Christian refusal to sanction the mutilation of children is "problematic"

I don't think that's accurate, at least for the United States. We already have a very robust non-TEC Anglicanism here, in the guise of ACNA, and our bishops have made very strong statements against sodomitical lifestyles, and gender ideology. I expect there will be further strong denunciations of Transgenderism to come.

 

I disagree. Molech is the blood god, and the transgender medical movement -- like the abortion industry -- is providing blood for the blood god. Transsexuals themselves are the sacrifices, whether they know it or not. The true demons here are not the gender-dysphoric people, but the enablers and medical "professionals" who take advantage of their illness to make bank and further their own transhumanist agendas. The Vanderbilt story should remove all doubt about the financial incentives at play here.

This whole transgender craze is basically about the systematic indoctrination, corruption, and exploitation of children and young teens. The movement to decriminalize pederasty is the next stage, and is already well underway.

That slippery slope we bible-thumpers were warning about in the 1980's is now well behind us -- we are on a rocket-sled ride to the abyss at this point.

 

Not at that early period of his ministry, certainly. Paul may have changed his mind though as his theology matured through study and experience. His latter works reveal a gradual development of Paul's theology on many subjects of interest to Christians, finally resulting in the great epistle to the Romans, where we see the end result of years of study and experience of God's guidance through the Holy Spirit.

Agreed, it is for us now, merely a medical procedure sometimes beneficial for those whose foreskin is too tight to comfortably pull back over the glans to enable cleanliness and pain free sexual intercourse. No doubt the medical condition has a name of some sort.

It is a fact I'm led to believe that circumcised males are less likely to cause cervical cancer in their partners. Uncircumcised males who do not regularly clean smegma from beneath their foreskin are more likely to infect their partner with various unpleasantries during intercourse.
.

 

Phimosis, a condition that is rare and usually can be resolved without circumcision. Though it tends to be more common in America due to the scarring caused by forced retraction in early childhood.

Cervical cancer comes from HPV, not smegma. I've seen studies that show no significant difference in HPV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men. But still, our body parts shouldn't be amputated to preserve your health. The most common cause of cervical cancer is your own promiscuity. Uncircumcised men don't cause it.

 

Healthy, functional body parts should not be amputated, certainly. Gangrenous limbs or those too damanged in an accident are different story. Likewise many must have their appendix or tonsils removed when they become infected.

The point is that these sorts of surgeries heal rather than destroy the body. This in the final estimation is the value of a surgical procedure. Consider plastic surgery. If it is done in the service of vanity or pride it is wrong, certainly; but how about those who suffer terrible burns or suffer from congenital defects like a cleft palate?

Transsexual "treatment" destroys healthy tissue, ruins health, and often ruins the transsexual's quality of life forever afterward.

Doctrinally, all a Christian has to do is ask, "Which body will this person be resurrected in? The body God gave them, or the body some surgeon stitched together out of spare parts?" It always bears remembering that our bodies are not our own; they belong to God.

1 Cor. 6:13-20:

 

What isn’t clear to me is what specific laws VUMC is alleged to have violated. Some of the allegations are 2-4 years old. The Governor of the State is talking about signing legislation next year to ban what VUMC has allegedly been doing, which shouldn’t be necessary if the medical center has been violating existing law. We need more facts and less rhetoric.

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that circumcision is OK when done because the foreskin is diseased. But in the West, circumcision is almost always performed on healthy, functional foreskins. Also, what Tiffy was talking about is healthy, functional foreskins being amputated, not even for the future health of its owner, but the future health of its owner's wife. Doubly sinful.

 

"Doubly sinful"?

To equate foreskin amputation with 'sin' on account of it affecting the future health of it's owners wife, seems doubly Pharisaical in attitude and theological outlook, to me. Seems almost like you might consider it 'sinful' to pull your son or your ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath.

This thread is getting silly.
.

 

Sure. If you had your clitoris removed, and it was done so for your future health, but also done for some absurd belief it would keep your future husband healthy too, it would constitute two sins. One would be the ignorance of your bodily integrity. The other would be the use of your body as a tool for the utilitarian benefit of someone else.

 

Update to this story: Vanderbilt hospital "pauses" transgender surgeries on minors after exposure in the media.

 

A VUMC statement said, “VUMC began its Transgender Health Clinic because transgender individuals are a high-risk population for mental and physical health issues and have been consistently underserved by the U.S. health system.”

