The question of sin (2 of 4)

I would like to encourage all to read the comments in regards to this post on his blog. While it got slightly off topic, we got into a discussion on a specific reality of abortion that I don’t really hear many people talk about. I often hear people bring up it up, but never the opposing argument. In my comments, I take up the opposing argument. I actually side with what some may call an extreme that I’m sure many churches wouldn’t even side with.

Eilers Pizza

Today, I turn to specific ways I have been told that transitioning from one’s birth sex is a sinful action.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is the one verse which appears to speak most directly to the issue at hand: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (NIV).

This is used to run the gamut of issues: crossdressing, drag queens, the fetishistic use of the garments of the opposite sex, impersonating the other sex for the purpose of deception, and transitioning from one sex to the other.

If this edict holds in the New Testament era, I question whether it applies to the person who has a condition, which has the person in a weakened state, who does not desire to offend the Lord or take to the opposite sex out of any illicit desire for the…

View original post 968 more words

Tagged , ,

One thought on “The question of sin (2 of 4)

  1. John J Flanagan says:

    The ‘ weakened state’ argument is a poor justification for “transitioning from one’s birth sex” to the opposite gender. It does not affirm the validity of the act, nor does it set aside the sin, but it is merely a weak and futile effort to provide a rationale. The “illicit desire” aspect remains evident, because the individual transitioning is still biologically a sexual human being, however, the desire is there to experience the sexual act by taking the part of the opposite gender instead of from the position of their original birth gender. In many ways, it is a psychological dysfunction and a compulsion, but not attributed to a genetic argument. At it’s base, it is sinful, unnatural, and culturally stimulated. It certainly cannot be granted immunity by theological fiat when God’s word expressly calls it sin, and all societies for thousands of years have held in in distaste, except in paganized and sexually promiscuous cultures… ours is certainly embracing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: