re: "Straight men can be attracted to trans women"

quote:

---

You love to fabricate delusions out of thin air to explain away God’s lie.

---

While I might not know all things or have perfect theology (I'm a sinful human, after all), I have studied the Bible for a very long time and have been blessed to learn from a lot of gifted men. I assure you I'm not "fabricating" anything out of thin air when talking about covenant theology which has blessings and curses. Do a quick google search for "covenant of works" if you aren't satisfied with my assurance. Even so, Hosea mentioned that Adam broke God's covenant (6:7), and Romans 5 is an explanation of Jesus as the second Adam, where Adam failed to obey and thus condemned all his posterity, Jesus obeyed the law and gave life to all those who trust in Him by faith.

quote:

---

Focus on your quiet that I bolded. You made that up. There’s no basis in scripture for it.

---

Romans 5 teaches that death came through Adam's disobedience, just as life came through Jesus' obedience.

This is the natural consequence of you taking the Bible as an unrelated group of words and sentences. You don't see the connections throughout the Bible as even the NT writers reveal to us by inspiration of the Spirit. You have to let the Bible interpret itself.

quote:

---

What do we actually know from scripture? Adam needed to eat, else he would die. We know Adam had never eaten from the tree of life, else he would have been immortal

---

We know from the Bible that there will be food in the age to come (new heaven and new earth), yet there will be no more death. Just because Adam could eat doesn't necessitate that he could starve to death. And even if he could starve to death, it doesn't mean that God would allow it, because death came through sin.

It doesn't appear that the tree of life was barred from Adam and Eve prior to the fall. They could have eaten from it at any time, yet they were only prevented from eating from it after they sinned and entered into a fallen state. The natural reason for why they were barred from eating it after the fall was that they would have lived forever in their fallen state, which is not what God wanted for them or anyone else. Everlasting life will come with a glorified body in the future, with all sin and weakness removed from it.

quote:

---

We know that “spirit” was literally the breath of life. No more spirit = dead.

---

The Spirit isn't life itself, but is a part of our being as humans made in God's image. Our spirits/souls leave at the point of bodily death, but it isn't our spirits that give us life. We will be alive in some sense as spirits when our bodies die.

quote:

---

We know God lied. Adam didn’t die that very day he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but rather lived another 900+ years.

---

If there is more than one sense in which a person can "die" (or be "alive"), then it doesn't necessitate that God lied. It's your assumption that God must have lied because you have to believe that the Bible teaches falsehoods and contradictions. You can't even begin to think that you are the one interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

quote:

---

We know that when Jesus died “in spirit” it was a physical death. We know Adam didn’t die “in spirit” when he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

---

You are wrongfully seeing Jesus giving up His spirit as a spiritual death. When Jesus died, He died in His body, not His spirit. Giving up His spirit was a way of describing His bodily death and His spirit's leaving of His body to go to Paradise. As I mentioned in another post, there are several references to humans alive in body being said to be "dead" and being "made alive". There is a clear distinction between physical death and spiritual death. It seems that you believe they are the exact same thing

quote:

---

Side note: Why was god such a dick? He created a man who didn’t know right from wrong, and then punished him when he could not have been responsible for his actions. Imagine getting a brand new puppy, putting a fried chicken leg on the coffee table saying “now dog, don’t you eat that chicken leg.” And then leaving the house. Then upon return, abandoning the puppy outside forever because it ate the chicken leg you told it not to eat. Maybe you could’ve put the chicken leg in the fridge? Similarly, couldn’t god have simply put a force field around that tree, or made it invisible or hidden it somewhere else? Why did god need a tree of knowledge? Doesn’t god already know right from wrong?

---

That's quite the scenario to describe something that wasn't the case in the Bible. Adam did know right from wrong. God told him what was right (obedience) and wrong (disobedience). God specifically said that Adam could eat from any tree except one, and that it was wrong (he would be punished if he disobeyed) to eat from a particular tree. The whole thing was a test: would Adam rely on his creator, the holy God of creation, to provide all that Adam needed? Or, would he become a law to himself (autonomous) and reject God's knowledge, wisdom, direction, and provision?

Adam knew not to eat from that tree, and he did it anyway. He knew what he was doing and he was punished for it. He wasn't some ignorant dog, but he was a rational being.

quote:

---

Obviously even the religious folks knew not to take this story literally - it was an allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally, as it would be a very stupid literal story. Whether literal or allegorical, God did lie to Adam. You can argue he lied to Adam for his own good maybe, but he still lied.

---

The writers of the NT didn't treat the story as allegorical. Adam was included in Jesus' genealogy and Jesus, Himself, referred to the creation account to support the law of marriage. The Apostles considered Jesus the "second Adam", which wouldn't have made much sense if there were no literal first Adam. Not to mention that there are soteriological ramifications with Adam not existing literally.

