Fellowship With Transgenders

Ummm. Didn’t I say just that?

you did. it was sort of sandwiched in the middle, so maybe he just missed it.

@PennEd : Yes, my apologies.

As long as someone isnt totally hostile we can engage with them, but also remember that they have feelings and needs and wants. I would not totally be against them as people. just politely confront the issue with care. I am not against free will or pressuring people to come to God, but exposing spiritual truth.

.
It is my firm personal conviction that transgendering is a gray area for
Christians. Whether it really is a gray area for Christians makes no difference
as the principles outlined in the 14th of Romans allow an individual's
conscience to dictate their decisions in matters relative to faith, i.e. that
chapter permits me to be fully persuaded by my own thinking rather than by
somebody else's thinking.

So then; seeing as how I truly believe in my own mind-- and according to
the dictates of my own conscience --that transgendering is a gray area; then
the rules spelled out in the 14th of Romans forbid me to debate the issue;
and those rules also forbid me to condemn my opponents with judgmental
remarks.
_

it isn't a gray area; it's rebellion against the Most High. this is what people are like before God saves them.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service declares war on any who oppose radical trans agenda<

In its annual report for 2023 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) says that Canadians opposed to gender ideology are a possible “violent threat.”
Dan Dicks of Press For Truth proves that in fact the opposite is true, where transgender people more often than not are the ones engaging in violence towards anyone who opposes their ideology.

Video Report in link

I don’t know anything at all about this person. But I DO know her quote here is absolute truth!

I used to be more politically active.
I prayed that God would provide a prolife, Biblically minded man to run for state office in my county. He answered those prayers with someone who trusted Christ, got baptized and joined our church.

After the Lord answered more prayers, and blessed our campaign, he was the first Republican in my lifetime to get elected to the House of Representatives.
Long story short, one of his bold battles was to prevent the Sodomites from having a parade and Gay Pride Week celebration at a state university. He also blocked sodomite unions and special benefits.
I believe those were actions that pleased the Lord and staved off His judgement.

Paul told a church not to keep fellowship with one who is called a brother... followed by a long list of sins. The case in question was a man who had his father's wife. Paul calls this fornication. In Leviticus 18, uncovering one's father's nakedness, laying with a man as one does with a woman, sex with animals and various other sexual sins were sins for which God drove Gentiles out of the land. In Acts 15, the apostles wrote to the Gentiles to abstain, among other things, from fornication.

If a man has sex with another man, that is sexual immorality. Women should not have sex with women. If a man, for example, takes hormones to look more like a woman or if he gets castrated and gets his body parts altered to look like a woman, and has sex with a man, this is still a sin. Becoming a eunuch and taking hormones doesn't make it any less a sin.

If someone__who is called a brother__ will not repent, it is acceptable for a church to deliver that individual over to Satan for the destruction o fthe flesh that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, not to keep company with him, or eat with him.

According to the Old Testament, it is an abomination/repulsive to the LORD for a man to dress as a woman or a woman to dress as a man, so we should definitely discourage this sort of thing.

That said, the university was known as a "Party School" at the time. I'm sure that the other hedonistic practices were worthy of judgement both at the schools and throughout the state. The society that is accepting of the topic at hand is on the way to serious judgement as the Bible reads.

I think the waters get muddied when the command to share the Gospel with every creature and the example I just glanced up at on TV land classics between the Andy Griffith Show episode. It was about 5 seconds of a commercial for a drag queen "beauty " show called RuPaul. In Andy's day that was a crime. Arrests were made in San Francisco of homo hangouts back then. That was the world's actions, not that if a fundamentalist church.

The Scriptures you posted certainly should be applied today as it was when they were written.

I see nothing in the 14th chapter which talks about Christian transgenders. In fact, I would argue that there is no such thing! Anyone living like this is living in sin!
Church discipline is laid out in Matthew 18
In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus sets forth the fourstep process of church discipline: (1) tell him his sin alone; (2) take some witnesses; (3) tell the church; and (4) treat him as an outsider. Step One (Matt. 18:15). The process of church discipline begins on an individual level.
This is to be done in the hope that the person will repent and return to God. But until they do, they are to be treated as an outsider.
Too many churches today do not wish to perform this important process. Ignoring discipline only worsens the problem and leads to many churches being divided. The church becomes weak because discipline is ignored!

Well it’s a good point. It’s tough because a new generation is all caught up in it. Love never fails. Each situation will just take a lot if patience and forebearance.

My Dad knew what he was talking about when he warned me to avoid them as a boy.

[QUOTE="Webers.Home,
FAQ: Should Christians shun transgenders?

REPLY: Absolutely not!

Transgendering isn't specifically addressed in the Bible, viz: it's a gray area,

_[/QUOTE]



Did anyone post this yet?
This is from the LORD.


Deuteronomy 22:5

5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Did anyone post this yet?
This is from the LORD.


Deuteronomy 22:5

5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who was a unich or not completely whole was excluded from the Tabernacle or Temple. You weren't allowed in and were relegated to outside the courtyard....

Such was the fate of Daniel.

Fellowship is a theologically loaded term. We often use it for potluck dinners or hanging out with Christians. It translates koinonia, which is also translation participation, sharing communion, or 'common union'.

Paul asked what fellowship light has with darkness. When we participate in the bread we are fellowshipping/participating with the body of Christ. Sharing by giving is another way to express common union.

So 'fellowshipping' with transgenders in the Biblical sense is not the same as spending time with them to evangelize them.

Anyone who was a unich or not completely whole was excluded from the Tabernacle or Temple. You weren't allowed in and were relegated to outside the courtyard....

Such was the fate of Daniel.[/QUOTE]

I guess we should start with the basic meaning of the question. I'm looking at "transgender" as the contemporary, preferred term chosen by crossdressers. At least that's what we called them. Back then the crossdressers weren't going to perverted surgeons turning their privy members inside out and such mutilation. At least I never heard of it. It was probably illegal at the time in history when churches frowned upon such perversions of the natural order of God's design.
I'm not arguing your point about Daniel and his friends. The Bible does say they were eunuchs. I just don't put eunuchs in the same category as crossdressers, even if they do choose to mutilate themselves to go with their crossdressing fetish.

I can understand why there's confusion in this discussion and uncertainty about the question though. There was an independent Baptist preacher, whose name I should double check before posting to be sure. He wrote a book about this subject about inviting homosexuals into churches, even telling members that they make good children's workers.

I guess we should start with the basic meaning of the question. I'm looking at "transgender" as the contemporary, preferred term chosen by crossdressers. At least that's what we called them. Back then the crossdressers weren't going to perverted surgeons turning their privy members inside out and such mutilation. At least I never heard of it. It was probably illegal at the time in history when churches frowned upon such perversions of the natural order of God's design.
I'm not arguing your point about Daniel and his friends. The Bible does say they were eunuchs. I just don't put eunuchs in the same category as crossdressers, even if they do choose to mutilate themselves to go with their crossdressing fetish.

I can understand why there's confusion in this discussion and uncertainty about the question though. There was an independent Baptist preacher, whose name I should double check before posting to be sure. He wrote a book about this subject about inviting homosexuals into churches, even telling members that they make good children's workers.[/QUOTE]
Concerning the last paragraph, the preacher had a ministry to homosexuals that had serious problems and was as unbiblical as the devil. I reread it and thought there might be a newbie here that may not get my meaning.
Here's a review I found about the guys book and ministry to any who might be curious. I definitely do NOT recommend it.

Book That Confused Eunuchs w/ Sodomites