Children Now Able To Get "gender Change"

[Deb]

You know, from the posts you have put on this week, it appears you have sat on a cactus or something. Why are you so negative and grumpy?
Children getting a gender change is not a "liberals" cause. Jesus was a liberal if you want to get down to it and I think he is getting sick of people perverting it to mean anything they don't agree with or anything hideous or horrible. I know I am. So, get over it and find a new term for that kind of croutons. Hitler was the ultimate conservative but, no one calls the republican party the new nazis or anything.
Find someone else to blame for all the ills of the world, this is getting so old.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Deb

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1521913' date='May 7 2008, 09:58 PM']You know, from the posts you have put on this week, it appears you have sat on a cactus or something. Why are you so negative and grumpy?[/quote]
Grumpy? I'm having a blast! I was laughing out loud posting my last post.

[quote]Children getting a gender change is not a "liberals" cause. Jesus was a liberal if you want to get down to it and I think he is getting sick of people perverting it to mean anything they don't agree with or anything hideous or horrible. I know I am. So, get over it and find a new term for that kind of croutons. Hitler was the ultimate conservative but, no one calls the republican party the new nazis or anything.
Find someone else to blame for all the ills of the world, this is getting so old.[/quote]
So the "transgender" movement is not liberal? Really, now? I'm sure the majority of those in the "gay, lesbian, transgendered" (GLAD) movement would beg to differ with you on that!
Tell me, is it conservatives or liberals which adamantly support abortion, homosexuality, "transgenderism," and other abominations as "rights"? Is it liberals or conservatives who support an abandonment of "traditional gender roles" and want to teach kids about homosexuality in kindergarten?
After all, which political party has support for "abortion rights" and "gay rights" written into its party platform?

These people consider their cause liberal or progressive, as do most other people (whatever their political persuasion). Even in this post, Galloglasses referred to this as liberal, and he's from Ireland! If you want to find some creative new term for it, go ahead, but that's up to you.

And for the record, Hitler was no conservative, but a statist socialist. After all, "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist." It's obvious you nothing about either National Socialism or conservatism if you confuse the two.

If reality is "getting old" for you, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to call things other than what they are.

[CatherineM]

Instead of left and right, how about windward and leeward. Or how about an extreme liberal as being a port liberal and an extreme conservative as a starboard one.

As to the topic, at 10 years of age, with only brothers, and boys in the neighborhood to play with, and since they didn't let me play football, I probably would have opted to become a boy. That was before puberty hit, and I no longer wanted to hit boys. That's why children have parents to make decisions for them. There is no way at 10 that I would have been capable of understanding all the implications involved.

[Alycin]

I don't think children should be able to get elective surgeries, period! Hasn't that always been the rule? Like, you can't even get a nose job or a boob job until you're 18 with most doctors...



I always wonder about those ever-so-rare cases where children are born with both genders' genitalia.. cause I mean... used to they just automatically "cut it off" because it was easier to "make them into a girl"... but yeah... I remember watching a video about that in health...




Also... I can't WAIT until the political season is over... I used to be obsessed with politics and ran around *seriously* making it my life to oppose the right-wingers and what not... articles in newspapers, a political blog, hours upon hours of research on embryonic stem cell research and writing my term papers on why the right is wrong... meeting senators and congressmen and thinking being invited to study in DC in the summers was sooo cool... ulgh. I wish I would have spent those summers at the LAKE! Haha.

Politics has a tendency to bring out the worst in people. I'm just sooooooo so so SO glad that I no longer spend every minute of the day blaming the problems of the world on a political party... cause the problems of the world revolve around [b]sin[/b] and the fall of man... NOT the right... NOT the left...

/steps off soapbox.

[Deb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1522001' date='May 8 2008, 12:19 AM']Grumpy? I'm having a blast! I was laughing out loud posting my last post.


So the "transgender" movement is not liberal? Really, now? I'm sure the majority of those in the "gay, lesbian, transgendered" (GLAD) movement would beg to differ with you on that!
Tell me, is it conservatives or liberals which adamantly support abortion, homosexuality, "transgenderism," and other abominations as "rights"? Is it liberals or conservatives who support an abandonment of "traditional gender roles" and want to teach kids about homosexuality in kindergarten?
After all, which political party has support for "abortion rights" and "gay rights" written into its party platform?

These people consider their cause liberal or progressive, as do most other people (whatever their political persuasion). Even in this post, Galloglasses referred to this as liberal, and he's from Ireland! If you want to find some creative new term for it, go ahead, but that's up to you.

And for the record, Hitler was no conservative, but a statist socialist. After all, "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist." It's obvious you nothing about either National Socialism or conservatism if you confuse the two.

If reality is "getting old" for you, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to call things other than what they are.[/quote]

You call things the way that you see them in such a generalized way that it eventually has no meaning at all, it turns into, I am Socrates, I don't like the color blue so I wil label it a liberal color. Are you even capable of discussing ANY issue that you are not in agreement with without calling it liberal in a NEGATIVE way? That is my point. It is like the F word for you.

