The many hateful trans threads this Easter weekend

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

While I think I disagree, that's an excellent argument.



I think Matthew 19:12 is relevant,

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus appears to imply that getting castrated "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" is a good thing. And people like you and me should accept that.

Consider that along with 1 Corinthians Chapter 7, verses 1, 8 and 9: " “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," and "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Paul wanted early Christians to remain celibate and unmarried so they could devote their full attentions to the Church, like Catholic priests. For those who don't have the discipline, they should marry. Well, the only way I'm going to be celibate is if someone cuts off my balls. Maybe that's what Jesus was getting at in the passage from Matthew.

Also consider Philip's conversion of the eunuch from Ethiopia, who presumably was able to spread the Word without interference from temptations of the flesh.

So I believe all this establishes that castration is a lovely thing in the eyes of New Testament Christianity. And castration is the elephant in the room. You can always stop taking hormones or have breast implants removed.

As to Genesis 1:27, first I think large parts of Genesis are fiction, including this verse. God creates the world in 6 days. Takes the form of a man and wrestles with Jacob. Endorses polygamy. And snakes talk. Really.

Furthermore, the passage is irrelevant. The text is

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

That's a huge jump, to believe that passage prohibits surgical and hormonal treatment for transgender persons. I don't understand why many Christians believe it would have anything to do that.

There's a lot in the Old Testament that is clear that Christians pretty much ignore, for example prohibitions against mixing types of cloth (for example wool and cotton) and eating pork and shrimp. I'm not sure why some have latched onto Genesis 1:27.

I cannot believe what I am reading here.

[Yssup Rider]

You deny the word of God?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You deny the word of God?

No, I don't deny the word of God. Unfortunately many people misinterpret the word of God. Transgenders for the most part think God made a mistake. God doesn't make mistakes, people do keep that in mind.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You deny the word of God?

No, Levianon denies the word of Tiny, that Jesus approved of those who got castrated “for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.” I don’t know why. It’s right there, plain as day in Matthew 19:12.

[Lucas McCain]

Much of the bible is subjective. Many people interpret it to justify their fucked up beliefs and wants. As one may interpret a scripture, another may interpret it much differently.

Many atrocities have been committed by evil people in history who have used the bible to defend despicable acts. A scumbag like Trump is even using it to win an election. That's the bible. You can use it for good/understanding or you can use it for bad/selfishness.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with the bible. That is not why it was written and shared. Dipshits who try to act like religious zealots who hide behind it are the problem. If you have a problem with transgenders, that's your call and your right. But don't be a chicken shit and bring up religion to bash one day of the year that a minuscule segment of our society celebrates that happened to just fall on a holy day in an election year. Be better than that if you are truly a god-fearing Christian.

[CreatedInSpace]

Originally Posted by Tiny

No, Levianon denies the word of Tiny, that Jesus approved of those who got castrated “for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.” I don’t know why. It’s right there, plain as day in Matthew 19:12.

You’re misinterpreting Mathew, applying modern terms to ancient text, incorrectly. Eunuch is not typically someone who has been physically altered, although it can be, such as one made impotent by “hand of man” to protect a harem (cool job if you could land it with your balls intact), but one who remains chaste to serve the church. A eunuch could be by “hand of man” as mentioned above, by physical or biological deformity rendering them impotent, or, most often, celibate by choice. At that time, and even now to a lesser extent, any sex outside of a *first* marriage was a sin that required disavowment and repentance.

None of this has anything to do with modern transvestism, the believe men can become women, or women men. Second and third century Christians were incredibly conservative. None of what we’re seeing today would have ever crossed their minds. Today we’re a sex soaked society, just look where we’re posting these comments, not unlike the Romans who were, for many reasons, looked upon with disdain by biblical Christians.

Not that I believe any of this hogwash personally, being Taipeian raised Taoist. My issue is that the entire trans ideology is based on a lie. Media and others spreading this lie, most horrifyingly to young people, and damaging untold lives in the process. This is decidedly NOT good for society in general, like any other lie.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

No, Levianon denies the word of Tiny, that Jesus approved of those who got castrated “for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.” I don’t know why. It’s right there, plain as day in Matthew 19:12.

That passage in the Bible isn't referring to literal castration. Rather Jesus is speaking figuratively of those who have set aside their sexual desire and right to be married in order to serve the Lord with a more single minded devotion.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

No, I don't deny the word of God. Unfortunately many people misinterpret the word of God. Transgenders for the most part think God made a mistake. God doesn't make mistakes, people do keep that in mind.

Are you referring to the people who wrote the Bible or those who use it to persecute their fellow (pronoun)?

I have my opinion. What’s yours?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Are you referring to the people who wrote the Bible or those who use it to persecute their fellow (pronoun)?

I have my opinion. What’s yours?

I am referring to the Bible.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

Second and third century Christians were incredibly conservative. None of what we’re seeing today would have ever crossed their minds. Today we’re a sex soaked society, just look where we’re posting these comments, not unlike the Romans who were, for many reasons, looked upon with disdain by biblical Christians.

Not that I believe any of this hogwash personally, being Taipeian raised Taoist. My issue is that the entire trans ideology is based on a lie. Media and others spreading this lie, most horrifyingly to young people, and damaging untold lives in the process. This is decidedly NOT good for society in general, like any other lie.

