transsexuality and religious verse...

[girlfromsocal]

Well in the Quran it's never spoken of. But one part it says changing GOD's creation is a sin. Btw I'm a believer in only the Quran. So even breast implants are immoral. But I don't really care. Even though I wonder like with growing up I had surgery because I was ambiguous but that's my mom's fault. Anyway if it's true that changing one's body is wrong then aren't transsexuals their biological sex in GOD's eyes. That's how I saw it. Though to me transgirls are female even androgenous ones. I'm just wondering like someone mentioned I wasn't lesbian even though I dated a transgirl. To me that makes me bisexual. But religiously speaking I think it's by the biological sex. Let me repeat I'm only a reader of the quran and other books I don't concern myself with. Anyway GOD knows I feel like that makes bi. But by the statement above I'm not. Idk....

[Toz]

By the level of threads you create here, I can tell you're beyond confused about your religion and its relationship to your sex life. Just an observation.

First off, changing God's creation: Does this mean that terraforming is a sin? What about having an infant's cleft lip surgically fixed? I think it's a nonsensical idea.

Moreover, what exactly are you asking?

[girlfromsocal]

well it's changing his creation as in everything about it like in the case of transsexuality yes that's changing GOD's creation. Once they transition they're hardly recognizeable. If anything that fits the definition. My question is that if that's the case. By that logic dating someone of the same sex that's trans is not gay? I never saw it that way. But someone on here I think pointed that out. Or maybe I'm looking into it too much. I just think at the same time GOD knows what I think and what's in my heart therefore I still have a right to say I'm bi even in a religious context and all.



idc if you think it's silly. You're not my GOD.
Also half my threads here were about christianity. I'm curious about them a lot.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

well it's changing his creation as in everything about it like in the case of transsexuality yes that's changing GOD's creation. Once they transition they're hardly recognizeable. If anything that fits the definition. My question is that if that's the case. By that logic dating someone of the same sex that's trans is not gay? I never saw it that way. But someone on here I think pointed that out. Or maybe I'm looking into it too much. I just think at the same time GOD knows what I think and what's in my heart therefore I still have a right to say I'm bi even in a religious context and all.



idc if you think it's silly. You're not my GOD.
Also half my threads here were about christianity. I'm curious about them a lot.

I never said it was silly. And thank goodness I'm not your God. O.o

It's still unclear what you are asking. Are you asking whether or not it's "considered gay" if you date someone who was the same gender as you, but looks and acts like the opposite? Or are you asking if dating someone who was born the opposite gender, but looks, acts, and feels as if they are your gender is gay?

Either way, I don't see the point in putting a label on it. Love is love.

[girlfromsocal]

no. I meant vice versa. By the verse it seems like GOD is saying what we are created to be is what we are? So I meant like my dating interests in one girl who was born the opposite sex a guy is then in the religious context straigt but GOD knows what I think and and considered her a girl. So like to me when in a religious context I could still claim I'm bisexual. I think I figured it out now....

[JKmadu619]

regarding transexuality as changing God's creation:

Getting a haircut, a piercing or tattoo, or cutting your nails, painting your nails, dying your hair... all count as changing his creation. Transexuals have broken this rule as much as we all have.

- Justin

[girlfromsocal]

no it's at an extreme form like cosmetic or other physical surgery. Like I said dramatically.

[Toz]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

no it's at an extreme form like cosmetic or other physical surgery. Like I said dramatically. Is that hard to understand? Oh wait probably is for you... Apparently.

The question here isn't about how extreme something is. You specifically said, "changing God's creation." If you ask me, it's just another hole in the idea that is God.

[girlfromsocal]

no in the context I read it. Yea it's in extreme cases. Idc big bang is described in our book. You can't change that. You aren't my mind. I don't think I asked you. What you believed to be true. I'm asking isn't it not gay in the religious context?