This is an admission that "transgender individuals" (that is, people who feel gender dissonance or gender confusion) are more likely than most to have mental health problems. (Translation: they need their heads examined! )

In the past, if a person experienced gender dissonance, the solution would be to 'talk it through' and help them learn to cope with their feelings in light of the reality of what they are (i.e., to come to terms with their gender).

The modern "solution" to this type of mental confusion is hormone therapy and surgery! That would be fine in the (very rare) case of actual physical/biological issues (such as an ongoing hormonal imbalance), but for mental health issues it's a horrible treatment.

.

However (this part is added somewhat tongue-in-cheek), when parents of such teens are dumb enough to go along with this idea of chemically/physically rendering their offspring incapable of reproduction, perhaps it's for the best since it eliminates these idiots' family lines from the gene pool?

 

There’s the problem. Talk is cheap. Surgery is much better for the economy.

 

As am I -- it was done when I was born as a hygienic measure (as I suspect is true of many American males over the age of about 40). The act was based on (flawed, as it turns out) medical opinion rather than religious conviction, and I am glad it is no longer practiced very widely.

The argument against circumcision thus is not because it is sinful -- it is not. It was ordained for Jewish males by God himself as a sign and seal of his covenant. For a non-Jewish man or Gentile, the act is simply ineffectual -- it serves no purpose. Medically, it is (almost always) unnecessary; theologically, it is useless for Christians as we live under a new Covenant of grace where baptism and not circumcision is our sign and seal of the Promise God has made to us.

Gender reassignment surgery is a twisted, evil, abominable mutilation...all the worse for being deliberately done by healthcare professionals who supposedly confess the Hippocratic Oath. In fact, the Hippocratic Oath should be quoted in full to show how far these "physicians" who do such things have fallen from their calling:

 

Circumcision is certainly less severe than gender reassignment surgery. However, a torn fingernail is not a great analogue. A better analogue would be like amputation of all the fingers.

Congratulations on your finger amputation. Why was that relevant?

 

Our lives are filled with irrelevancies. One more or one less won't kill us.

Clearly, you see this as a more serious issue than the rest of us. As a circumcised male, I assure you that I don't feel amputated. It's definitely more on the "torn fingernail" end of the seriousness spectrum to me. Sure, I would take a do-over if the chance were given, but life (and more importantly, eternal life) goes on.

While I certainly oppose the continuation of needless circumcisions, I perceive many issues of far, far greater importance which deserve more attention than this one. Even some issues of only modest importance, such as (for example) advocating the value of breastfeeding one's baby, surpass this circumcision issue IMO.

Please have a glass of wine, or take a shower, or something. Relax!

 

I'm sure you are able to understand that just because you feel something doesn't mean it's true. This is a thread about transgenderism, after all.

What good is eternal life if something good is lost forever?

 

Huh?? I can't understand why you wrote, "What good is eternal life if something is lost forever?" Eternal life with God is the "forever" thing we're being given. That, along with brand-new, incorruptible, un-mutilated bodies!

1Co 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

In the grand scheme of God's eternity, our future physical bodies will be of such perfection that it matters not if someone during this life lost an arm, had a crippled leg, suffered needless circumcision, or underwent transgender surgery. Physical deformities, whether they be happenstance, accidental, or even self-induced, will have no influence on the perfect, immortal bodies God will bestow upon each of His children in the next life. The crux of the matter is whether a given person came (during this lifetime) to a living faith in Jesus Christ. Sins committed in this life by those whom the Lord redeems will be forgotten and erased by God. Even if the person self-mutilated or underwent gender reassignment, if the person's name is written in Jesus' Book of Life and has been given saving grace, that person will receive a pure, unmutilated body (similar to our Lord's) that will never be damaged and will never wear out. This isn't "what I feel;" it's the word of God. Gender will no longer carry the same relevance as it does today, because (as Jesus said) we will become like the angels (Matt. 22:30).

 

That's exactly the problem - we'll become like the angels. Angels don't have sex, so have no need of genitals. Will we have genitals in the resurrection? We don't know. But if we do, they will be superfluous. I know it's not up to me, but I don't want a supernatural body. I want an uncorrupted version of my natural body. This is the good that is lost forever. I realize, after 17,000 years of having a better body than even a perfect version of the one I have now, maybe the loss of 60 or 70 years will be insignificant to me at that point. But right now, all I can see is the eternal loss of something that was good, and would have been good, and that grieves me deeply. I can't imagine how I'll ever overcome it.

 

That which is to come will be so wondrous and fabulous, and the magnificent splendor of our Lord so near, I am sure I won't miss a single thing from this mortal existence.