Augustine, as an example, also believed in a literal Adam and a literal creation, as described in his writings at the end of his life.

quote:

---

Even so, Hosea mentioned that Adam broke God's covenant (6:7), and Romans 5 is an explanation of Jesus as the second Adam, where Adam failed to obey and thus condemned all his posterity

---

None of that addresses God’s lie that Adam would die that very day he at the fruit. Were those verses your best argument for Adam “dying in spirit” as a way to explain away God’s lie?

quote:

---

Just because Adam could eat doesn't necessitate that he could starve to death. And even if he could starve to death, it doesn't mean that God would allow it, because death came through sin.

---

There’s no basis for this except your imagination and wishful thinking.

quote:

---

It doesn't appear that the tree of life was barred from Adam and Eve prior to the fall. They could have eaten from it at any time, yet they were only prevented from eating from it after they sinned and entered into a fallen state. The natural reason for why they were barred from eating it after the fall was that they would have lived forever in their fallen state, which is not what God wanted for them or anyone else.

---

Except the text of genesis doesn’t say any of that. More fabrications on your part. The only reasons given for Yahweh kicking Adam out of the garden are:
1. God says Adam has become like one of us knowing good and evil (for explanation of “us” see psalms 82 and 89)
2. He doesn’t want Adam to eat from the tree of life and consequently live forever.

quote:

---

The Spirit isn't life itself, but is a part of our being as humans made in God's image. Our spirits/souls leave at the point of bodily death, but it isn't our spirits that give us life.

---

Wrong again. The word for spirit is also the same exact word used to “wind” and “breath”. When Yahweh breathed the spirit of life into Adam’s nostrils, he became alive. When Jesus gave up his spirit, he gave up is breath… he quit breathing… and physically died. The spirit was tied to physical life and death.

quote:

---

If there is more than one sense in which a person can "die" (or be "alive"), then it doesn't necessitate that God lied. It's your assumption that God must have lied because you have to believe that the Bible teaches falsehoods and contradictions.

---

God lied because it is plainly in the text of the myth. I made no assumptions. It’s just a plain reading of the text. God said Adam would die the day he ate the fruit, but Adam lived 900 years after. Good point about the falsehoods and contradictions though. It’s not that I believe that the Bible is full of falsehoods, it’s that I acknowledge the falsehoods. “Belief” invokes a lack of evidence. I know the falsehoods of the Bible based on the myths being evidently untrue and demonstrably false, as we have overwhelming observable and testable physical evidence about the world around us that disproves the myths. We know Adam wasn’t conjured up from an ancient Hebrew magical Golem Spell, as we know humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years from earlier apes. We know the earth isn’t 6000 years old because of a whole host of modern sciences.

quote:

---

You can't even begin to think that you are the one interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

---

Look in the mirror

quote:

---

That's quite the scenario to describe something that wasn't the case in the Bible. Adam did know right from wrong. God told him what was right (obedience) and wrong (disobedience). God specifically said that Adam could eat from any tree except one, and that it was wrong (he would be punished if he disobeyed) to eat from a particular tree. The whole thing was a test:

---

It doesn’t say it was a test. Again you make it up as you go. Adam didn’t know right from wrong before he ate the fruit. God set up a nice beautiful fruit tree accessible to Adam and told him not to eat from it. It’s plainly clear in the text Adam doesn’t know right from wrong before eating the fruit. He didn’t know disobeying Yahweh was wrong.

quote:

---

Adam knew not to eat from that tree, and he did it anyway. He knew what he was doing and he was punished for it.

---

He was an ignoramus and that’s what Yahweh wanted of Adam. Adam didn’t even fear death because Yahweh had just told him if he ate that fruit he would die that day. Adam had yet to acquire knowledge.

quote:

---

He wasn't some ignorant dog, but he was a rational being.

---

I disagree. A person without any knowledge is ignorant and since he has no knowledge on which to base any decisions, he wouldn’t have been rational either.

quote:

---

The writers of the NT didn't treat the story as allegorical. Adam was included in Jesus' genealogy and Jesus, Himself, referred to the creation account to support the law of marriage.

---

They got it wrong. Even if it wasn’t an allegory, they still all got it wrong because we know through modern science that the creation myth is just a myth. In fairness, ancient Jews didn’t have telescopes or microscopes or knowledge of fossils or radiometric dating or plate tectonics or genetics or biological cells. It was their best explanation of the world around them, but we now know their ancient explanations to be demonstrably false.

quote:

---

Uh, yeah, there’s a reason they are the highest on the crazy/hot index.

---

If this post isn’t a cry for help, I don’t know what is

There is no such thing as a trans woman. There is cross dressing of course. But you cannot change gender no matter how hard these frick tards try.

attraction? naaaa, can not get past the gag reflex!

quote:

---

I thought it was called a “prison wallet.”

---

Mangina

quote:

---

You have no objective standard. An objective standard is based on factual data that can be proven true based on evidence. That - you surely do not have. You don’t have evidence, which is why you have faith due to lack of provable testable falsifiable evidence.

---

An objective standard is one that exists apart from the human existence.