[Toz]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

no in the context I read it. Yea it's in extreme cases. Idc big bang is described in our book. You can't change that. You aren't my mind. I don't think I asked you. What you believed to be true. I'm asking isn't it not gay in the religious context?

First off, your original question remains too unclear to answer. You seem to have already answered it yourself, though. So what you are trying to gain from asking here is unclear.

Secondly, no, the Quran does not describe the Big Bang. Proponents of this argument say that the universe was created out of gaseous material, and they cite Koran 41:11. The passage in question actually does not say "gaseous material." The Arabic word used is dukhan, "smoke." This is claimed to be a "perfect analogy" for gas and particles in suspension, and the gasses being hot. Is it? Not really. Smoke is made of ash, predominantly carbon, and is produced from burning (oxidation), not plasma condensation. Smoke looks nothing like heated hydrogen or helium, does not share its elemental mass or other properties, and does not even possess many of the general properties of a gas. Thus, it is the wrong word. Arabic could not lack the vocabulary to simply say "hot air" or "hot gases expanding in an empty space" or anything even remotely relevant to the truth. Instead, the author chose the least accurate way of putting it, "smoke." If you can change the meaning of a word at will, and convert a word for "carbon-based ash" into "two basic gases," then you can change the meaning of any word in any book to prove any theory you want. Far from being scientific, that is the very antithesis of science.

Moreover, the universe did not begin as a gas. If current Big Bang science is correct, the universe began before any matter of any kind existed--it began as pure energy. It took several moments for any matter to form, and then it was a plasma, not a gas. Gases only came later, after the plasma cooled, and yet gasses were still not the only constituent--much of the mass-energy at even that point, as before, was comprised of electromagnetic radiation--light. The fact that the Koran fails to mention any of this or any other crucial scientific information is precisely why its claim to "scientific accuracy" is to be dismissed. It is making vague metaphysical statements, and that is not science.

There's more information for you here. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/islam.html


And I didn't come here looking for "friendly advice." You did. Keep that in mind.
"Omnia ergo quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines, et vos facite illis."

[girlfromsocal]

yea that's how you see it. And what you believe. It's not a science book it just didn't mention it. I think it's a good analogy. Just like many other facts. Also it's a cloud of gas not simply smoke. Js. There are more facts than just that. Some people get it some people don't. We do believe in the big bang idc if you're going to tell me I don't. You're just waisting time. But still haven't answered my question. Are you just here to try to convert me? Or are you going to answer my question? Because right now you seem cantakerous against religion. But yea that's what I believe. I'm not trying to make you believe different and you'll never succeed in making me feel differently. Btw looked up all definitions still stands. If you don't like religion why are you in this section? Are you a missionary? Those christian habits never die do they... LOL

[JKmadu619]

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

no it's at an extreme form like cosmetic or other physical surgery. Like I said dramatically.

I was simply pointing out that all religions believe against basic cosmetics as we are what we are supposed to be. Therefore Transexuals have broken this rule as often as we all have.

- Justin

[JKmadu619]

Also, I found it dizzying to read this post:

Originally Posted by girlfromsocal

yea that's how you see it. And what you believe. It's not a science book it just didn't mention it. I think it's a good analogy. Just like many other facts. Also it's a cloud of gas not simply smoke. Js. There are more facts than just that. Some people get it some people don't. We do believe in the big bang idc if you're going to tell me I don't. You're just waisting time. But still haven't answered my question. Are you just here to try to convert me? Or are you going to answer my question? Because right now you seem cantakerous against religion. But yea that's what I believe. I'm not trying to make you believe different and you'll never succeed in making me feel differently. Btw looked up all definitions still stands. If you don't like religion why are you in this section? Are you a missionary? Those christian habits never die do they... LOL

I do think you seem to be upset, but it's funny. You really think writing an irrelevant posts really will do anything but waste your time. I feel sorry for you. You can't handle most people do believe in GOD. I guess you're angry at the world. If you're upset at the world for believing in GOD write another thread about it. You have not answered the question still. Your post is useless to my question, and entertaining to see how you just can't accept most people don't agree with you. But annoying and not fair to my thread. I'm asking if it's gay or not. You're turning it into a religious sermon. Stick to topic...

