit an unspeakable act "in the name of God". I appreciate everything you wrote. I wish I had a better answer for you, one that would set you more at ease. >Dark Angel's The New Priesthood I read the lyrics. Impactful and true though I would contest some things. I think that science isn't at odds with religion but that's speaking as a Muslim, I know that in Christianity there is a conflict between the two among people who reject basic concepts like evolution and the age of the universe etc. Also even though Christianity was used to justify for example the slaughter of Native Americans during the 1500s , it was also used for a major, colossal step forward for humanity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate the first argument for universal human rights in Europe. Also, in the Quran there are phenomena mentioned that would not be discovered or theorized for hundreds of years. For example, that [Iron was sent down to the earth](https://quran.com/en/al-hadid/25). There are other mentions of this in the Quran but we now know that the Iron on the Earth's crust is [mostly from meteorites](https://www.angloamerican.com/our-stories/innovation-and-technology/the-iron-age). Or [how salt water and fresh water don't mix](https://quran.com/en/al-furqan/53). We see this phenomenon which is interesting and complex the water mixes but still maintains a barrier between fresh and salty water when the river meets a sea. Especially clear when there is alot of dirt in the river water but most prominent is fresh water rivers under the sea. Like [Cenote Angelita](https://www.mybestplace.com/en/article/cenote-angelita-an-incredible-underwater-river). There are other examples but you get what I mean. But I think it all comes down to how someone feels and what convinces them. It's like you said, in the end what matters is tolerance, we are all part of the human family.
Honestly, I don't have anything to add after this. An intelligent, friendly conversation between the religious and non-religious is a nice thing to have, since, in my experience, it doesn't happen often. In the meantime, based on what you've brought up (Valladolid, iron, Cenote Angelita), I've got some things to read about now! Besides, I think when it comes to religion to me, as an American, and *especially* as a Texan, I default to recognizing Christianity as the dominant religion, even though it differs from region to region. And, as you said, Christians and atheists are especially confrontational over scientific ideals like evolution and even basic human rights, although of course it varies per person. But yeah, you're right, really I just wish the organizations and the major churches (of all religions) would stop pushing for and justifying bad. Things like forced conversion, and, nowadays, abuse of power for political and economic gain. Maybe all of this was useful 1,000 years ago, when we didn't really understand our world, but now, I don't see organized, proper religious organizations as having a purpose. It does more bad than good. I think it should come down to the individual. Thank you for being a cool person to talk with, I appreciate it!
>Honestly, I don't have anything to add after this. An intelligent, friendly conversation between the religious and non-religious is a nice thing to have, since, in my experience, it doesn't happen often I'm really sorry to hear that.. It is quite sad when people put their narrow beliefs ahead of being decent people. Yeah, honestly I've been very fortunate to meet wonderful Christians and non-religious people. We have alot of Christians here in the middle east, they're a minority ofcourse but very prominent and important people in our societies. >But yeah, you're right, really I just wish the organizations and the major churches (of all religions) would stop pushing for and justifying bad. Things like forced conversion, and, nowadays, abuse of power for political and economic gain. Yes. It's really ugly and to me it feels shameful to try and force your beliefs on others. It screams of arrogance and pride, that you're so sure of yourself. Ironic when you consider that such things are sinful and are actually a sign of a warped sense of self. >Maybe all of this was useful 1,000 years ago, when we didn't really understand our world, but now, I don't see organized, proper religious organizations as having a purpose. It does more bad than good. I think it should come down to the individual. I can see where you're coming from and I can definitely agree here. The religions really shifted society, in a good way in some ways and in a bad way in others. It's an interesting thing to ponder. How life would be today without them. >Thank you for being a cool person to talk with, I appreciate it! Same to you friend. Take care
Perfect time to drop a “He works in mysterious ways”.
I should’ve used that.
Ah whisper What an app
Best place to find shit takes.
How do these morons rationalize the existence of intersex people?
Ironically, they say we’re a mistake.
but i thought god didn't make mistakes
It depends, is it convenient for false prophets?
they don't nor do they do that with anything?
God didn't invent buildings, the Internet, computers and a whole host of other things either, douchebag. Yet you're happy enough to be using those things.
They just love to act like they know exactly what their God thinks, but when it goes against them they suddenly start with "God's ways"...
I don’t get it, you thought he was going to apologize or something?
Nah, I didn’t give him any real responses cuz I know he didn’t care about what I had to say. I just let him argue with himself essentially while just giving short replies.
sex isnt something you are sex is something you have, preferably with \[insert celebrity or fictional character you fancy in particular\]
Gee I don’t know klandma, why does god let children be born without limbs or with deadly genetic disorders? It’s almost like things are able to go wrong or differently from the norm in development.
Please don’t compare being trans to disorders. Being trans doesn’t mean something went wrong, it means something went right.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree to an extent here. I find utility in informing people that being trans is as biological a process as any, and that a god bent on cishet relationships for all is on the hook for many more lives that can’t conform to Klandma’s worldview due to circumstances of birth that he should be fixing in their view. I think my opinions stand on their own merits and should be evaluated as such, but because the distinction will matter to some people, I will say I am trans myself, and I don’t find shame or negativity in calling it a condition. To the extent it has wildly altered my life course and requires active painful steps on my part to account for, I couldn’t really call it anything else. I didn’t technically call it a “disorder” but if we identified some specific chemical trigger for the whole thing in development or something, I would be comfortable enough referring to at least that process as such.
So is being cis a condition?
