Hermaphrodites?

[Ooberman]

How do Christians explain Hermaphrodites? In what world would God care about sexuality, then create people with both sex organs?

Isn't naturalism a better answer?

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 34 by Ooberman]

The issue here is that there are some things that we both acknowledge should be counteracted.

By the current logic cancer is natural however I am fairly sure you agree with the fight against cancer. Or to make it a bit more trivial my eye sight is bad and I wear glasses. Is the deterioration of my eyesight natural or is the correction natural?

If unnatural is not your preferred word what is? There must be a word you are willing to offer the debate that I can use that makes sense of our the normal desire to remove cancer and wear glasses.

You argue that there aren't any mistakes in evolution. To my knowledge all biological processes try their hardest to replicate themselves according to their programming. Like when a cell duplicates itself, it follows the programming and even detects copy mistakes and so on.

What is a mistake? When I mistype on the keyboard is that a mistake or is that not possible because there are no mistakes in evolution?

Are you trying to call all the human beings who have been born as intersex "mistakes"?

No, you are trying to tell us they are abominations made by Sin.

Why would God make people who, in your eyes are "mistakes" or so warped by someone else's sin that they aren't even mentioned in God's Book?


You really have a low opinion of other human beings who don't conform. Do you feel the same way about people with blue eyes? short people? and other people you might find grotesque?

What is you hidden feelings about this? They are seeming to come out.

I want to use common words that seem to describe the situation. No one looks at a genetic deformity and thinks it is natural. Every parents counts their child to have 10 fingers and 10 toes. We spend a fortune on correcting issues in a profession called medicine. However you seem to be arguing that deformity is normal.

If you don't mind I will ignore the insinuations in your post. I want to converse in the same language so how can we do so when you are calling everything in biology natural?

I am curious how you could feel one of God's Creatures is a "mistake". Does God make mistakes, in your mind?

Or, did he plan for people, like you, to become intersex-phobic?

God doesn't make mistakes. He cursed the world after the fall. If am intersex-phobic then isn't that my biology and therefore natural?

Is it an accident when a rain drop hits another? You are talking about mistakes as in "there was a plan, but then it was subverted by sin".

Apparently, sin can subvert God's plan to make only Men and Women - unless naturalism is true. (And naturalism is true)

If naturalism is true, there are copying errors in genetics, but I wouldn't say it was an error in the sense that you would mean it in a theistic universe.

If I plan to type "e" but type "a", that's a mistake. I had an intention.
If a chromosome gets repeated at the wrong time, the only thing that can be said is there was an error in the copying of the chromosome, not a mistake because of some larger plan.

Under naturalism, this is what happens. It just happens.
Under theism, genetics were PLANNED to copy perfectly - but God included in his Plan an option that sin could undermine his plan.


This is, ultimately, the irrationality of theism.

If the genome was supposed to do one thing, but doesn't (copy accurately), then God designed in the "accident" of an intersex person - because of sin. (*After all, God doesn't let sin turn people into half-man, half-goats. He designed the genome to purposely cause an intersex person, without killing them (which other chromosome errors cause)

Under naturalism, there is no conscious intent to subvert. Species can thrive quite well, even with massive errors in the genome. There are many species that thrive, even with massive deaths in their populations. A single individual doesn't matter (except to that individual).

Most theists have trouble grasping this concept, because they see a Universe with Purpose - they assume there must be Purpose even in a natural universe.


See the difference?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 41 by Ooberman]

I am talking about mistakes as in 1 + 1 = 3 whoops I made a mistake.

Can you and I argue Christianity and not Theism please? God doesn't design the errors the genetic errors just occur naturally in a fallen world.

If I plan to type "e" but type "a", that's a mistake. I had an intention.
If a chromosome gets repeated at the wrong time, the only thing that can be said is there was an error in the copying of the chromosome, not a mistake because of some larger plan.

Is error acceptable instead of mistake?

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 41 by Ooberman]

I am talking about mistakes as in 1 + 1 = 3 whoops I made a mistake.

Can you and I argue Christianity and not Theism please? God doesn't design the errors the genetic errors just occur naturally in a fallen world.

Did God design the natural world, under your view?

Did God design the natural world to be affected by sin? Didn't God design the genetic make-up of humans to be susceptible to creating intersex people?

If you are going to claim God designed Creation, then you have to accept ALL the implications.

After all, God didn't design our dna to turn us into 20' tall giraffes because of sin.

It seems, if there is a Designer God, that he intentionally meant for their to be intersex people.

If I plan to type "e" but type "a", that's a mistake. I had an intention.
If a chromosome gets repeated at the wrong time, the only thing that can be said is there was an error in the copying of the chromosome, not a mistake because of some larger plan.

(Likewise, God designed our bodies to be susceptible to cancer, disease, etc.)

Is error acceptable instead of mistake?

