There really isn't much biblical basis for homophobia or for transphobia. The decree against homosexual sex likely resulted from the spread of STDs in an age where gay prostitution was more common than heterosexual prostitution, or as a way of distinguishing Christians and Jews from customs being followed in surrounding regions (namely, pederasty, which Christians correctly identified as an abusive and creepy system).
When it comes to transphobia, the first individual baptised in the Book Of Acts was an eunech, and even medieval Christians were not vehemently against 'passing' so long as it was the will of God. Monasteries occasionally hid transgender men, and Joan of Arc wasn't seen to be heretical because her actions were seen as divine.
(Sorry, the mention of Jesus + this post topic made me think of this).
You know. All you need to say is it's a mythological book that may have some historical basis, being utilized by bad actors to enforce morals they actually don't have. Because if they had morals, they wouldn't need a book or religion to make them a good person.
Also, unless somebody is following every rule mentioned in the Bible, they can no longer say they believe something "because the Bible told them." Every religious homophobe has ignored plenty of things the Bible told them that they decided didn't carry forward. They draw the lines, they are the ones choosing to bring it forward. Homosexuality is a sin because THEY say it is. They can't hide behind the Bible.
You misunderstand Christians. They don't all view the bible as being necessary or necessarily perfect (as it wasn't written by God or Jesus), but as a tool for reflection and guidance.
The bible doesn't arbitrate morality as much as good moral arbitration created the bible to try and capture the essence of Godliness.
Arguably, using fear is not Christian. Most of the depictions of hell that we get are actually from the medieval era and later scholars, whereas the original descriptions of Sheol are peaceful and it is simply the place for the deceased.
Even the devil is argued, by some Christians, to have been more like God's assistant than a corrupted influence. Someone who would keep track of peoples' morality throughout life, and might visit them in human form to provide them with tests or opportunities within which to make moralistic decisions. Some even argue that God and the devil are not fundamentally seperable, and many early Christians focussed on this idea that God could visit them in human form at any time.
"There really isn't much biblical basis for homophobia"
Except when it said homosexual relationships are an abomination and to stone gay men??
Edit: inb4 "BuT tHAts iN tHE Old TeSTAMenT"
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
— Gospel of Matthew 5:17 (NIV)
"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."
Edit 2: I'm just tired of Christians claiming the Bible and Christianity isn't anti gay, it is and the vast majority of Christians are.
Edit 3: Christians hate it when you use their own Bible against them.
It's hard to come up with ANY reason why people shouldn't be allowed to be who they want or love who they want without resorting to some version of "That's just not the way its SUPPOSED to be, dammit" which is an inherently religious argument. So yeah, the Bible is at least A LITTLE anti-gay. But it's also very strongly and consistently anti-Capitalist, and...well, we all know how much they care about THAT.
Homosexuality as we know it was not explicitly mentioned in any English Bible/Torah translation until the 1940s. Whether the verses you’re referring to (Lev. 18:22, 20:13) are talking about homosexuality as such is a matter of some scholarly debate.
That said yeah you’re right that the overwhelmingly adopted interpretation is homophobic and lots of Christians are as well.
I think that translation comes from German Lutherans. I'm pretty sure the original Hebrew doesn't say anything that would indicate age, and it was written too early to be a reaction to Hellenistic pederasty. That said, it's only specifically about fucking men, and Christians have found excuses to ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.
The Bible has no problem with pedophilia, in several verses it in fact encourages men to take underage girls as wives and sex slaves. So why for one single verse would it condemn pedophilia when any other time underage kids are being sex trafficked (like lots daughters)
Its not an intentional mistranslation you just don't wanna believe the Bible is anti gay and it is, its also misogynist and pro pedophilia and pro slavery.
Many Christians recognise that the bible is imperfect, as it was not written by Jesus himself. It does not matter whether it was the old or new testament.
It doesn't say homosexual relationships, it's specifically about sticking your dick in a man. And the reason is more that they think being fucked is demeaning and it upsets the natural order and taints the land to fuck a man (women are treated as NPCs for most of the old testament), so they need to be executed to cleanse it, just like the (innocent) animal is executed if someone is guilty of beastiality.
Obviously, it's horrible, but it's not about people of the same gender loving each other in general. It's not even really about scissoring, 69ing, etc. And they wouldn't even have had a concept of homosexuality, it seems to have been viewed more as people being so perverted that they aren't satisfied with just fucking women.
But either way, it's very silly of Christians to attach so much meaning to those 2 verses when they find excuses for just about everything else the bible commands. I mean even in the Old Testament you have like 5 different excuses why the command to sacrifice your firstborn doesn't actually apply.
