RC Synod on the Family, October 4-25, 2015

[SomeoneWrites]

]I don't know exactly what she means.

Peace,
Michael

I genuinely appreciate the reply
Shalom.

And I appreciate the explanations offered by others as well.  Thank you. 



I think I found out where she was coming from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin#Voegelin_on_gnosticism


My response to that, in short is that I disagree with Scaraffia and Voegelin - sort of.  Calling these things "gnosticism" works on a rhetorical level, which is appropriate between theologians - particularly those well versed in the topic.  However, I think it would be better if Scaraffia simply said the religious problem was idolatry.  Voegelin appears to redefine gnosticism to make the comparison work.  It's the same problem I have with failures in distinctions between "religions" and "worldviews."
But, the comparison does work if you operate from his definitions. 

I've got plenty more to say on the gender dysphoria stuff, but I don't want to tangent this any more than I have. 
Definitely happy that we have more gay rights though and gender education.  And we definitely need more gender education. 

[peter_speckhard]

Plus, the idea of choosing one's own sex has behind it the idea that who one "really" is is indepedent from who one's body is. By Christian understanding it is simply not possible to be a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa, as though we were all souls standing in line to be born and waiting to be assigned a body like kids waiting their turn for a particular merry-go-round horse or a certain color bumper car, and some of us somehow got assigned the wrong one. That idea, that the "real" you is a disembodied you and possibly mismatched with your body certainly seems like Gnosticism to me.

So it was wrong for a man I worked with 40 years ago to feel he was trapped in his quadriplegic body - that he shouldn't consider himself to be just "a cripple" who could do nothing for himself. He earned his college degree after being paralyzed from the neck down. He progressed where he could move his right arm about 18" up and down and 12" right and left. Does his body define him? He didn't think so. Who he is, is more connected to his brain than his broken body.


Similarly with another friend who is a paraplegic - and an active ELCA minister serving a congregation. He can't stand behind an altar or in a pulpit. He can't stand at all. His broken body doesn't define him, rather it comes from his mind and personality.

Of course who you are is more than your body. But it isn't other than your body. You can have a broken body, but you can't have the wrong body.

[Steven Tibbetts]

So it was wrong for a man I worked with 40 years ago to feel he was trapped in his quadriplegic body - that he shouldn't consider himself to be just "a cripple" who could do nothing for himself....

Similarly with another friend who is a paraplegic - and an active ELCA minister serving a congregation. He can't stand behind an altar or in a pulpit. He can't stand at all. His broken body doesn't define him, rather it comes from his mind and personality.

So simply being born male or female is the same as being, for any reason, a paraplegic or quadriplegic.

Your point (presuming you actually have one) is monstrous.

And given that, once again, that you introduce into a discussion on this forum an argument while offering no judgment of its sensibilities, rationality, reasonableness, accuracy, relationship to reality, or even relevance to the subject matter, I find yet more evidence that, regardless of what you may actually believe, you are monstrous.

[Brian Stoffregen]

So it was wrong for a man I worked with 40 years ago to feel he was trapped in his quadriplegic body - that he shouldn't consider himself to be just "a cripple" who could do nothing for himself....

Similarly with another friend who is a paraplegic - and an active ELCA minister serving a congregation. He can't stand behind an altar or in a pulpit. He can't stand at all. His broken body doesn't define him, rather it comes from his mind and personality.

So simply being born male or female is the same as being, for any reason, a paraplegic or quadriplegic.

Your point (presuming you actually have one) is monstrous.

And given that, once again, that you introduce into a discussion on this forum an argument while offering no judgment of its sensibilities, rationality, reasonableness, accuracy, relationship to reality, or even relevance to the subject matter, I find yet more evidence that, regardless of what you may actually believe, you are monstrous.

I'm sorry that you were unable to catch my point. Peter did.

[Jeremy Loesch]

Brian, your point was to introduce something fallacious? Your point was to not address Peter's comment?  That's a very interesting admission.

Jeremy

[Brian Stoffregen]

Brian, your point was to introduce something fallacious? Your point was to not address Peter's comment?  That's a very interesting admission.

Peter understand that my point was that we are more than just our bodies.


Once we establish that at least part of who I am is in my brain that may be unrelated to my body, then we are starting on some common ground with what transgender people say. We might disagree with them, as Peter does about being born with the "wrong" body, but at least we are closer to understanding what they are saying.

[peter_speckhard]

Brian, your point was to introduce something fallacious? Your point was to not address Peter's comment?  That's a very interesting admission.

Peter understand that my point was that we are more than just our bodies.


Once we establish that at least part of who I am is in my brain that may be unrelated to my body, then we are starting on some common ground with what transgender people say. We might disagree with them, as Peter does about being born with the "wrong" body, but at least we are closer to understanding what they are saying.

You're drawing a false distinction between the brain and the body. The brain is part of the body. It is part of our inherently enfleshed existence into which death introduces a false separation between body and soul. In that separation, the brain rots with the body. And just as a kidney or liver can not function properly, so can there be brain disorders, as when one does not perceive, interpret and understand reality the way the brain and senses are designed to, but instead generates manias, phobias, or mental disorders like paranoia and other forms of mild to severe insanity. So, for example, anerexia is a problem with the mind, not the rest of the body. The mind's interpretation of the rest of body is faulty. The body isn't too fat, the mind thinks it is. Same with some gender disorders. The man who thinks he is a woman suffers a problem of his mind, not his other body parts. He isn't really a woman any more than an anerexic person really is fat. 

[SomeoneWrites]

The brain is part of the body.
[/quote]

The problem with the brain, is also a problem with the body. 

[peter_speckhard]

The brain is part of the body.

