Unfortunately there is some line in Leviticus about it being illegal for a ‘man to wear the clothing of a woman, or a woman to wear the tools of a man’, and another one about not cutting yourself. But for a god who commands infant genital mutilation, it’s certainly hypocritical.
Easy fix: “trans women are women, trans men are men”. You could just as easily argue that the man who wears the clothing of a woman is the closeted trans man.
another one about not cutting yourself
The catholic church certainly doesn’t care about that when it comes to modern medicine.
Oh, I am certainly supportive of trans people being the gender they say they are. I don’t think the people who wrote the Bible thought of it that way though, it was probably their intent that the (flawed) concept of binary biological sex was what they were referring to.
And it’s important to acknowledge that and reject the Bible as a source of moral truth, rather than seeking to ‘reinterpret’ it, to make it ‘acceptable’ while not having to outright reject it.
While I agree that Christianity is flawed from the get-go and that you’re probably right about what the bible authors would think about trans people, I still can’t keep myself from pointing out the glaring holes in church doctrine. The people who wrote the bible, especially the old testament, would probably stone someone to death if they explained current Christianity to them.
Arguably, pointing out the raging bigotry of “this isn’t explicitly in the bible, I just made it up myself” and “this IS in the bible, but I chose to ignore it” would make people aware of how absurd Christianity is and reconsider their beliefs, but in reality that’s probably not at all how belief works.
Unfortunately there is some line in Leviticus about it being illegal for a ‘man to wear the clothing of a woman, or a woman to wear the tools of a man’, and another one about not cutting yourself. But for a god who commands infant genital mutilation, it’s certainly hypocritical.
Easy fix: “trans women are women, trans men are men”. You could just as easily argue that the man who wears the clothing of a woman is the closeted trans man.
The catholic church certainly doesn’t care about that when it comes to modern medicine.
Oh, I am certainly supportive of trans people being the gender they say they are. I don’t think the people who wrote the Bible thought of it that way though, it was probably their intent that the (flawed) concept of binary biological sex was what they were referring to.
And it’s important to acknowledge that and reject the Bible as a source of moral truth, rather than seeking to ‘reinterpret’ it, to make it ‘acceptable’ while not having to outright reject it.
While I agree that Christianity is flawed from the get-go and that you’re probably right about what the bible authors would think about trans people, I still can’t keep myself from pointing out the glaring holes in church doctrine. The people who wrote the bible, especially the old testament, would probably stone someone to death if they explained current Christianity to them.
Arguably, pointing out the raging bigotry of “this isn’t explicitly in the bible, I just made it up myself” and “this IS in the bible, but I chose to ignore it” would make people aware of how absurd Christianity is and reconsider their beliefs, but in reality that’s probably not at all how belief works.
This is a great point. It would be easy enough to argue that the verse speaks against closeted folks dressing against their honest inner identity.
But I don’t think logic or a sincere attempt to unstand the will of a benevolent higher power were ever involved, sadly.
I feel like if they were really seeking the will of an all loving God, they could have come to that conclusion already. :(
So… no femboys. Damn, I have some friends to chastise.