Author:
Without parsing the KJV, the Catholic Bible, Nag Hammadi codex, The Torah, or any religious writings not of the twentieth century, I'd like for any theologian, or anyone to direct me to writings condemning GLBT. And yes I am very familiar with Deuteronomy 22:5 after having debated that passage for more than forty years. If one can't stand any one or all of the alphabet, GLBT I respect their choice. Heck there are a lot of those people I can't stand either. For my own opinion those who are using their religion as a reason for not liking or supporting GLBT, they are an abomination themselves. They forgot God's Words and substituted their own words.
Most Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, Conservatives have one thing in common. A closed mind.
Hugs People
Barb
Union’s President, Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, writes in Newsweek about the immoral act of using Christianity and the Bible to dehumanize transgender individuals. Read the oped below or online here.
A state senator in Oklahoma recently proposed a bill that would ban people under the age of 26 from receiving gender-affirming care—launching a massive, aggressive attack on the transgender community. The move sends a clear signal that anti-trans leaders are gearing up to be even bolder and combative in their crusade.
"As a Christian theologian, a minister, and the president of a seminary with many transgender students, I am horrified by the continued use of Christianity and the Bible to viciously attack the transgender community. The Bible never said that being transgender is wrong. This extremist, wrong-headed belief is simply based on shaky extrapolations of the text."
https://utsnyc.edu/stop-using-the-bible-to-dehumanize-transg...
Comments
The version of God
that seems to be presented by those on the right is IMHO clearly based on the old 'Fire and Brimstone' sermons that had spewed out from pulpits across the USA since the time of the Mayflower. The vision that those pastors and preachers present is not the one shown in the Bible.
The same goes for the radical preachers of most other faiths.
IMHO, Jesus was all about forgiveness yet you get [redacted] like Lauren Boebert and MTG using his name in sermons/speeches that are filled with hate and anger. The audiences lap it up. Sad.
I'm not really religious but if there is a god then it would be nice for them to show us by striking down those who take their name and use it for evil purposes.
Samantha
Theologians
I have tasked three theologians with the job of coming up with three scriptures that condemn cross-dressing in general or transgender as whole. None have been able to go beyond Duet. 22:5. One of them explained that in order to claim a theological stand on a subject there must be at minimum three scriptures that threat the same subject in the same way. That's good news for transgender because it can't be done. Not so good for the rest of the GLBT crowd.
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
That would make crossdressing just as bad as
wearing clothes of mixed fibres or not tying knots at the corners on your cloak.
Thus the Phrase
. . .Knotty or nice.
Trump is the leader of the trans hating misfits. He has said he will push for a national ban on gender affirming care for minors.
It would seem that this would have a devastating impact on trans youth and open the doors for trans hate to run rampant in the streets.
While Trump is becoming a bigger joke daily -- none of the Trump wannabes will chance taking a position that is left of his.
Even Haley is not pro LGBTQ+
For example she is in favor of Florida's "don't say gay" nonsense.
Repubs seem eager to be the party of hate.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I should clairify
The theologian that explained that there needs to be three scriptures, was not in favor of letting trans issues lay. He was the senior pastor at our church. He taught a Wednesday night Bible study. When he was going for his Masters in Theology, his Bible study lesson on Wednesday came straight out of his studies for the Masters. That's when he explained that sound church doctrine required a minimum of three scriptures as a base.
It was later, after he'd received his Masters, and I had been outed to my pastor by my landlord (whole 'nother story there) and pastor talked to me about it that I asked him for the three scripture. He had also taught that when reading the Old Testament that we needed to read it through the lens of the New Testament. So my request was a non confrontational way to say "Show me chapter and verse". What I asked for as if I was accepting his view was something to meditate on to help me "fall in line"; "I asked could you give me about three scriptures to meditate on with at least one from the New Testament."
He smiled smugly and said, "I don't have them on the top of my head. Come see me again next Wednesday and I'll have something for you." His body language screamed confidence in being able to do such a simple thing.
When I came to see him the next week, he told me that he'd be extremely busy and was unable to research it thoroughly, but showed me Duet. 22:5 and said, "The language there is pretty clear, don't you think?" I just nodded my head. (He was obviously frustrated because he knew that the way I phrased the request I wasn't just asking for scripture, I was asking him to build a doctrine to back his stance and he couldn't do it.) He then went on to say that he'd be checking with me to see how I was doing. When ever he asked I just said there were no issues. No issues because I just went on with life as if he'd never said a thing.