What you are doing is putting God to the test of your own making based on a a presupposition of epistemological materialistic empiricism, which cannot be supported by its own methodology (empiricism as an epistemology must be assumed without learning it through empiricism, so it's self-defeating, and therefore irrational to promote it as an epistemological methodology apart from underlying support from revelational epistemology).

quote:

---

Your standards are subjective, not objective.

---

My ultimate standard is based on the objective nature of God.

quote:

---

But let’s talk about your subjective standard of morality - the “word of god” - who leads by example!

---

Why do you care? If your worldview were true and there are no objective standards for morality, then what the Bible or anything/anyone says is utterly irrelevant in terms of moral judgement, because there would be no rational basis for any authoritative declaration of what is "right" and "wrong" outside of the individual preference, and therefore it would be irrational to make moral judgements as if they were more than mere opinion. If subjectivity was all there was, then morality is nothing more than opinion. I keep telling you this but you don't seem to understand it.

quote:

---

1 Samuel 15:3
What did the infants, ox, sheep, camels, and donkeys do that was so evil they needed to be erased?

---

If you cared about the truth, you would have simply read the verse that came before it, but you missed the answer because you don't care about reading the context, like I keep telling you.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. (v. 3)

That story is recounted in Ex. 17:8-16. The Amalekites tried to destroy God's chosen people, so God commanded that people to be destroyed as a punishment. Here's how chapter 17 ends:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The Lord Is My Banner, saying, “A hand upon the throne of the Lord! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”

What's your concern here? One tribe/nation goes to war with another tribe/nation and as punishment, the attacking tribe is utterly destroyed. All people are guilty before God of breaking His moral law and He is free to kill us at any time, so why, in your worldview, is it immoral for a king to declare law-breakers to be guilty and to punish them?

quote:

---

Exodus 21:7
We should totally be able to sell our daughters into slavery. Makes sense.

---

First it should be noted that there is no command to sell anyone into slavery, so it isn't something that must be done.

Second, the civil law was one given to moderate bad behavior. Jesus talked about this in regards to divorce, how Moses tolerated it because of the hardness of the hearts of Israel. Slavery was similar.

Lastly, the law regarding slavery in this instance seems to be talking abut selling a daughter off for marriage, as the regulation was entirely about treatment of such a "slave" and how she must be let go (redeemed) if the master doesn't want to marry her, and if he does marry her, she should be to him as a wife in all respects, not as a slave. The cultural context was that slavery in Israel was a means of sustenance (often times the only alternative to slavery was financial ruin and death with people not being able to care for themselves). Jesus came to set the prisoner free, not to create new ones.

quote:

---

Ezekiel 20

Yahweh here is admitting that the moral standards he gave his people were immoral.

---

Not at all. You again fail to read anything within its context. This "law" He gave is contrasted with the 10 commandments that He gave them, which God mentioned in verses 10 and 13.

These "statutes" and "rules" are not the commands God gave them which could bring life if obeyed perfectly, but they are the statues and the rules that each created for themselves. It's a way of saying that God gave the people over to their sin so that they were a rule and a law to themselves, and those rules and laws could not save. It's why in the next verse, God said He defiled them through their gifts and sacrifices of their children, so that they would hopefully see the wickedness of their ways and repent and turn back to God's good law.

But of course you won't see it that way, because you must see God as saying that His law is immoral and evil (even though He has said the opposite time and time again). You have to see the Bible teaching what you claim because you can't have it teaching truth, because then it would be a true judge against you.

quote:

---

Funny the reason given about why he did all that - so they’d know he is Yahweh - was the same excuse given as to why he hardened pharoah’s heart and then killed all their firstborn sons.

---

Yes, God often times gives people over to their sins and allows them to do evil things so that His glory would abound and His name magnified. He lets people do what is evil so that they can reap what they sow. God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart was not doing anything against his will, but removing His grace from Pharaoh so that he would do what he wanted to do.

quote:

---

So you don’t have an objective standard though you think you do.

---

Yes, I do. It's God's moral law as written on the hearts of man and revealed through God's word in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. It's objective because it originates outside of the human experience, applying to all people at all times and in all places and doesn't change.

quote:

---

The subjective standard that you do claim to adhere to is full of immoral behavior by the prevailing subjective morality of 21st century USA.

---

This is a self-defeating statement. By claiming that 21st century USA morality is subjective, you can't possibly claim that the Bible (or God) is immoral, because it would be a meaningless statement. Subjective morality is nothing more than preference, so all you are saying is that 21st century Americans don't like what God says in the Bible (even though your examples aren't teaching what you think they are), and that doesn't make it immoral, it just means that some people don't like what God has said and done.

quote:

---

Here’s one objective truth for you: adhering to biblical morality would be illegal criminal behavior on every country on Earth.

---

I don't think you know what "biblical morality" even is, considering you don't know the difference between what God commands and what sinners do against God's commands.

quote:

---

"Straight men can be attracted to trans women"

---

Sounds like something Trump would say as he tries to get some votes.