The Historical Jesus

[Ferrocyanide]

Second, this throws a monkey wrench into a belief which used to be common among atheists. We used to say that the mind is what the brain does. That there is no mind independent of body. That mind is not in fact some separate thing, trapped in the physical dross of a body. Yet the idea that a person can have a mind of one gender and a body of the other contradicts this. If there are truly brain (anatomical) differences between male and female brains, and the mind arises from what the brain does, then the physical anatomy of the brain would inevitably determine what kind of mind occurs. If there are differences in male and female anatomy, and yet this does not affect one's gender, then the mind and the body are in some way separate. 

We're getting close here to a kind of Cartesian mind/body dualism, in which mind and body are separate substances, which may be imperfectly mixed. In fact the whole argument sounds very Gnostic -- the idea that mind is not an emergent property of physical structures, but some other thing. Such an idea could explain how the mental (gender) could be unaligned with the physical body.

I don't think it throws a monkey wrench.
If a person has a mind of one gender and the body of another, it simply means that the brain is of one gender and the body of another. It is like having a mermaid: part human and part fish.

Of course, there is a lot of assumptions that I am making. There isn't good scientific evidence.
I am claiming that a person might have a female brain and be inside male body (the brain is part of the body but I am not including the brain).

If someone is born male, do they automatically have a male brain?
Do all babies start with a female brain and as they interact with the world, they develop new preferences?


I remember an experiment that went on for years. They gave a baby boy girl toys and a baby girl boy toys.
Over the years, eventually, they exchanged toys. The boy prefers to play with cars, trucks, soldiers, jet fighters.
The girl prefers a tea set and baby dolls.

But I find that that is superficial information.
We still don't know what is going on inside the brain.

[Mister Agenda]

1. The big word in your response here is might. But the eye-witness accounts might also be true, good thing we have 4 early accounts from 4 early journalists that pass every archeological test we can currently throw at them.

To the extent that eye-witness accounts of other gods might also be true. They weren't journalists by any reasonable measure, the later the gospel the more embellished it is. The oldest one didn't claim a resurrection, that was added later. There are no archeological tests for miracles.

2. But until Matthew Stone and Trey Parker did what they did these religions operated based on secrecy. The church of latter-day saints acts like it is just another denomination of Christianity in order to lure people in. Then they introduce you to the teachings of Joseph Smith. Only after years of indoctrination will they begin to share with you the actual history of the golden plates and Joseph meeting with the angel Moroni. Most people wouldn't convert if they were shown the real truth about Joseph Smith as soon as they walked through the door. By the time they know the truth they already have a whole community to disappoint should they chose to leave the faith.

Same largely goes for Scientology, it starts with a therapy session (audit) where the therapist assures you that they have a solution for all of your problems. Years of indoctrination and communal integration passes and eventually they may tell you who L Ron Hubbard actually was. When the story doesn't hold up to scrutiny the cultists learn very quickly that they have to keep it a secret or else they will push people away.

Christians, on the other hand, put the Gosple front and center, it is all throughout the New Testament (as well as the Old Testament if you have eyes to see). Paul puts Christ's resurrection front and center in his ministry. Nothing was hidden. One of my favorite lines on this matter is this one from the book of Acts. "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner."

Islam is outgrowing Christianity, what does that imply about the truth of their message?

3. Kind of circular, so in order for history to be history are you saying that atheism needs to be baked into the cake?

If you think atheism is baked into cookbooks without recipes requiring prayers, I suppose it could follow you might think so. History isn't equipped to confirm miracles. You can make it a conspiracy to promote atheism if you wish; but I would dearly love to know what methodology you think they could use to determine that a Christian miracle actually happened and was from God while a Hindu miracle didn't happen and wasn't from Ganesh.

4. Thank you.

You're quite welcome.

5. Yet here you are spending much of your time discussing this insignificant story. Why aren't you debating a Zeus apologist? How many defenders of Thor are left alive?

Beats me how many Thor defenders are left alive, the only followers of Thor I know don't seem to care if other people believe they're right. I've had lively arguments with Bigfoot defenders and ghost defenders and Loch Ness monster defenders though.

Contemporary historians didn't make note of him? Now how do you know that to be the case?

Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, when the evidence should be there. Contemporary historians who would have noted the events supposedly surrounding Matthew's version of the resurrection story if they had happened didn't say anything about hours of darkness during the day, the temple curtain being rent top to bottom, a major earthquatke, or people getting out of their graves and 'being seen by many'.

That said, I am inclined to think that it's slightly more likely than not that there was an itinerant rabbi on whose sayings the gospels are based and who got executed by the Romans and who became more popular as a martyr than they were in life. Hardly anyone made it into the history books back then; doesn't mean they didn't exist. But the guy with several thousand people showing up to his sermons who paraded into Jerusalem rodeo style on a colt AND an ass to cheering throngs...THAT guy would have gotten into the histories while he was still alive.

