I asked "So, how did he propose to you?"
His reply : Ahhhh....I can't quite remember...
That part was so cute
They've been married about 32years now and are marriage counselors themselves.
Uncle Edward said, "You have to go into a relationship with your eyes wide open...And then once you're married, close one eye." =p
Another point they made was how it would be good if we became English teachers, after Chris said he was thinking about that field... How we would be the ones that would save the country! (foo-yoh) But there's no doubt that the change in syllabus from BM to English is causing major problems in so many areas of M'sia, especially out of the KL/Klang Valley area. Really lor, i've grown up in a predominantly English speaking community, and i take it for granted.And our local graduates come outta Uni with english just as bad as when the went in.
Its both sad and scary at the same time.
Had a very interesting discussion today at Sunday School (actually,we've never had any uninteresting ones) about the Jessie Chung case.
Me, Li Yee, Chris and Daniel were discussing it the other night, our views and opinions.Was an extra long talk actually, and thankfully we had good tandoori chicken to eat at the same time, but no real conclusion was reached.
So, we asked Uncle Pek Bing what he thought about the issue.
Surprisingly, he said he does not know yet and would not be so quick to say it is wrong. It's not so easy to say, it's right or it's wrong. The argument from Genesis is only an example of the case for sex change. It's does not completely justify the case for sex change.
jeng jeng jeng
This was his line of thinking.
Genesis 1:27
So God created manIn his own image,in the image of Godhe created him;male and femalehe created them.
Yet we try to cure the diseases. SO, if the result of sin is such a being (man trapped in womans body or other way round) there is nothing wrong with correcting the "problem", by completly changing the gender altogether. Because we know there are no in-betweens, in this way, your becoming the whole other gender.
Chris, with his stylish hair dyed brown asked:
"But isn't it wrong to change what God has created?"
Pek Bing's reply "I believe you were born with black hair....."
=)
Its mind boggling but makes sense at the same time.
A baby born with a whole in his heart, is treated...If one leg is shorter than the other, operations are done to straighten em. Jesus healed people in his time here on earth.
So what if the solution to a case like this is simply to change ones gender completely...
*change has been made to Uncle Bing's comment*
7 comments:
you asked the wife and the husband answered?
your "uncle" pek bing's reply to chris' statement is priceless!!!!
i've been following the issue online. As a human rights student, obviously I am unhappy about the whole thing. how can the law not recognise her as a woman???
as a christian? tt's very tricky. in this situaltion, IMHO, the church in m'sia shud not condemn them. while one may not agree whether one shud have a sex-change or not, the fact in this case is that she (or he?) had oredi done it. so wat does the local church in m'sia wan? go for another operation???
jesus loved us all in our inperfections. he did not come to condemn us. he hated our sin, but he loves us - and told us that we shud love because he first loved us.
Actually, the reason i was most impressed with Uncle Bing's opinion was cause he didnt outrightly say IT'S WRONG which is something i feel that many people here have been doing.
And i think there's danger in that lor.
We assume we MUST react straight away and come out with an answer to tell the public...Truth is there's alot of new things happening that isn't in the bible and that we need to do more study on before approaching it...
We often immediately say: No,Cannot, Wrong, Disagree...frown and shake our heads, but we don't pause and think first.
Also, i feel society has ALOT more influence on us than we dare admit and that impairs judgement as well.
Oh , and the propose question was sorta directed to both of them la...and Uncle Edward chose to answer
I'm also surprised at what Uncle Pek Bing had to say about the matter.
While the argument that "if we can fix the problem, then we should fix it" has strong logic, it does not hold water in the other areas that such a line of thought would lead to.
Yes, it is ok for us to change our hair colour. Our hair style. The length of our limbs. Try to fix our genetic diseases.
So, can we fix our sexuality?
If we see our sexuality under the same umbrella as other physical defects such as hair color, length of our limbs, or genetic diseases, then we will say "Yes I can change my gender. Cos I am genetically a woman trapped in a man's body. It's just another physical defect." I think it's not as easy as that to accept it just becuase it sounds logical.
First of all, saying "I am a woman trapped in a man's body" is a very big leap. Such a statement already assumes that a person's sexual orientation is dependent on the genes (meaning, there is such thing as a gay gene). Is sexual orientation dependent, or independent on the genes? Is sexual orientation an emotional thing of the mind, or is it hard-wired to the genetic make-up of a person?
Until today, there is no scientific proof that links unnatural sexual orientation to a "gay gene". I contend that until and unless that "gay gene" that causes a woman to be trapped in a man's body can be found and proven, the sex-change thingy cannot be viewed under the same umbrella as any other physical defect.
Secondly, thus I believe that sexual orientation is a thing of the mind. A matter of choice and upbringing. There are many factors that cause people to come away believing that they are actually women trapped in men's body, or vice versa.
Thirdly, if it's a matter of choice, then it's reasonable to believe that it's also a matter of sin. The Bible does say that the problem of sexual disorientation is a kind of sin that God "gave them up to" in the 1st chapter of Romans. Yes, it does not prove whether or not unnatural relations are linked to genetic defects. But generally speaking, sexual disorientation is not something that is permissible or applauded in the Bible.
Fourthly, my "one-thing-leads-to-another implication" argument. If we say that "it's ok to do a sex change because we're curing the problem of a woman being stuck in a man's body", then we're also saying that it's ok to have homosexual relationships in the same breath! Does going through a sex change operation give us the license to exhange natural relationships for unnatural ones?
We clamp down easily on homosexuality. But we give space to sex change operations. Doesn't sex change operations champion homosexuality and sexual liberty? What if I don't have the financial means to do a sex change operation? Does that mean I can have an unnatural relationship with another person, while being stuck in the body that I'm not "meant" to be in?
Fifthly, as a rebuttal statement, Jesus never cured physical defects that involved sex changes. He healed diseases that does not go "trans-sexual." Only "intra-sexual" ones. Like the woman who was suffering from haemmorhage for a very long period of time. We cannot assume that he will condone sex change operations as a means to a "problem".
Finally, the bigger concern is how the people of God should react to such a situation. To elaborate on the "how to" will be another lengthy thing to talk about. But generally speaking... The truth is love never promised a comfortable, fuzzy feeling.
it can be so easy for one to just sit (comfortably i might add) in judgment based on the so-called "facts" but never really did a study or even interviewed the people they are judging.
it is oso IMHO inconsistent to demand for scientific proof for certain matters but for other things to just base it on their own beliefs without any solid evidence.
no one said that love is a comfy fuzzy feeling. but neither did anyone allege that love was going to be easy.
While we shud never ever condone sin, Jesus oso said that let him who has no sin cast the first stone.
He oso said that we should forgive as we have been forgiven.
it would be wise to heed his words, dun u agree?
Jesus provided a model example of how to deal with public sin in the way He dealt with the adulterous woman.
Firstly, he dealt with the problem of ostracism. By saying "let he who has no sin cast the first stone," He stopped the public from ostrasizing her.
After that, He turned to the woman and dealt with the problem of sin. By saying "go and sin no more," He did not condone her sin, but forgave her and told her not to repeat her actions.
In the context of the case at hand, the same principle applies. The person who is the subject of controversy should not be ostracized. And also, the problem of sin in that person's actions should not be swept under the carpet.
It is true that often, the problem of sin can be effectively acknowledged. But the problem of dealing with ostracism is not given enough attention.
The issue of the sex-change thingy can be viewed in the same way all other public sins should be viewed: How does the church welcome a woman who has been living an adulterous life? Should a church conduct a matrimonial wedding if the church member is marrying an unbeliever? Can a person who is divorced be placed in a position of leadership in the church? Should a gay be recognized as the leader of the Anglican church?
One question we can ask oursleves is this: Which standard should we stretch? Should we stretch our tolerance towards sin? Or should we stretch out acceptance towards an imperfect brother or sister? I believe we should stretch the latter, without compromising on the seriousness of sin.
In view of such situations, the challenge is to strike a balance between church discipline and the restoration of the erring brother or sister.
The million dollar question is how should the church, being the final vanguard as the salt and light of a crooked and perverse generation, respond to these issues?
It takes a lot of wisdom and discernment. Especially from those who are in leadership positions in the church, who are responsible for educating people and making stands against or for certain issues that are pervading the world, as a living testimony for Christ. It is such a heavy responsibility. As the Bible rightly puts it, "elders are worthy of double honor".
This is in principle, a reply to what 'hasten' said.
First, I will replace the word 'sexual' with 'gender', as 'gender' is a psychological term, while 'sexual' is a biological term.
I think we need to separate homosexuality with gender orientation. What is clear is that God condemns homosexuality, and the verse in Rom 1:24-27 is referring to that, not to gender disorientation as it was written by 'hasten'. In fact, the reference's key idea is about 'lust', craving after the same gender, not gender disorientation. Thus, 'hasten's fourth argument is red=herring, a snowball, so is the fifth argument.
The argument about sex-change operation, whether it is nature VS nurture, is inconsequential. The main idea, is that it is a problem identifiable by psychology. The Bible specifies no clauses to this problem in its complex Levitical law, not does its precepts/principles (as far as I know) suggest that it is right or wrong.
What is the Biblical answer? I do not know. Personally, I think it falls to the caterogy of what 'hasten' describes as a 'physical defect', that includes genetic defects. which should/could be fixed. In the absence of therapies (as there are therapies for sexual disorientation, to chage homosexuality to heterosexuality) for gender disorientation, I don't see why sex change should be condemned.
This is a complex issue that requires in-depth study. One needs to know in detail about gender, sexuality, nurture VS nature argument and on top of these, what the Bible says about these things. Let's keep our judgment at bay until further exploration is completed.
And personally, I think hasten needs to connect with people who has gender disorientation to see their problems and be empathic about it.
It's not so much as to whether it's right or wrong. The answers could go either way, depending on where our "vested interests" lie. What is of the greater magnitude is how we look at it. We need to look again at what Paul talks about in Romans when he talks about food offered to idols. It's the same approach here. We could argue this either way, and you'll end up with two camps who will both have enough facts to swing your vote. What we need to do is focus less on the technicalities of this topic and go back to basics:
1. Will it stumble another younger Christian?
2. Will it edify someone else? Would it stir up a hunger to preach the Word or to win souls for God?
3. The matter of conscience....will it or will it not glorify God?
All said, our purpose here is to live for Him and win souls for Him. Paul says that to some, it's just a meal, but is the "meal" worth stumbling a fellow believer whose soul was purchased by the precious blood of Christ? We need to look at our values and weigh that against what we do, or don't do. We are also called on to live a holy and blamess life. If our actions give those around us even a glimmer of hope to find flaws in how we live for Christ, it's best avoided.
My two cents.
Post a Comment