The Transgender Debate

[Postvieww]

The story of Soddom and Gomorrah isn't about the morality of homosexuality per se.

“Per se” means what to you in this context. Homosexuality was a factor that was rampant at that time. I am sure it was not the only issue but it was highlighted in the text. The Bible is not a weapon it is an answer.

 

[FireDragon76]

“Per se” means what to you in this context. Homosexuality was a factor that was rampant at that time. I am sure it was not the only issue but it was highlighted in the text. The Bible is not a weapon it is an answer.

It's a story about gang rape of strangers. Not really relevant to contemporary debates about homosexuality.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is simply untrue. Homosexual orientation isn't caused by ones upbringing.

I agree!

Hormones play a larger role in homosexual orientation than anything else. A homosexual can not
be changed to have heterosexual desires.

It's why the transgender claim that sexuality is a social construct falls on it's face.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree!

Hormones play a larger role in homosexual orientation than anything else. A homosexual can not
be changed to have heterosexual desires.

It's why the transgender claim that sexuality is a social construct falls on it's face.

Just keep in mind that sexuality and gender identity aren't the same thing

Also, the concept of something being "socially constructed" as been much misunderstood and/or abused all around. "Socially constructed" doesn't mean arbitrary, or having no basis in reality. It just means the fact we fit phenomena into particular conceptual categories is determined by society, and not by nature itself.

When people claim gender is socially constructed, they are really not making that controversial a statement. It certainly doesn't mean gender is arbitrary, but is the result of a complex process where people collectively construct the conceptual categories through which they will understand the world.

 

[Postvieww]

Just keep in mind that sexuality and gender identity aren't the same thing

Also, the concept of something being "socially constructed" as been much misunderstood and/or abused all around. "Socially constructed" doesn't mean arbitrary, or having no basis in reality. It just means the fact we fit phenomena into particular conceptual categories is determined by society, and not by nature itself.

When people claim gender is socially constructed, they are really not making that controversial a statement. It certainly doesn't mean gender is arbitrary, but is the result of a complex process where people collectively construct the conceptual categories through which they will understand the world.

Can we just simplify this. Gender is determined at birth. The fact that some people are confused when asked what a woman is , is a relatively new phenomenon. The push to confuse our young children with this madness is also a relatively new phenomenon. This new controversy is not rooted in science it is wokeness run amok. This also has a spiritual element which will upset the status quo and woke crowd.

 

[Postvieww]

A homosexual can not
be changed to have heterosexual desires.

False this can and has been done.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just keep in mind that sexuality and gender identity aren't the same thing

Also, the concept of something being "socially constructed" as been much misunderstood and/or abused all around. "Socially constructed" doesn't mean arbitrary, or having no basis in reality. It just means the fact we fit phenomena into particular conceptual categories is determined by society, and not by nature itself.

When people claim gender is socially constructed, they are really not making that controversial a statement. It certainly doesn't mean gender is arbitrary, but is the result of a complex process where people collectively construct the conceptual categories through which they will understand the world.

I disagree!

Sexual Identity is not separated from biological reality.

Transgenderism tries to do this and causes much damage to young people who
are confused about their own gender.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

False this can and has been done.

It happens only on the surface for a true homosexual, who denies their own desires.
Other's have a bisexual desire, but can develop a stronger desire for a partner of the
opposite sex.

The majority of homosexuals, are females. Male homosexuals make up a minority.

That being said, I have yet to hear how anal sex between males is natural. Heck,
any anal sex is unnatural.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The story of Soddom and Gomorrah isn't about the morality of homosexuality per se.

Or at all. It's a story about mob violence against visitors, and is there to demonstrate the stark contrast with how Abraham showed hospitality toward visitors. The angelic visitors came to Abraham, and he threw a feast for them, they were welcomed; when they went to Sodom the people of the city were so vile that they wanted to gang-rape them.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "homosexuality", but everything to do with a sharp contrast between godly hospitality and the vileness of Sodom. Which is why the Prophet Ezekiel tells us exactly what Sodom's sin was: she was wealthy and prosperous but mistreated the poor and the hungry.

Rabbinical commentaries on Sodom include a tradition where the Sodomites would offer a coin to a hungry visitor, but the coin was marked so that anyone selling would refuse to sell to the visitor. When the visitor died, from starvation or murder, they would come take that coin back. The tradition points to Sodom's abomination as a place where the stranger, the hungry, and the needy were treated with the most vile disdain, a total antithesis to God's commandments to Israel to be a people who welcome the stranger, provide food for the hungry, and help for the needy.

People need to stop reading the Bible as a weapon to use against marginalized people. Jesus himself didn't use that hermeneutic; he openly criticized that kind of religion.

In fact, Jesus used Sodom as an example of an inhospitable place, going so far as to speak of judgment on the cities who ran His followers out, saying "The people of Sodom will stand up in judgment against you" and "It will be better for those of Sodom on that day".

