You’re giving transphobic bigots too much credit; no one reads a verse saying that eunuchs aren’t allowed in the temple and infers that it’s a sin to be trans.
They aren’t reading the Bible and then developing prejudices based on what it says; that’s not what’s happening here.
Instead, what they are doing is starting with the prejudices they already have and then fishing through the Bible trying to find anything that even remotely matches so they can twist it into a post-hoc justification.
In this specific case, that verse doesn’t justify their position in any way shape or form.
The only reason anyone would interpret that as condemnation of trans people is if they’re actively looking for excuses to condemn them.
First off, that verse is talking about eunuchs rather than trans people, which is actually a really important distinction.
Further, that verse doesn’t even say that being a eunuch is bad; it just says they’re not allowed to enter the temple. which, for what it’s worth, hasn’t even existed for thousands of years.
Moreover, it is immediately followed by a verse saying the same thing about anyone whose ancestors (up to 10 generations back) were illegitimate children.
So, you can’t interpret it as saying that it’s a sin to be trans unless you also interpret it as saying it’s a sin to have great-great-great grandparents who weren’t married.
You’re right that neither the Bible nor any other religious text is a legitimate reason to persecute people, but that’s not what’s going on here.
They aren’t motivated by what the Bible teaches, they’re motivated by bigotry and performing mental acrobatics to try to find anything in the Bible that they can somehow twist into an excuse for their bigotry.
The verse was meant to discourage religious eunichs, as so many verses were just meant to enact a change within a group of people long ago, the entire book of Deuteronomy for instance was telling Jews a specific code to live by, including sanitation and hygiene laws. Good way to encode your culture’s safeguards, bad way to ensure their future peace.
Didn’t Jesus say he was the new covenant therefore ignore all the ancient laws and follow Jesus? Jesus himself is unworthy if you follow the Old Testament
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
In practice, Christians don’t think this means all old testament laws remain in force literally. That’s a contradiction when they want to use literalism elsewhere, but that’s not most Christians.
That sounds like something of a thought terminating cliche. I think it’s at once simpler and more complicated.
Simpler because most Christians don’t think overly much about their beliefs and believe their church’s doctrine. More complicated because many do, and those that do think way beyond what’s “comfortable”. Scholarship going back millennia had dispelled - for scholars - any notion of biblical inerrancy, never mind literalism. For those who don’t believe the Bible’s plain reading is all true, there is no discomfort here - it would be a supreme arrogance to accuse minds such as Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas of merely believing whatever feels comfortable.
That doesn’t mean they’re right obviously, but you can do better than such dismissal.
It’s not arrogance to say that if you have already found your conclusion then any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement will just be explained away. Either by mistranslations, missing historical or cultural context or somesuch.
Sure but it’s arrogant to claim that all of these thinkers from ages past were actually doing that. I don’t agree with any of them because I’m not religious but they had serious reasons for the views they held, and there were serious disagreements on matters of religion that caused serious debates with serious arguments put forward.
any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement
We’re talking about the content of the Bible and its interpretation, not “counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction.” (And: modern religions are far to flexible to be subject to “clear contradictions”. I’m sure you’ve heard the responses from religious people to your criticisms already - you find those response unsatisfactory, as do I, but they expose a way in which you misunderstood the fundamental character of the religion you were criticising. I can expand if necessary)
So when it comes to scripture like “I didn’t come to change the law” and so on, there are any number of ways of interpreting the language non-literally in a way consistent with modern Christian practice. I’m not going to play devil’s (God’s?) advocate with you but dismissing such things completely and out of hand is ignorant. People with better understanding of Biblical languages than you or I have studied more of the Bible than you or I have and have had long-running arguments it. If you don’t believe the fundamental principles then… just let them have it? Dispute them when they come up against obvious moral or scientific principles, or on their other statements, but claiming with zero argumentation that they don’t do any real thinking is silly.
I mean there is shit like Deuternonom 23, 1
Maybe just don’t give a shit about some non-sensical book some dudes in the desert made up.
You’re giving transphobic bigots too much credit; no one reads a verse saying that eunuchs aren’t allowed in the temple and infers that it’s a sin to be trans.
They aren’t reading the Bible and then developing prejudices based on what it says; that’s not what’s happening here.
Instead, what they are doing is starting with the prejudices they already have and then fishing through the Bible trying to find anything that even remotely matches so they can twist it into a post-hoc justification.
In this specific case, that verse doesn’t justify their position in any way shape or form.
The only reason anyone would interpret that as condemnation of trans people is if they’re actively looking for excuses to condemn them.