I am liberal. I am in liberal in my love for other people, I am liberal in that I believe we owe it to our fellow human beings to make sure all have the basic necessities of life, I am liberal in the amount of money I give to my church and to charities, I am liberal in the amount of butter I put on a potato. I do not support abortion in any case and I won't vote for people who do. Are those bad things? No.
Try, just one week to actually post on any subject with out using Liberal as a swear word. See what else you could come up with. On this subject. Whomever is this deluded and nuts has a serious disconnect with society and with the value and beauty of the human body and should get some professional help. See how easy that was?

Some realities are getting old. Your use of the term Liberal as a derogatory term is one of them.

[Aloysius]

don't call Jesus a liberal, please. for that matter, don't call Him a conservative... it's just bad taste (bordering on blasphemous) and neither is accurate. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world.

those who support this would call themselves liberal. not all (probably not the majority, pray God I hope and anyway, I'm pretty sure) of those who call themselves liberal would support this.

[Deb]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522269' date='May 8 2008, 12:11 PM']don't call Jesus a liberal, please. for that matter, don't call Him a conservative... it's just bad taste (bordering on blasphemous) and neither is accurate. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world.

those who support this would call themselves liberal. not all (probably not the majority, pray God I hope and anyway, I'm pretty sure) of those who call themselves liberal would support this.[/quote]

No, it is not bordering on blasphemous unless you have determined by yourself that the term Liberal is a terrible thing. (see Socrates) When Jesus was of this world, as fully man as well as fully God, he brought a radical liberal theology to the Orthodox believers of his time.

Webster's dictionary defines a Liberal as one who is open minded, not
strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or
ways. Jesus was a pluralist Liberal who taught that one need not
conform to strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life. He
rejected greed, violence, the glorification of power, the amassing of
wealth without social balance, and the personal judging of others, their
lifestyles and beliefs.

Over and over again, He taught us to believe in and live a spiritual and
ethical life based in our essential, inherent goodness. What Jesus
promoted was succinct set of spiritual principals and a way of life
based upon the of love, compassion, tolerance, and a strong belief in
the importance in giving and of generosity to those in need.

Every one of those attributes would have classified him as a liberal
of his time and his world. My point is and was to stop trying to
attach every evil and every unpleasant thing of this world and
this time to someone who would consider themselves a Liberal.
Liberal as Jesus Christ was. Find a new term or quit using it in a matter
that is blasphemous to those of us who try to live as a liberal like
Christ. Quit assuming all liberals are for abortion, homosexual marriage,
gender exchange, pornography or any of the other things that pollute
this world. I will say it again. It has gotten old.

[cmotherofpirl]

The clinic and those behind this scheme are radical liberals- ya know the Barark Obama variety. I 'm sure this is something he could easily support, considering "change " is his favorite word.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522269' date='May 8 2008, 11:11 AM']don't call Jesus a liberal, please. for that matter, don't call Him a conservative... it's just bad taste (bordering on blasphemous) and neither is accurate. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world.

those who support this would call themselves liberal. not all (probably not the majority, pray God I hope and anyway, I'm pretty sure) of those who call themselves liberal would support this.[/quote]
Well said.

Jesus Christ is called many things in the Bible - The Son of Man; The Bread of Life; The Way, The Truth and the Life, the Lamb of God; etc. - but nowhere is He called a liberal.
There is nothing more belittling to Our Lord and Savior than to try to make Him in the image of modern politics.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1522414' date='May 8 2008, 02:46 PM']When Jesus was of this world, as fully man as well as fully God, he brought a radical liberal theology to the Orthodox believers of his time.

Webster's dictionary defines a Liberal as one who is open minded, not
strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or
ways. [b]Jesus was a pluralist Liberal who taught that one need not
conform to strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life.[/b] He
rejected greed, violence, the glorification of power, the amassing of
wealth without social balance, and the personal judging of others, their
lifestyles and beliefs.

Over and over again, He taught us to believe in and live a spiritual and
ethical life[b] based in our essential, inherent goodness[/b].[/quote]
Truly, this is one of the biggest loads of smelly stuff I have ever read posted on Phatmass.

First of all, what we call "radical, liberal theology" is hardly Christlike, and in normal usage refers to teachings opposed to the teachings of Christ, as handed down by His Holy Catholic Church.
[quote]And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [b]And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven[/b].[/quote](Matt. 16:18-19)
Note Christ is establishing [b]authority[/b] in His Church.
Identifying "radical liberal theology" (as taught by today's "liberal theologians"), opposed to "orthodox believers." with Christ's unchanging truth is extremely poor wording at best, heretical at worst.

Christ did not come to preach some hippie-dippy rejection of religious orthodoxy and do-it-yourself spirituality, but came to establish Himself as the ultimate Authority, the fulfillment of the Old Law, and gave His teaching authority to the Church. (See Matt. 16 above.)
"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:17-18)

"[b]For he was teaching them as one having authority[/b], and not as the scribes and Pharisees." (Matt. 7:29)

Christ was most certainly NOT a pluralist liberal, as He taught that He alone was the way to God.
"[b]I am[/b] the way, and the truth, and the life. [b]No man cometh to the Father, but by me.[/b]" (John 14:6)

Christ did not come to destroy tradition, but to establish His own in the Church, as St. Paul the Apostle tells the Church: "Therefore, brethren, [b]stand fast: and hold the traditions[/b], which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle." (2 Thess. 14)

Again, the Apostle states: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (Gal. 1:8-9)
So much for "pluralist liberalism" and the idea that "one need not conform to strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life" and "not judging beliefs"!