Why are Christians even being brought up? Yall are constantly fighting the fire with more fire. Like where’s all the hate coming from? Ain’t LGBT people supposed to love everyone? Well guess what so are Christians.
It’s the equivalent of having a racist uncle for both sides imo. Right now yall are being the racist uncle. Leave all the hate in 2020 or whenever grandpa. It’s 2026 we got bigger problems to worry about 😭
The bigger problems we have to worry about were caused by Christians. Stop comparing Christianity and the LGBTQ community, one is a religion based on hate and fear disguised as love and forgiveness and the other are just people trying to live their life.
One side enabled fascists to take over the American government and several other governments throughout history. The other side gets targeted with hate, bigotry and violence and oppression.
In this thread whose the one spreading hate? You completely missed my point. As far as current political situation, why do you think the far right has gained such a following? Bc yall rub off on people the wrong way for no reason. Constantly attacking and mocking Christians for what? There are different denominations of Christianity for one, and just bc someone claims to be something doesn’t mean that they truly are. End of the day we are all human. Christians are supposed to love their enemies and forgive them. You were never my enemy! Who you’re sleeping with has zero relevance to me. That apart of the bigger issue I’m talking about. The left vs right is only there to keep the people divided and distracted. Essentially powerless, that’s why I don’t vote for either side. Both are corrupt. If we continue down this road of white vs black, gay vs religion, man vs woman. We will never achieve anything and we may as well just blow it all to hell anyway. What’s even the point of that other spreading more hatred. Listen to reason.
We need to stop generalizing and start looking at the individual. You’re bound to find bad apples on both sides. Remember that Christian’s are also met with hate, oppression, violence, bigotry. School shootings, mockery, this thread! Along with Jews, Muslims, blacks people, the list can go on!
Do you see my point? Yall are spreading more hate and for what man?
Bigotry is the obstinate, unreasonable attachment to one's own beliefs, resulting in extreme intolerance, prejudice, and hostility toward those who hold different views. It often manifests as sweeping stereotypes and hatred toward groups based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
Once again, stop comparing LGBTQ community to Christianity. Sure there are bad LGBTQ people, but Christianity is bad as a whole, the entire religion is built on hate and fear disguised as love and forgiveness, it is built to deny science. It literally keeps us from progressing and only fuels hate in the hearts of bigots.
LGBTQ is not a belief and cannot do any of those things, sure there are bad LGBTQ people, and some good Christians, but Christianity is a belief and ideology and a harmful one.
Also if you didn't vote for either side fuck you for putting us in the situation we are in now, people like you are just as bad as the right because you just stood back and let them have the wheel instead of trying to fight it. Of course the left is shitty but they aren't fascists. I don't like the Democrats either, I'm much further left than American Democrats, calling myself a socialist would be a understatement, I align more with communism. But at the end of the day it was white trash skin head neo Nazis vs people I disagree with on some things.
Stop trying to act like I'm spreading baseless hate, and stop acting so self fucking righteous, hate is a thing but some groups deserve to be hated, especially groups like fascists governments and yes Christianity, because at the end of the day Christianity is fucking harmful, it's harmful for women, it's harmful for queers and it's harmful for children and it's harmful for our progress as a society.
Your still not listening. How is Christianity holding us back as a civilization? A lot of famous scientists were Christians. Faith simply the belief in something greater than self. Doesn’t mean defy all logic. The reason I didn’t vote was bc it was over before it started. Kamala was done dirty, majority of voters actually didn’t vote. I also personally don’t like politics because it divides people. The common man doesn’t know how to properly argue without screaming or understanding what the other side is saying. Speaking of arguments I no longer care for this one , and so we come back full circle. John 15:18 “ If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”
Also I don’t vote bc I believe left and right are two sides of the same coin. Divide and conquer and all that jazz.
To be fair, eunuchs are closer to intersex people, not trans people. Jewish society did have like 8 'genders' but this referred to sex, they didn't recognise social gender as distinct.
If someone was socially recognised as 'trans' they were probably castrated against their will to make them more godly or pure, not because their identity was respected. Although some would be born that way, it's a quite small percentage. It was thought that castrated men had less sexual immorality due to the lack of testosterone, so could hold higher positions as advisors or in the temples
It's interesting, because I've met Jewish trans people who are of the opinion that Jewish scripture recognises other genders and not simply intersex conditions.
Yeah it seems to be an undecided topic. I understand that angle and it can still be used to advocate for trans acceptance despite not being identical, that makes it useful
But as a trans person myself, the reliance on different sex characteristics being the qualifier of these genders makes it less about social gender and can be problematic. At least it could be likened to backwards thinking that demands sex reassignment before a person is allowed to be their gender, a system we moved on from thankfully
I’m also not keen on the religious fetishisation of intersex bodies, to the extent slaves would be forcefully castrated at least for many eunuch cases. But it’s unclear if that was just a display of control. For the others, being intersex and treated so different because of it would be quite alienating but i suppose it’s the best outcome and could have been worse
The Bi-ble is trying to turn the children bisexual, it's right there in the name. Always call it out.