What he didn't know was that I'd researched the matter and delved into that scripture in depth. I'd gone so far as to read about five commentaries on Duet. 22 one of them by a Jewish Theologian. No two commentaries treated it the same an not one said anything about present day cross-dressing.
BTW... he's no longer a pastor at our church. He turned the church over to our present pastor and went to start a new church in California. The last time I heard him speak was when he was a guest speaker at our church. It was during the time that California was debating their bathroom law. The topic of what he talked on was not biblically based. It was purely political against allowing trans women to use the women's restroom. His stance was so non factual and hypothetical that I was embarrassed for him.
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
Deuteronomy 22:5 could well
Deuteronomy 22:5 could well have been about men avoiding fighting and women getting involved in "men's affairs". Like the stoning scene in Life of Brian.
Anyone who quotes that to me gets asked if they have ever eaten shellfish.
Leviticus 11:9-12
“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.
The people that use Deuteronomy 22:5 seem to think it is OK to ignore the bits that they disobey. The shellfish thing could be about the fact that shellfish go off very quickly. Like not eating pork. You can get tapeworm from undercooked pork.
The other thing with Deuteronomy 22:5 is women have been wearing "men's clothes" for nearly 100 years now." Oh no they are women's trousers" Well how about a "man's flowery dress"? Would that be OK.
I think a lot of zealots like to think everyone but their own little sect is going to burn. They sit there all smug because some half-educated idiot who calls himself a "preacher" or a "parson" is someone who knows the true word of god.
I hate sanctimonious self-satisfied organized religions. Didn't Jesus tell his disciples to give all their possessions away? How rich are all the main Abrahamic based religions? Sheer hypocrisy.
Sorry it just triggered me.
Leeanna
Politics, God and the Bible
Politics is about winning votes. Before he stood for President Trump was in favor of allowing transwomen to compete in his beauty contests. But the Republican base hates transpeople, so he does too. It's about votes. Nikki Haley has abandoned everything she once stood for to try to get votes. These people are unprincipled i.e. they are politicians.
The Christians speak of God as creating only two sexes - male and female. That flies in the face of fact. We have intersex people, we had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome which produces women with males chromosomes. OK, so there was not a full understanding of this in the bronze age Middle East - surprise!
The Bible has some crazy stuff in it, in particular the Old Testament. Nobody follows the tenets of that except Jewish fundamentalists and even they lapse a little. Modern Christians look to the words of Jesus.
I have referred to Matthew 19:12 (sexlessness) in several stories, but in particular in my story "Faith" where a person wrestles with these issues - link below:
https://bigclosetr.us/topshelf/fiction/83672/faith
Maryanne
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil"
The way bigoted hateful people invoke this verse to condemn who I am
has always struck me as one of the greatest ironies of all time.
To this I can only reply with a verse from the Book of Carlin
(4:20 or thereabouts...) "Shutteth the fuck up!"
I'm done with trying to justify myself to them by arguing what it says in their book.
The only meaningful way to engage with them is in the political realm;
doing what I can to block their attempts to turn the Land of the Free
into an evil pseudo-Christian theocracy.
~hugs, Veronica
And remember...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLqzLEB3E0
Translation Problem
Most of the KJV comes from the Jewish Torah which was translated first to Latin and then to English and German and many other languages. For those who wish for scripture to be handed to them rather than studying it. The Religious scripture is a mess. For a quick answer, Jesus came to replace the sacrifices, and the old text.
Moving on, if one is still hung up on good ol Deuteronomy the translation was wrong. What does "tie" mean, a verb or noun or more? Women of the heathens dressed in armor and fought in battles. The men of some of those heathens wore skirts (kilts). Deuteronomy was interpreted so Jews did not follow the pagan custom. If one did one was not Jewish but a pagan.
"There shall not be an article (keli) of a man upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a wrapper of (simlat) a woman, because everyone doing (who does) these (things) is an abomination of (unto) the Lord your God."
It isn't the clothes but any article of man or any article of woman. A woman's ring or woman's comb in a man's possession is a sin. Words change meaning over time, especially centuries. The Talmud claims the Jewish Torah was written by Moses from words given to him by God. There are five different styles of handwriting and several different interpretations of the same word through out the Torah.
I'm not that great as a biblical scholar. My studies of faith and religion didn't center on the KJV Bible, nor the Torah, but many texts of religion and faith as they were brought to light. Oklahoma willing to pass laws against innersexed, transgender, and basically all caught up in the Gender Blender has kindled my fire again. Those same laws don't touch G and L nor heterosexual. Actually they can't touch me as I'm beyond their reach. It's those who will receive no support, mental or medical until they are Twenty Six? 00.06 of the population is trans. Oklahoma is willing to flush them down the toilet as abominations or waste. A coming problem and debate I wish would pass me by.