I've seen people make fun of saying that hospitality was key here, but that's only because in the modern West we don't have a cultural tradition of hospitality which the Middle East has had for thousands of years. And so the biblical ethic of hospitality, of showing welcome and kindness to strangers, of inviting the stranger in and feeding them, of providing for the needs of the stranger, is a foreign concept to us. And so the idea that hospitality could be something that important that God would have burned Sodom to the ground because of a barbaric antipathy toward the stranger doesn't make complete sense in the western mindset. But it makes complete sense in the mindset of the ancient Israelite.

Turning the story of Sodom into a story about homosexuality is a massive exegetical blunder that simply isn't how ancient Jews and early Christians read the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Of course we are to love and be compassionate. Christ died for all mankind. Being compassionate and loving is not getting into agreement with what God has said is wrong. Being compassionate and loving involves truth telling. Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery “ go and sin no more “. He was compassionate and loving but called the sin for what it was. You are right trans people are not some weird “other” . They are human beings who need Christ like every other human being. Being compassionate is not getting into agreement that this is normal God sanctioned behavior.

Question: How much do you know about the experiences of actual trans people, or the actual science and scientific work that's been done trying to understand gender dysphoria, and things of that nature.

How much of what you know about "transgenderism" comes from conservative media, and how much comes from objective investigation into the real lives and experiences and the science?

I don't know anywhere in my Bible that actually talks about trans people. I see people quote Genesis where it reads "male and female He made them" and see there something proscriptive; but the problem I have with that is it creates a massive disconnect between the Bible and objective reality. I don't think there should be a dissonance between God's word and objective reality, because I believe God's word speaks to and addresses objective reality. Objectively speaking, "male and female" simply isn't the kind of black and white matter some might think it is. Because, from a purely biological perspective, there are people who don't fit either category. I have often brought up cases of those who have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, these are persons who have a Y-chromosome and are therefore genetically male, but who do not develop male sex characteristics, they are born with female sex characteristics and develop secondary female sex characteristics during puberty. Such a person can live their entire life as a woman, and unless they had a genetic screening or invasive test done, there's simply no way they'd know they were genetically male. In the past they would simply have been classified as "barren" because a person with AIS doesn't have ovaries.

That's just one example of many examples. Now, here's the thing, the usual counter to this is: 1) That's not a transgender person, and I agree, that's not the point I'm making; and 2) such cases are outliers, they aren't the norm, but again, I also agree. To the second point, transgender persons are also a very tiny percentage of the population. We are talking about a very small part of the population who, for various reasons, simply do not conform to the "ordinary" male-female dynamic. Sometimes that's because of genetics, sometimes because of hormones, and sometimes it's because of brain chemistry (dysphoria). But the fact of the matter is that all these people exist, and demanding that they simply conform to what a certain part of the wider population demands based solely on ideological and, frankly, ignorant grounds doesn't communicate love, or even truth-telling, or abstaining from sin. It only communicates hate, fear, and othering. That they aren't deserving of the same respect, love, kindness and just being able to live as cis-het people do.

My Bible doesn't proscribe that a person be "male" or "female", and if they don't then they are living in sin. Rather I see the Bible offering a rather simple description of the ordinary, but not the exclusive, reality of the sexual binary that typically exists for reproductive purposes. Male and female, because that's how reproduction works in human beings and most (but not all) animals. Snails, for example, are not existing in sinful rebellion against God because they are hermaphrodites, that's just what they are.

If we are genuinely interested in taking the Bible seriously, and taking people seriously, then that means we can't just make up our own version of reality that makes us feel better about ourselves. It means we have to take the Bible seriously enough that we engage the world in truth and love. Truth and love being not what we want it to be, but what it is. It is not truth-telling to tell someone that they are an abomination when they are just existing; that is not what Jesus did to the woman caught in adultery. So using that simply doesn't work here.

So that is why, at the beginning of this post I asked how much have you done to actually look into this, rather than simply getting information from biased media sources and operating from a purely a priori set of assumptions and biases?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Richard.20.12]

I understand the Old Testament through an historical-critical lens. I don't see it as eternal truths about God for all peoples for all time. It reflects a particular time and culture, and their experiences of God.

So you skip over passages you don't like. I see. How would you like it if you took the time to put together a carefully written book and some of the readers just skipped passages, all of which were integral to the whole? I notice you don't like being specific when you communicate so you can't be pinned down and so you're not taking a stand on anything. I see that a lot in dead churches. Basically its how they survive a waning congregation. They're so afraid of saying no to someone's actions for fear of losing their donations every Sunday. Yet Jesus warned us He was a doubled edged sword. We shouldn't be overly cautious of representing what the Word says. Be courageous like a Fire Dragon, whatever that is. I'm not into gaming so I'm clueless.

 

[Richard.20.12]

If you interpret that using the implied hermeneutic, then no women can be saved.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Richard.20.12]

God dealt with sin differently in the OT. But what constitutes sin then is still sin today. Jesus will take our sin and cast into the sea of forgetfulness if we just give it over to Him. God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the reasons He did then change His mind and say ok have your fun it’s all ok now. Jesus is the answer but Christian’s just treating this problem as just an alternate life style is not the answer.

"what constitutes sin then is still sin today." Exactly! Its still wrong and the Old Testament still acts as our guide for almost every aspect of life today. