My history is a little rough, but I am aware that Ireland's past, particularly that of North Ireland, is wrought with conflict. I know there are multiple causes, but that -- whether as cause or excuse -- the fact that the English and Scottish colonists were Protestant while the rest of the island...
> Mainstream Christian theologians largely defend dismissing Jesus' words as applicable only to a prior dispensation of Law. Sometimes this is called Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology [...]
Somebody give the author of that a cookie for managing to lump Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology together on the a central issue that divides them.
In particular:
is it Biblical?
is it Demon possession?
is it basically a bad idea?
is it Orthagonal to Christianity? (i.e. the question is equivalent to "How do Reformed Theologists think about Scala vs Clojure?")
Thanks!
This question and answer was a result of uncovering the gnostic approach, which a member of BH.SE was constantly using to interpret scripture. After speaking to this member I eventually understood him and did not post it on BH.SE to spare his hurt feelings. However the truth is although weird questions (some of the best of which are sometimes closed by the community) are actually better than typical boring question-answer formats about nearly irrelevant subjects, that could easily and rightfully take the highest score survey like this. Quality is much more than perception of a random newbee. — MikeSep 2 at 12:27
@Mike: The above comment has been bugging me for the last week every time I think of it. Could you explain a bit more what's been going on?
The basic between the two is over the Christological definition accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Christ was recognized as being worshiped both 'in' two natures that exist 'inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably'. The Copts and other miaphysites believed that this d...
@Caleb Excellent. +1 from me too. Also his comment on the accepted answer:
Both the Copts and the Greeks accept the Council of Ephesus of 431 that condemned Nestorius. The great theological hero of the Copts is St Cyrill, Nestorius' arch-enemy.
For a recent, very detailed discussion of why Nestorius' theology is heretical from an Orthodox Christian perspective and not simply 'misunderstood', see John Behr's book The Case against Diodore and Theodore. — Samn55 mins ago
This question is on thin ice. I'd like to see the edits focus on actually making this a constructive question, not on the wording. To cool the dispute I'm locking it for an hour. If this post does not get substantially more constructive after that lock is up I am deleting it. — wax eagleyesterday
@waxeagle. The changes in wording I made were actually very important. The original question, both answers, and the other editor all seemingly forgot one vital fact.
Namely, trans people actually exist. They are real people. Some of them are on the Internet. Some of them might actually be reading this question.
The monumental insensitivity, ignorance, and just plain rudeness on display was a massive red flag.
@IgnatiusTheophorus. Anyone who doesn't know what those terms mean has no business answering this question. The terms I removed ("post op", especially) are problematic in the extreme, and (a) invite responses from non-experts, who think they know what they're talking about but actually don't; and (b) send a clear signal to trans people that they are not welcome to participate on this site. Is that a signal you want to be sending? Do a bit of basic background reading. — TRiGyesterday
Any attempts to define who does, and who does not, count as "post-op" probably come from places of massive privilege, entitlement, and, of course, ignorance. People don't walk into hospital as a man and emerge the next day as a woman. It doesn't work like that.
There's a further point, which perhaps makes it especially problematic that this question was asking specifically about trans women.
The number of trans women murdered by their cis male sexual partners is not insignificant.
Feeding into the cultural narratives of "traps", the "trans panic defense", and suchlike is not a good or an honorable thing to do.
@TRiG That link might help if put in the question somewhere. And for those of us who are not familiar with all the terms, maybe cisgender will be more helpful?
@JonEricson The question, then, is whether it's worth adding further clarification to a question which will stay closed anyway.
I suppose if you were going to fix some of the other problems (I do not feel qualified to do so myself), you might also add a link to a glossary and/or expand cis to cisgender while you're at it.
In particular:
is it Biblical?
is it Demon possession?
is it basically a bad idea?
is it Orthagonal to Christianity? (i.e. the question is equivalent to "How do Reformed Theologists think about Scala vs Clojure?")
Thanks!