Hugs People
Barb
Oklahoma born and raised cowgirl
Understanding Torah
The most accurate translation of the Torah into the English language as it now is understood the a 3 volume set entitled 'The Hebrew Bible' by Robert Alter; a well respected Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at U.C. Berkeley. It is translated from the understanding of trained linguist without regard to theological, social or political biases and prejudices. Broadly speaking from the Jewish perspective, Torah is to be read with a plain meaning, i.e what the reader would reasonably understand the passage to mean. And therein lies the difficulty. The laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy have to be understood within the social context of times in which they were written. Robert Alter's footnotes are contextually very helpful in regards to Deut. 22:5 because he references Hittite practices that the Israelites would want to completely avoid, so contextually it is to keep Israelites from engaging in pagan practices. Also, the condemnation of the practice per Dr. Alter is an abhorrence not the more commonly and harsh abomination.
Several decades ago, when I was trying to reconcile Scripture, a Rabbi taught me something that supports Dr. Alter's context of Deut. 22:5. He said there are to two types of condemnations in Torah, those that are described as an affront to the Almighty and those that are an affront to the Almighty forever. If the condemnation isn't forever, he taught me that the condemnation was culturally relevant to a situation that existed at the time of the writing and wasn't meant to be understood as a permanent condemnation.
Two final points, In the 10th Century a well regarded rabbi- Rav Saadia Gaon- stated that while the Torah should be understood literally (plainly), there are four types of instance when that isn't true: 1) when our sensory perception of the world refutes what is written, 2) when our intellect refutes what is written, 3) when verses contradict one another and 4) the traditions of the Sages refutes what is written. lastly, the 12th century Rabbinic scholar and philosopher Maimonides stated that IF the Aristotlean understanding of the universe were to be proven correct, he would reinterpret Torah (spoiler alert: Maimonides didn't think the Aristotlean understanding would be proven correct, but was open minded).
From my perspective, relying upon mistranslations of Torah and denying cultural and historical context to condemn and discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community (and any other group, for that matter) is Scriptural abuse and that above all is an abhorrence in the eyes of the Almighty for all time.
According to a Jewish Rabbi...
Deut. 22:5 admonished the men to stay out of the women's tents. Christians of course insisted other things too. In the 2000s I had intended to be a Pastor, but a breakdown ended all of that. GLBT means nothing to me, I am intersex and now have no attraction at all.
Why debate it?
Probably the best remedy for all things religious that upset you is indifference. Debating with a zealot is like wrestling in the mud with a pig: eventually you come to a realisation that they’re enjoying it. Looking for things in their holy books means choosing to fight it out on their home turf. I’d say just live your best life, and be kind when you can. The much-translated words of a bronze- or iron-age scribe writing up events he (always he) didn’t witness probably shouldn’t upset you. IMHO.
Sugar and Spiiice – TG Fiction by Bryony Marsh
That's The Best Advice
Leave those who have religious beliefs to their beliefs.
Don't engage them on their home turf.
Walk away.
Live your life as you want to, not as some mythical being (interpreted by humans) says you should.
mud wrestling with pigs
The difference between arguing about bible verses with a zealot
and wrestling a pig in the mud is that the latter can actually be fun!
I'll justify my life according to their holy book right after they explain
how their "lifestyle choices" are consistent with the principles espoused
in my Tao te Ching- a gorgeous little tome that's a wonderful guide on
how not to be a miserable judgmental uptight asshole. And while I can
be one of those myself, I'm sure I'd be even more of one without it.
There's 100s of religions on Earth (and lots of folks are fine
without any of them) so to expect everyone to kowtow
to yours seems arrogant to the point of insanity...
~muddy grunting wree-wreee hugs, Veronica
And remember...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLqzLEB3E0
Words in "Holy" books can be
Words in "Holy" books can be very dangerous.
You know that line (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live), was actually never included in the original Bible.
King James himself, (Who wrote the King James version) was extremely afraid of witches and pagans, and CHANGED the original text to serve his own purposes.
The original line was “Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live.” Which means murderer
In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m’khashepah to describe the person who should be killed.
This led to years of death and torture.
In the 1590s, King James I of Scotland's fear of witchcraft began stirring up national panics, resulting in the torture and death of thousands. Burning witches alive was common in Germany and other parts of Europe, but in Scotland the convicted were usually strangled before their bodies were burned.
Leeanna
LGBT prejudice
I prefer this quote:
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -- Anne Lamott