[Mister Agenda]

That being said my main point is that the transgressive left has been moving so far in favor of transgenderism that now it seems they want pre-pubesent children to be able to get sex change operations. Would you agree with this? Should an 11 year old be legally allowed to get castrated? Should a surgeon be permitted to cut off a young boy's member and replace it with a non-functioning gash?

Or, are you permitted to tell the Truth regardless of who it offends? Because in my opinion, the Truth is not what you want it to be.

Sex change operations are not normally performed on pre-pubescent children. I couldn't find any examples of sex change operations that young. I found a few breast reduction surgeries, but sometime young girls need them.

So find a primary source of a surgeon removing a young boy's member and replacing it with a 'non-functioning gash'; then we can talk about your opinion on Truth with a capital T.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a giant conspiracy of surgeons performing operations on children because they're evil. Or, maybe, because it's a tuesday. : shrugs :

[Belacqua]

I am claiming that a person might have a female brain and be inside male body (the brain is part of the body but I am not including the brain).

And I am saying that even if a person has a "female brain" (whatever that is) it would not be determinative of that person's gender. 

Because brains are anatomical organs, and we no longer believe that gender is determined by anatomy. 

Nor is gender determined by preferences, like preferring to play with trucks. Because females may enjoy playing with trucks. 

The only thing that determines a person's gender is how that person identifies.

[Ferrocyanide]

I am claiming that a person might have a female brain and be inside male body (the brain is part of the body but I am not including the brain).

And I am saying that even if a person has a "female brain" (whatever that is) it would not be determinative of that person's gender. 

Because brains are anatomical organs, and we no longer believe that gender is determined by anatomy. 

Nor is gender determined by preferences, like preferring to play with trucks. Because females may enjoy playing with trucks. 

The only thing that determines a person's gender is how that person identifies.

It sounds like you are saying that gender is based on an individual claiming to be male or female with no reason.
In that case, the words male and female lose meaning.

I would say that gender is primarily based on sex (the outward appearance). If humans did not have a different outward appearance, if we just reproduced via cloning or maybe we didn’t reproduce at all and we lived forever, then the words male and female would never have been invented. Some people might want to play with GI Joes and some might want to play with Barbie, but we would not use those as a distinguishing feature.

So, most people are normal. The human with the outward appearance of a male likes doing certain things. He grows up and is attracted to the female body.
The male and female get married and have kids.

Everyone else goes into some other category.
Trans people are evidence that “normals” do not compose 100% of the population. There is some defect. For some reason, either through genetics or due to nurture, they are different. The trans observes females and he feels like he wants to have a female body. He already likes playing with Barbie, dressing her up, brushing her hair.
So, it is not a random choice that the trans is making. The trans person evaluates the humans around him and decides to be in the female category.
I would say that he has a female brain.

Yes, the difference between male and female is not so clear cut. Some decide that they don’t fit in in either category: male or female.

****All the above are my guesses. I don’t know enough about gays, lesbians, trans people.

[Angrboda]

It sounds to me like he's equivocating on the meaning of anatomy. But whatever.

[The Grand Nudger]

The only "defect" a gender-non-conformist could have is a social one, as gender is a social construct, not a biological fact. Gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia are not interchangeable....only the latter would approach something like a "defect"...and even that is a stretch. The whole issue is a retread of race and ethnicity - with all the same bad actors making all of the same bad claims for all of the same bad reasons.

In that light, the idea that god endorses the faulty position is an actual defect, were it true...which it isn't....and literally none of it has anything to do with a historical jesus who was not and could not have been an expert on human anatomy, psychology, or societies.

[Belacqua]

It sounds like you are saying that gender is based on an individual claiming to be male or female with no reason.

I'm not sure that "no reason" is correct. Probably there is a reason. But the reason is NOT anatomical. 

If a person who has all the anatomical characteristics which we used to associate with maleness (chromosomes, genitalia, hormonal balances) identifies as a female, then the current consensus among right-thinking people is that she is in fact a woman. 

If someone objected and said, "I don't care how you 'identify,' you have a dick and a beard and XY chromosomes, therefore you're a man, like it or not," this person would be labelled a transphobe. 

In that case, the words male and female lose meaning.

They appear to have lost the meaning they used to have. But I'm told that people who hold to the old meanings, and deny that trans women are women, are no longer on the right side of history.

[Belacqua]

It sounds to me like he's equivocating on the meaning of anatomy.  But whatever.

Does "he" refer to me here? 

What meaning of anatomy should I be using? Is there a sense in which anatomy is determinative of gender?