My head literally span. Like 360 degrees. You went from arguing that he was a Christian missonary to that he hated all forms of religion. I would say the second is borderline acurate, but he is possibly the least religious person I have ever met. He's a good man in his own right, but not in any way, shape or form a "Missonary."

Secondly, "MOST" people in the world do not believe in "God" assuming God refers to a single figure. Some worship mother nature, Greek Gods, Satan, Christian God, Buddah, Mohamed and Jedi Master Yoda. I am not shitting you. So I guess it's hard for you to accept that most people do not believe in your God.

Also, you seem to be confused on who is going off topic, not Toz. You seem to be the one who is making "Irrelevant posts".

He doesn't like religion, and yet he is here because: A) It's Religion Spirituality, Science, and Philosophy Forums. Also, he's more than free to debate what he wants. I actually respect him for that. I feel it is fitting to quote you here: "Is that hard to understand? Oh wait probably is for you... Apparently."

Also, please save me some time and look up "Debate" in the dictionary. It's really a wonderful passtime, and it helps to realize that when others call on your beliefs they aren't necessarily attacking them, at least not intentionally.

- Justin

[Toz]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Also, I found it dizzying to read this post:



My head literally span. Like 360 degrees. You went from arguing that he was a Christian missonary to that he hated all forms of religion. I would say the second is borderline acurate, but he is possibly the least religious person I have ever met. He's a good man in his own right, but not in any way, shape or form a "Missonary."

Secondly, "MOST" people in the world do not believe in "God" assuming God refers to a single figure. Some worship mother nature, Greek Gods, Satan, Christian God, Buddah, Mohamed and Jedi Master Yoda. I am not shitting you. So I guess it's hard for you to accept that most people do not believe in your God.

Also, you seem to be confused on who is going off topic, not Toz. You seem to be the one who is making "Irrelevant posts".

He doesn't like religion, and yet he is here because: A) It's Religion Spirituality, Science, and Philosophy Forums. Also, he's more than free to debate what he wants. I actually respect him for that. I feel it is fitting to quote you here: "Is that hard to understand? Oh wait probably is for you... Apparently."

Also, please save me some time and look up "Debate" in the dictionary. It's really a wonderful passtime, and it helps to realize that when others call on your beliefs they aren't necessarily attacking them, at least not intentionally.

- Justin

Just to clear things up, I don't hate religion by any standards. I think there are fundamental things wrong with it- broadly speaking. Where my problem arises is that it's a way to divide people, that it inhibits society intellectually in some ways, and it allows people to turn a blind eye to things that are otherwise totally barbaric.

But I don't hate it. I think it's just kind of redundant, to an intelligent, contemplative person.

And before this girl gets her hackles raised, I'm not saying people who are religious can't be intelligent or contemplative- look at dr2005. But across the board, there's been a correlation between areas with higher reported standardized test scores, and atheist populations. Not to say that correlation implies causation, but it does prove that there is a relationship between the two. I would hazard a guess and say that the reason is because people who are willing to contemplate the idea that there is no God, an idea that is the opposite of the one drilled into our minds from birth, are a lot more open to acquiring knowledge and applying it.

[JKmadu619]

Toz: I will not argue some simpletons cling to religion to explain why they hate "fags". Rather than accepting that they are horribly undereducated and fear those different from them.

I will also not argue the audacity of some religious people who refuse to believe in simple facts such as evolution.

- Justin

[Revolution]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your opinion on the issue. Are you against the surgical procedures of the trans* community? Is it just that? Because a lot of trans people never get surgery, they only receive hormones. I've tried to understand your posts, but I"m just not quite getting it. Could you be a little bit clearer with how you type, and I'd gladly answer some questions?

Thanks.