And I don't know where you get the idea that Christ does not condemn "lifestyles" and beliefs."
Christ forgives the repentant sinner, but does indeed judge "lifestyles" as wrong and in need of repentance. Indeed, He is stricter than old law in His preaching regarding immoral "lifestyles":[quote]You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell.[/quote](Matt. 5:27-29)
Hardly the words of a pluralist liberal preaching non-judgmental tolerance of "lifestyles."

As St. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God."
Hardly sounds like liberal tolerance of lifestyles there!

And Christ taught that we can only be saved by His sacrifice, not just by leading a good life "based in our essential, inherent goodness."

Sorry if this may seem harsh and long-winded, but I believe the reduction of the Christian message to sappy liberal platitudes has done untold damage over the past century or so.

Jesus Christ was not a liberal.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Deb' post='1522139' date='May 8 2008, 07:30 AM']You call things the way that you see them in such a generalized way that it eventually has no meaning at all, it turns into, I am Socrates, I don't like the color blue so I wil label it a liberal color. Are you even capable of discussing ANY issue that you are not in agreement with without calling it liberal in a NEGATIVE way? That is my point. It is like the F word for you.[/quote]
What the liberal you talking about?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Deb' post='1522414' date='May 8 2008, 09:46 PM']No, it is not bordering on blasphemous unless you have determined by yourself that the term Liberal is a terrible thing. (see Socrates) When Jesus was of this world, as fully man as well as fully God, he brought a radical liberal theology to the Orthodox believers of his time.[/quote]

Yet in many ways Jesus was fully in line with orthodox Judaism. There is a tendency for us to assume that the Pharisees were representative of orthodox Jews at the time, and that Jesus' disputes with them must have meant that he challenged religious orthodoxy. His decision to heal people on the Sabbath, for example, is something that is frequently cited as an example of his radical new approach to faith. But mainstream orthodox Judaism teaches and has always taught that works of healing are permissible on the Sabbath, especially if you are trying to save a life. The Pharisees didn't agree with that interpretation, but they were just one faction within the spectrum of Jewish orthodoxy and can't really be taken as representative. The rabbinical literature of the time shows us that there were Jews who would have agreed with much of Jesus' theology, particularly his approach to ethics. Jesus' famous teaching about giving in secret, so that your right hand does not know what your left hand is doing, is not even original. An identical teaching, only phrased slightly differently, is found in the midrashic writings. And that's just the first teaching I can think of that Jesus drew from his knowledge of Judaism, his own faith - there are many others. The image of Jesus as a revolutionary who came to replace a religion based on rules and ritual with a more compassionate way of living out a personal faith is false. It can be hard for us as Christians to accept that while Jesus was extraordinary in so many respects, in other ways he was just an orthodox Jew among other orthodox Jews.

However, this doesn't make Jesus a conformist. He focused on what God wanted rather than on the expectations of the people around him. He and his disciples were expected to fast and lead impressively austere lives to 'prove' their holiness, which they refused to do. He taught people not to confuse sanctity with societal perceptions of sanctity, something that is very easy to do. He recognised that a tradition (e.g. the tradition of divorce) is not necessarily true just because it has a long religious pedigree. So it's quite possible to look at certain things that he said and did and call them 'liberal'. It's equally possible to look at other things and take them as evidence of Jesus' 'conservative' approach. But we're only able to do that because we try to put his teachings in our modern context and see how they measure up against our political scales. That isn't possible. Then we just end up with a very partial picture.

There is a wonderful scene in one of the Narnia books ([i]The Horse and His Boy[/i]) when Shasta senses an unseen presence walking beside him. Nervously, he asks, "Who are you?"

The reply is, "Myself."

It is said three times - in a whisper, in a roar, in normal tones. Of course the presence is Aslan. C.S. Lewis was right in his portrayal, I think - this is the most we can ever say about Jesus. [i]I am Who I am[/i]. Liberal labels, conservative labels - they don't make any sense in the face of that.

[Cure of Ars]

I don't know if we know enough about this situation to flat out call in immoral. I will gladly conform to the morality of the Church but I don't know if we know enough about biology to really make a for sure judgment.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' post='1523128' date='May 9 2008, 08:57 AM']I don't know if we know enough about this situation to flat out call in immoral. I will gladly conform to the morality of the Church but I don't know if we know enough about biology to really make a for sure judgment.[/quote]
The Church teaches that so-called "sex-change operations" are an immoral mutilation of the human body. (There was an official document on this somewhere, but right now I can't find it.)
In this case, we are not discussing people with physical disorders.
[quote]The "Gender Management Service Clinic" at Children's Hospital in Boston offers treatment for young people who have "no known anatomic or biochemical disorder who feel like a member of the opposite sex."[/quote]