First off, that verse is talking about eunuchs rather than trans people, which is actually a really important distinction.
Further, that verse doesn’t even say that being a eunuch is bad; it just says they’re not allowed to enter the temple. which, for what it’s worth, hasn’t even existed for thousands of years.
Moreover, it is immediately followed by a verse saying the same thing about anyone whose ancestors (up to 10 generations back) were illegitimate children.
So, you can’t interpret it as saying that it’s a sin to be trans unless you also interpret it as saying it’s a sin to have great-great-great grandparents who weren’t married.
You’re right that neither the Bible nor any other religious text is a legitimate reason to persecute people, but that’s not what’s going on here.
They aren’t motivated by what the Bible teaches, they’re motivated by bigotry and performing mental acrobatics to try to find anything in the Bible that they can somehow twist into an excuse for their bigotry.
i mean it’s a little outdated
but some of the lines are fire
“easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than a rich person to get into heaven” and “love thy neighbor” were good
maybe it’s time for a rewrite
I think Leviticus has some lines about protecting immigrants, too.
with ray tracing?
New bible requires rtx 4060 or higher abs 64 gigs RAM.
and an AI chatbot powered by Bing
And AI upscaling?
Deuteronomy more like Neuteronomy
The verse was meant to discourage religious eunichs, as so many verses were just meant to enact a change within a group of people long ago, the entire book of Deuteronomy for instance was telling Jews a specific code to live by, including sanitation and hygiene laws. Good way to encode your culture’s safeguards, bad way to ensure their future peace.
Yeah sure, all the uncomfortable verses always mean something different while all the positive verses are true and valid even without context.
Didn’t Jesus say he was the new covenant therefore ignore all the ancient laws and follow Jesus? Jesus himself is unworthy if you follow the Old Testament
Matthew 5, 18:
In short: Nope.
In practice, Christians don’t think this means all old testament laws remain in force literally. That’s a contradiction when they want to use literalism elsewhere, but that’s not most Christians.
Of course they don’t, cause that would be uncomfortable. I know, cause I used to think the same way before ridding myself of faith.
That sounds like something of a thought terminating cliche. I think it’s at once simpler and more complicated.
Simpler because most Christians don’t think overly much about their beliefs and believe their church’s doctrine. More complicated because many do, and those that do think way beyond what’s “comfortable”. Scholarship going back millennia had dispelled - for scholars - any notion of biblical inerrancy, never mind literalism. For those who don’t believe the Bible’s plain reading is all true, there is no discomfort here - it would be a supreme arrogance to accuse minds such as Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas of merely believing whatever feels comfortable.
That doesn’t mean they’re right obviously, but you can do better than such dismissal.
It’s not arrogance to say that if you have already found your conclusion then any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement will just be explained away. Either by mistranslations, missing historical or cultural context or somesuch.
Sure but it’s arrogant to claim that all of these thinkers from ages past were actually doing that. I don’t agree with any of them because I’m not religious but they had serious reasons for the views they held, and there were serious disagreements on matters of religion that caused serious debates with serious arguments put forward.
We’re talking about the content of the Bible and its interpretation, not “counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction.” (And: modern religions are far to flexible to be subject to “clear contradictions”. I’m sure you’ve heard the responses from religious people to your criticisms already - you find those response unsatisfactory, as do I, but they expose a way in which you misunderstood the fundamental character of the religion you were criticising. I can expand if necessary)
So when it comes to scripture like “I didn’t come to change the law” and so on, there are any number of ways of interpreting the language non-literally in a way consistent with modern Christian practice. I’m not going to play devil’s (God’s?) advocate with you but dismissing such things completely and out of hand is ignorant. People with better understanding of Biblical languages than you or I have studied more of the Bible than you or I have and have had long-running arguments it. If you don’t believe the fundamental principles then… just let them have it? Dispute them when they come up against obvious moral or scientific principles, or on their other statements, but claiming with zero argumentation that they don’t do any real thinking is silly.
If they aren’t ripping apart a pigeon and lighting it on fire on a rock after touching any wild game meat, then they’re not a true Christian.
What defines “true Christian” for you? Can he put sugar on his porridge?
Someone that follows the instructions of the book they believe in, where the book says to follow Every instruction.
Cool, that’s not what a Christian is. But that’s ok! You learnt something today!
How many of them have even read the Bible?
I have. Horrendous insane book.
what’s a good counter to “it says being gay is a sin in Leviticus” ?
Wearing those pants is also a sin- Both to the lord, and to my fashion sense! (Assuming theyre wearing a blended fabric)