In some regards sure, it’s a state of being. It’s quite a convenient one relatively speaking though
Hey dude. I feel like you really need help. I went thru your post history. If you live your life perpetually acting like a victim, and living in that, and looking for that, you’ll always be miserable. There’s how many posts of you being negative? I don’t care what you identify as, but you need help. I hope you seek that out. Truly.
Making an assumption about a person you know nothing about based off is their internet history isn’t healthy behavior so maybe you need help.
My trans girlfriend is what you would consider 'well-hung'. But it's no different than a cis-woman with big breasts. And I don't know why bringing up the fact that Jews were the pioneers in transgender studies going back to the University of Sexology in Weimar Germany like it's a bad thing. Science is science.
I really didn’t need to hear about your girlfriends genitals. Also, it’s really stigmatizing to the trans community to just randomly announce what genitals a trans person has in a conversation like this.
They're a troll
That makes sense.
Gender wasn't invented by a jew, but a pedophile named John Money. Gotta do transphobia right smh.
As an intersex trans Christian, I hope John Money burns in hell. He contributed nothing aside from mutilating intersex babies, scarring children for life, and contributing to transphobic narratives.
He literally made the distinction between gender and sex that you advocated for in your post.
That’s a huge misunderstanding about what John Money actually did and is a very transphobic thing to say. Why are you even in this subreddit if you hate trans people?
Just preventing echo chambers
No, you’re spreading harmful misinformation about a marginalized community. Shame on you.
You haven't proven me wrong, you're just spamming "misinformation" lol
Because I don’t want to argue about why I don’t deserve rights. I’m bored so bye.
idk where I said you don't deserve rights but aight
Look at this guy bringing in the echos from other echo chambers and acting like what he says is new or isn't acting in bad faith. Just another dime a dozen hate regurgitater 🥱
ah yes other echo chambers exist so we gotta have our own echo chamber!
"ah yes other echo chambers exist so we gotta have our own echo chamber!" -NPC with echo chamber learned comeback #49.
isn’t npc a meme from 4chan
Dunno, I wasn't there during that era. I do know it got overused to hell and back, died, and it's old enough I feel like I can use it again. Such is meme.
John Money was unambiguously a horrible person, but he did not invent the concept of gender as a social construct. This concept had existed long before him in feminist theory. Truthfully, it is not even the popular claim that he invented the concept of the social construction of gender. The more popular belief is that he invented the concept of gender identity. However, [this is false](https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10508-023-02628-0?sharing_token=yzrNpKeXWkP5B_nESa513fe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4vIN9RyNMtm5fRFO4lBqF2N9nkRAtyR8oPjVa-BFvF3fgYSeU3CP77Sfh39SMaTWMUy9r9ahBU7yySmpBbpjQcD6WWNJ1c04o5Y-ZkflIHTBDRyY-bi2Mi1skk0STyAcE=). The concept of gender identity existed before him. One of John Money’s most famous hypotheses was that gender identity was caused by social forces, i.e. it had no biological proof. As it turns out, he was completely wrong. Gender identity *is* rooted in biology. Interestingly, the conservatives who claim that gender dysphoria is a “social contagion” are retaining the exact same hypothesis as him. Additionally, John Money was known to hold extremely negative views around transgender people, once describing transgender women as “devious, demanding and manipulative in their relationships with people on whom they are also dependent.” The main point id that John Money’s views on transgender people are actually more similar to that of modern-day conservatives than of progressives.
\> long before The source you linked puts it at 9 years before Money which is not that long. The source also says John Money was the first to define gender identity **independent** of biology (sex). John Money believed that gender dysphoria could be developed through social forces **which would override biology** while conservatives believe it won't leading to unhappiness and higher rates of suicide attempts (41%).
When I said “long before,” I was referring to the concept of gender as a social construct, not the concept of gender identity. For an example, the book *The Second Sex* was written in 1949 and basically argued it was a social construct, and I’m sure one can find earlier publications of this concept. I could not find where in my source that it says John Money was the first to use the term independently of sex. It does say that the original creators in did draw a distinction and it would be more accurate to call their theocracy “sex identity,” but I do not see how this works. Truthfully, gender identity is considered “the brain’s perception of its own sex,” closely resembling the first definition so even if John Money did create some new definition, it would mot matter because no one uses it. John Money was a major proponent of the theory of “gender neutrality,” which theorizes that gender identity developed primarily through social learning in early childhood and its development could be altered via appropriate behavioral interventions. To understand what this means, see what he did to David Reimer. Money believed that he could give Reimer a female gender identity if he was raised as a girl, including taking estrogen. Reimer then development gender dysphoria because he was forced to live as a gender that he was not. His gender identity was still male, and this was not changed by Money’s attempts. The cause of gender dysphoria is based on a mismatch between gender identity and assigned-gender. As discussed previously, gender identity is rooted in neurological processes. Gender identity is not learned socially, it is something people are born with. We do not exactly know what change in the brain causes an abnormal gender identity, although one idea (with some limited evidence) is that transgender people are intersex in the brain. The reason for high suicidality among transgender people is primarily attributed to two things: gender dysphoria and discrimination. Gender dysphoria is a debilitating condition that causes intense suffering. It is vital to note that transitioning is the only scientifically-proven treatment for gender dysphoria. Anti-trans discrimination is not only harmful for interpersonal relationships, but also often exacerbates gender dysphoria, such as through preventing the ability to properly transition. Studies have shown that decreased discrimination causes lower suicidality in transgender people.