The problem with the brain, is also a problem with the body.
[/quote]
Agreed. But the part of the body that is malfunctioning and needs to be "fixed" in a man who thinks he is a woman is not the gentitals, it is the brain. To say that a man is "really" a woman is to speak of some entirely disembodied identity. The brain that perceives a female identity is perceiving a non-entity as though it were real. That is the sort of Gnosticism in terms of the theology of the body that I think was being talked about in the post that introduced the topic.

[SomeoneWrites]

The brain is part of the body.

The problem with the brain, is also a problem with the body.

Agreed. But the part of the body that is malfunctioning and needs to be "fixed" in a man who thinks he is a woman is not the gentitals, it is the brain. To say that a man is "really" a woman is to speak of some entirely disembodied identity. The brain that perceives a female identity is perceiving a non-entity as though it were real. That is the sort of Gnosticism in terms of the theology of the body that I think was being talked about in the post that introduced the topic.
[/quote]

I think the gnosticism of the discussion was related to the link I posted - where it emphasizes human solutions to salvation. 

To say a man is "really" a woman is to use our language to best describe our experiences.  It is done so, because the mind is the seat of our identity, consciousness, and experiences.  I'm not advocating surgery.  At the same time, no matter how much you are able to tell a woman that they're "really" a man, also denies their brain.  But at this point, we come to an impasse as there is only male and female, and no mix of the two in your perspective.  Where we go from there, I'm not sure.

[peter_speckhard]

The brain is part of the body.

The problem with the brain, is also a problem with the body.

Agreed. But the part of the body that is malfunctioning and needs to be "fixed" in a man who thinks he is a woman is not the gentitals, it is the brain. To say that a man is "really" a woman is to speak of some entirely disembodied identity. The brain that perceives a female identity is perceiving a non-entity as though it were real. That is the sort of Gnosticism in terms of the theology of the body that I think was being talked about in the post that introduced the topic.

I think the gnosticism of the discussion was related to the link I posted - where it emphasizes human solutions to salvation. 

To say a man is "really" a woman is to use our language to best describe our experiences.  It is done so, because the mind is the seat of our identity, consciousness, and experiences.  I'm not advocating surgery.  At the same time, no matter how much you are able to tell a woman that they're "really" a man, also denies their brain.  But at this point, we come to an impasse as there is only male and female, and no mix of the two in your perspective.  Where we go from there, I'm not sure.
[/quote]
True. I think of a man who thinks he is a woman as much the same thing as a starving woman thinking she is fat. It happens, and such people need to be treated with kindness and mercy. But their thoughts about themselves are not true. Their minds have for whatever reason stopped perceiving reality as it is

[Steven Tibbetts]

I'm sorry that you were unable to catch my point. Peter did.

Is that an apology?

[Donald_Kirchner]

I'm sorry that you were unable to catch my point. Peter did.

Is that an apology?

LOL!  And repentance. 

[SomeoneWrites]

The brain is part of the body.

The problem with the brain, is also a problem with the body.

Agreed. But the part of the body that is malfunctioning and needs to be "fixed" in a man who thinks he is a woman is not the gentitals, it is the brain. To say that a man is "really" a woman is to speak of some entirely disembodied identity. The brain that perceives a female identity is perceiving a non-entity as though it were real. That is the sort of Gnosticism in terms of the theology of the body that I think was being talked about in the post that introduced the topic.

I think the gnosticism of the discussion was related to the link I posted - where it emphasizes human solutions to salvation. 

To say a man is "really" a woman is to use our language to best describe our experiences.  It is done so, because the mind is the seat of our identity, consciousness, and experiences.  I'm not advocating surgery.  At the same time, no matter how much you are able to tell a woman that they're "really" a man, also denies their brain.  But at this point, we come to an impasse as there is only male and female, and no mix of the two in your perspective.  Where we go from there, I'm not sure.

True. I think of a man who thinks he is a woman as much the same thing as a starving woman thinking she is fat. It happens, and such people need to be treated with kindness and mercy. But their thoughts about themselves are not true. Their minds have for whatever reason stopped perceiving reality as it is
[/quote]

I think the comparison is similar but still significantly distinct.  Your logic is consistent with your framework, so I can respect that.   

[peter_speckhard]

The brain is part of the body.

The problem with the brain, is also a problem with the body.

Agreed. But the part of the body that is malfunctioning and needs to be "fixed" in a man who thinks he is a woman is not the gentitals, it is the brain. To say that a man is "really" a woman is to speak of some entirely disembodied identity. The brain that perceives a female identity is perceiving a non-entity as though it were real. That is the sort of Gnosticism in terms of the theology of the body that I think was being talked about in the post that introduced the topic.

I think the gnosticism of the discussion was related to the link I posted - where it emphasizes human solutions to salvation. 

To say a man is "really" a woman is to use our language to best describe our experiences.  It is done so, because the mind is the seat of our identity, consciousness, and experiences.  I'm not advocating surgery.  At the same time, no matter how much you are able to tell a woman that they're "really" a man, also denies their brain.  But at this point, we come to an impasse as there is only male and female, and no mix of the two in your perspective.  Where we go from there, I'm not sure.

True. I think of a man who thinks he is a woman as much the same thing as a starving woman thinking she is fat. It happens, and such people need to be treated with kindness and mercy. But their thoughts about themselves are not true. Their minds have for whatever reason stopped perceiving reality as it is

I think the comparison is similar but still significantly distinct.  Your logic is consistent with your framework, so I can respect that.
[/quote]
How is it distinct? Is it your contention that a man who thnks he is a woman might actually become a woman or might truly be a woman trapped in a man's body?