It's not a question worth asking until you see the difference in a designed universe as opposed to natural universe.

In a natural universe, there is no over-riding intention.

I'll ask you again, since you didn't answer, do you see the difference? If there is no God, then there is no optimal design, no intention, and therefore variations are only advantageous for something or not.

It's like asking if a rock is supposed to be the way it is. It just is.

Under a Designer God Universe, all things are intended to be exactly as they are, according to The Plan.

[Ooberman]

More simply. Please answer the following.


Did God make it possible or impossible for intersex people to exist?

[Danmark]

When I was a Christian I never believed God caused disease or injuries or genetic defects. No one in my Christian family believed God worked that way. I never believed in a God who would be that cruel. I was aware of Christians who felt otherwise. I thought this a primitive, pagan idea that had nothing to do with Christianity, but rather an example of misguided simplistic thinking. I didn't think 'things happen for a reason.' That's just a sloppy, thoughtless way to say that in fact God does cause people to be born blind and deaf and that he authorizes crippling painful diseases. This thinking is linked to the 'prosperity gospel,' which has an inescapable corollary that if you are following God's will you will be wealthy and healthy; that poverty and ill health is a sign you have displeased God.

The persistence of this ridiculous belief may be one reason that led me, unconsciously to reject Christianity. Naturally, non theism is consistent with the view that things do not 'happen for a reason.'
This verse and the others like it are more consistent with non theism than with Christianity, or at least with widespread versions of it.

. . . he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

_ Matthew 5:45

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by Realworldjack]

... it was God who was responsible, for placing the curses upon us.

Agreed. But not many christians seem to accept this

Could you please show me the passage where mankind was cursed?

A few:
Genesis 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Genesis 8:21 - And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake...
Genesis 3:17 - To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

Sorry, I missed the post.

Genesis 3:17 & 8:21 - If you will note it is the ground that is cursed and not man, and that for man's sake. This is a blessing, not a curse. Also, I am not sure how having to work creates hermaphrodites.

Genesis 12:3 - This is not a curse of mankind and has nothing to do with being born hermaphrodite.

In addition, it's taught man is "cursed" in much of christianity.
Going further, one could say that god, by knowing everything and doing relatively little, has cursed those who go to hell by allowing them to go to hell (for those who believe in hell).
In addition, one could rightfully argue that things like birth defects, genetic disease, etc are 'curses' allowed by god for the fall of man, which it could have prevented ALL THE WHILE allowing for free will, less said deity is powerless and, to an extent, worthless.

Many people who call themselves Christian say a lot of things, including the idea that human's go to Dante's Inferno. I didn't ask you about RCC doctrine. I asked you about the Scriptures.

You could make that argument. However, I am not. In fact, when Yeshua was asked, "Rabbi, who sinned -- this man or his parents -- to cause him to be born blind?", He said, "His blindness is due neither to his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might be seen at work in him." He then changed the blind man, so he could see. Should we not do the same for the hermaphrodite?

[Ooberman]

You could make that argument. However, I am not. In fact, when Yeshua was asked, "Rabbi, who sinned -- this man or his parents -- to cause him to be born blind?", He said, "His blindness is due neither to his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might be seen at work in him." He then changed the blind man, so he could see. Should we not do the same for the hermaphrodite?

1. So the argument you are making is:

We should pray to cure intersex people? How's that working out? I think that's woefully naive.

2. It's not a sin to be blind. However, God did set up the situation that it is a sin to be gay. How can an intersex person NOT be gay?

3. This, again, is more of the Christian Message: "You are a worthless piece of crap". It presumes intersex people need to be "cured". Have you thought how rude this is? Why isn't your genetic make-up something you need to be cured of?

4. Again, it ignores the fact that God made the conditions for people to be born with attributes that God considers sinful, then judges them for their actions based on the very thing God made them to be in the first place. Why would God make it possible for people to be blind? Just so 1 or 2 of them can be "cured" by a con man?

All these Christians explanation are obviously ad hoc rationalizations.


I'd like the Christian to explain the connection from:

Free Will means sin can happen... therefore, sin causes genetic changes in plants and animals.

I don't think a Christian can make a credible case for this at all.

Would any Believer like to give it a shot?

How does Free Will change dna, particularly in things that don't have Free Will?


Let's face it, any answer given is going to be religious blather. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[bluethread]

You could make that argument. However, I am not. In fact, when Yeshua was asked, "Rabbi, who sinned -- this man or his parents -- to cause him to be born blind?", He said, "His blindness is due neither to his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might be seen at work in him." He then changed the blind man, so he could see. Should we not do the same for the hermaphrodite?

1. So the argument you are making is:

We should pray to cure intersex people? How's that working out? I think that's woefully naive.

I don't recall saying that. If I recall, Yeshua did more than pray. However, I was not referring to how one goes about remedies the situation. I was just saying that we "judge" the child born blind and change them to make them "whole"? Why do we do this?