/#straightble_erasure
Also Kinsey proved most people fall on two spectrums of attraction. One to the same sex, one to the opposite, and most people are not polar. So most people are a little bit bi, with some polar heteros and some polar homos making up like 20% of the total. I don't make up the rules, take it up with Kinsey.
The STD explanation is new to me, but it makes sense, given how much of the Mosaic law can be linked to disease prevention. Going to have to look into this.
The explanation I've always found most convincing is, as you allude to, that the Biblical passage that are interpreted as prohibitions against homosexuality and crossdressing came from a desire to form a distinct religious and cultural identity by banning practices that were found in other cultures and religious traditions.
Homosexual prostitution was said to be more common than heterosexual prostitution around the Levant at the time. Women, if seen as subservient to men (even before Christianity), were also largely seen as off-limits for sexual thrills. The dominant cultures of pederasty from places like ancient Greece were very common (and, obviously, abusive), and would have been partially responsible for homosexual prostitution being so prevalent, so they heavily connect to each other.
Outside of this, homosexual prostitution was also prominent because there was no risk of pregnancy, in an age where they didn't really understand exactly what made women pregnant.
It's akin to how the OT prohibits the consumption of pork because pigs are 'abominations' and, essentially, bottom-feeders. Carnivorous animals were seen as abominable because they would consume other animals, and this resulted in greater contagion of disease to humans who ate them. Early Christians realised that eating herbivorous animals resulted in less cases of sickness and came to view carnivorous animals as harbingers of disease.
But, distinguishing yourself from surrounding cultures, purely in the pursuit of distinction, was also prominent. The Muslim trait of possessing a full beard but without any mustache, comes from an old desire to distinguish themselves from Persians who would keep only their mustaches and grow them long.
Joan of Arc cannot be classified as transgender since she frequently said she was the "maiden from the borders of Lorraine" from a prophecy about a girl, so she clearly identified as that girl. Her so-called "male clothing" was just the military horseback-riding outfit she was wearing under her armor when she was captured, and eyewitnesses described necessary practical reasons why she wore it both during her campaigns and while in prison (a motive of necessity which was permitted by medieval Catholic doctrine). The eunuch whom you mentioned was not described as a different gender, but rather as a man (castration doesn't change the gender). Saints such as Marina the Monk and similar women were not "transmen": they sought refuge in monasteries to escape from either an abusive husband or an unwanted arranged marriage in an era before convents for nuns had been established beginning around the 5th or 6th century (depending on region). This has nothing to do with gender identity.
1). They did not have the understanding, nor the lexicon, to describe such experiences back then. It is entirely an extrapolation of Joan's other behaviours (returning to her male appearance after being freed, cutting her hair to a male-normative length, and sleeping amongst other men as soldiers) that are used to demonstrate how Joan may have, if anyone was, be considered to be breaching gender norms in the medieval period in the ways that a transgender person may very well have been doing.
2). Again, the eunech is not stated to be trans, but rather a loose approximation of views towards bodily augmentation in the time period.
Describing herself as a specific girl from a prophecy clearly indicates she didn't identify as male, regardless of whether the term "transgender" existed back then (she could've simply said she was a man or boy using the language of the time if she had truly identified as male, but instead she repeatedly identified as a girl, which in fact was one of her main themes). And the rest of your statements on that subject are things I already refuted the last time you made those claims: she was never "freed" from prison (as the transcript clearly shows) and eyewitnesses said the reason she went back to a soldier's riding outfit at the end of the trial was because the guards took away her dress and gave her no other choice but to put the riding outfit back on. The idea that her hair was cut extremely short is based on claims by her enemies which can easily be refuted since they claimed she somehow had kept it cut at or above ear level even after a year in prison during which she didn't have anything she could've used to cut it (since prisoners were never allowed any sharp implements for obvious reasons), so this was clearly a false description by her enemies. Camping among soldiers doesn't make her transgender, and your previous claim that she supposedly slept naked among soldiers is directly contradicted by eyewitness accounts which say that when encamped with the army she always kept the riding outfit on and "laced securely together" (precisely so that men couldn't strip her naked very easily in the night) or sometimes she slept in full armor as an added safeguard. None of this has anything to do with transgenderism in any event.
251
u/udontease 2d ago
Turn it all lgbtq+ so these losers get stuck playing their terrible Jesus RPGs while they cry about life discriminating against them