Circling back to your comment that started this, do you still believe that gender affirming medical care for transgenders increases suicide rates? Please see posts #77 and #84.

I think you're just describing your perceptions of our society, and not advocating that the government take steps that would infringe on our personal liberties and basic freedoms. But I'm not sure. Maybe you could be a little more specific about what you'd have government do about trans ideology and our "sex soaked society" that's traveling down same path as the Romans.

For example, should government ban gender-affirming care for transgenderism? Should it censor pro trans coverage in the media? Or maybe just outlaw transgenderism? Should it ban any sexual activities in particular, besides what's already illegal? Ban pornography? How about clamping down on prostitution, by banning "where we're posting these comments" and other sex boards?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

That passage in the Bible isn't referring to literal castration. Rather Jesus is speaking figuratively of those who have set aside their sexual desire and right to be married in order to serve the Lord with a more single minded devotion.

Originally Posted by CreatedInSpace

You’re misinterpreting Mathew, applying modern terms to ancient text, incorrectly. Eunuch is not typically someone who has been physically altered, although it can be, such as one made impotent by “hand of man” to protect a harem (cool job if you could land it with your balls intact), but one who remains chaste to serve the church. A eunuch could be by “hand of man” as mentioned above, by physical or biological deformity rendering them impotent, or, most often, celibate by choice. At that time, and even now to a lesser extent, any sex outside of a *first* marriage was a sin that required disavowment and repentance.

None of this has anything to do with modern transvestism, the believe men can become women, or women men.

Here's what my fellow theologian, Stephen J. Patterson, has to say about this in the journal of the Biblical Archaeology Society. Steve is the chair of the Religious and Ethical Studies department at Williamette University. His research focuses on the historical Jesus, Christian origins and the Gospel of Thomas.

In the Gospel of Matthew we hear of a strange, early Christian practice that indicates perhaps that the followers of Jesus contemplated this world of phallo-dominance with a critical eye. Matthew 19:11–12 reads as follows: “And he said to them, ‘Not everyone can receive this saying, but those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and eunuchs who have been castrated by people, and there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone who can receive this, receive it.’”

Scholars squeamish at the thought of Christian castrati have sometimes insisted that this passage must be referring metaphorically to celibacy. But that is nonsense. If Matthew’s author had meant to speak of celibates (parthenoi), he knew perfectly well how to do that. In a religious context, eunuch had to mean eunuch, else he would simply have confused his audience. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus advises men (who can) to emasculate themselves!

Who were these Matthean eunuchs for the kingdom? They were men who believed that following Jesus had nothing to do with masculine dominance and power. Eunuchs in a religious context were the opposite of manly men.

Most people would have known about eunuchs in the various cults of the Roman east. Mostly they served the Mother Goddess as feminized male priests, no longer male, but more female, like the deity they served.3

Matthew’s eunuchs were not the only early Christians who gave thought to breaking down the patterns of male dominance in antiquity. One of the earliest Christian creedal statements declares that in Christ “there is no longer male and female” (Galatians 3:28), and in Corinth the apostle Paul felt compelled to oppose a practice whereby male prophets were beginning to wear their hair long and flowing, so that one could not easily distinguish between male and female cult leaders (1 Corinthians 11:2–16). Paul liked his men and women to look like men and women, but his Corinthian protégés had taken “no longer male and female” to heart.

Matthew’s eunuchs were clearly the most extreme form of this conviction. Here were men who, in the eyes of their peers, “became women” in the most graphic and demonstrative way imaginable. They emasculated themselves, removing the thing that ancients most associated with male power and dominance. This is how they chose to embody the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Every generation or so Christian men complain that the church has become too “feminized” to appeal to the man’s man. The cure for this used to be a men’s breakfast on Saturday morning or an annual camping trip. In today’s hypermasculinized culture, the old ways apparently don’t quite scratch that itch. So modern manly men have taken it up a notch—cage fighting for Christ.

But back when gladiators still did battle and emperors banged senators just to show them who was boss, some Christians actually took it down a notch. Real men, they said, don’t “grow a pair.” They cut them off.

https://library.biblicalarchaeology....-thy-neighbor/

[Ducbutter]

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 is quite clear. There is little doubt about the point Paul is making: In Christ we are all the same — we are equal with one another."

https://www.cbeinternational.org/res...0one%20another.

When you include the text of the entire verse it reads a little differently, no?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 is quite clear. There is little doubt about the point Paul is making: In Christ we are all the same — we are equal with one another."

https://www.cbeinternational.org/res...0one%20another.

When you include the text of the entire verse it reads a little differently, no?

I guess Senator Strom Thurmond and the KKK never read Galatians 3:28.

[Yssup Rider]

So what we see here is selective bible thumping at its best. And it’s t best a hollow excuse for anything related to this topic.

Word of god? Word of man? Word of some guys who argued the point over a millennium ago in Turkey?

The churches can’t make up their minds today, why is it so easy to hate and blame it on God.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So what we see here is selective bible thumping at its best. And it’s t best a hollow excuse for anything related to this topic.

Word of god? Word of man? Word of some guys who argued the point over a millennium ago in Turkey?

The churches can’t make up their minds today, why is it so easy to hate and blame it on God.

Word of Man means nothing it changes with the season. Word of God always remains the same.