2. It's not a sin to be blind. However, God did set up the situation that it is a sin to be gay. How can an intersex person NOT be gay?

I do not recall saying this either. Homosexual behavior is called a sin in the Scriptures, but being born with or with out certain sexual organs or even a sexual preference is not, as far as I know. Do you?

3. This, again, is more of the Christian Message: "You are a worthless piece of crap". It presumes intersex people need to be "cured". Have you thought how rude this is? Why isn't your genetic make-up something you need to be cured of?

I didn't use the term "cured", you did. Why do we have the march of dimes? If one's genetic make-up causes them to be born with one lung, three arms or two penises, why must they be "cured"?

4. Again, it ignores the fact that God made the conditions for people to be born with attributes that God considers sinful, then judges them for their actions based on the very thing God made them to be in the first place. Why would God make it possible for people to be blind? Just so 1 or 2 of them can be "cured" by a con man?

Where does it say, in the Scriptures, that any of these conditions is sinful? On what basis do you extrapolate that exactly what occurred with the man born blind is exactly what should be done for all anatomical differences. Could it be that we have anatomical differences so that Adonai's power can be shown in many ways.

All these Christians explanation are obviously ad hoc rationalizations.

So, why did you bring them up?

I'd like the Christian to explain the connection from:

Free Will means sin can happen... therefore, sin causes genetic changes in plants and animals.

I don't think a Christian can make a credible case for this at all.

Would any Believer like to give it a shot?

How does Free Will change dna, particularly in things that don't have Free Will?


Let's face it, any answer given is going to be religious blather. I'd love to be proven wrong.

How about this one? I didn't say it did. Is that religious blather?

Now, can we address the point I actually made? Is it immoral to "cure" "birth defects", or should we consider all genetic differences to be sacrosanct?

[Ooberman]

Did God make it possible or impossible for intersex people to exist?[/quote]

Please answer.

[Ooberman]

You could make that argument. However, I am not. In fact, when Yeshua was asked, "Rabbi, who sinned -- this man or his parents -- to cause him to be born blind?", He said, "His blindness is due neither to his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might be seen at work in him." He then changed the blind man, so he could see. Should we not do the same for the hermaphrodite?

1. So the argument you are making is:

We should pray to cure intersex people? How's that working out? I think that's woefully naive.

I don't recall saying that. If I recall, Yeshua did more than pray. However, I was not referring to how one goes about remedies the situation. I was just saying that we "judge" the child born blind and change them to make them "whole"? Why do we do this?

2. It's not a sin to be blind. However, God did set up the situation that it is a sin to be gay. How can an intersex person NOT be gay?

I do not recall saying this either. Homosexual behavior is called a sin in the Scriptures, but being born with or with out certain sexual organs or even a sexual preference is not, as far as I know. Do you?

3. This, again, is more of the Christian Message: "You are a worthless piece of crap". It presumes intersex people need to be "cured". Have you thought how rude this is? Why isn't your genetic make-up something you need to be cured of?

I didn't use the term "cured", you did. Why do we have the march of dimes? If one's genetic make-up causes them to be born with one lung, three arms or two penises, why must they be "cured"?

Sure, why not? But those aren't things that God thinks are sinful.

I think you are losing focus and trying to find red herrings.

So, you agree God has made us to have those problems?

4. Again, it ignores the fact that God made the conditions for people to be born with attributes that God considers sinful, then judges them for their actions based on the very thing God made them to be in the first place. Why would God make it possible for people to be blind? Just so 1 or 2 of them can be "cured" by a con man?

Where does it say, in the Scriptures, that any of these conditions is sinful? On what basis do you extrapolate that exactly what occurred with the man born blind is exactly what should be done for all anatomical differences. Could it be that we have anatomical differences so that Adonai's power can be shown in many ways.

An intersex person has no opportunity to marry without violating the alleged Christian commandment that it's between a man and a woman.

Again, I think you haven't grasped the problem. Perhaps I'm not being clear. Perhaps you don't want to see the problem.

All these Christians explanation are obviously ad hoc rationalizations.

So, why did you bring them up?

To show they are ad hoc.

I'd like the Christian to explain the connection from:

Free Will means sin can happen... therefore, sin causes genetic changes in plants and animals.

I don't think a Christian can make a credible case for this at all.

Would any Believer like to give it a shot?

How does Free Will change dna, particularly in things that don't have Free Will?


Let's face it, any answer given is going to be religious blather. I'd love to be proven wrong.

How about this one? I didn't say it did. Is that religious blather?

Now, can we address the point I actually made? Is it immoral to "cure" "birth defects", or should we consider all genetic differences to be sacrosanct?

Which way are you arguing? If it is a theistic universe or an atheistic universe?

Don't you see how it matters?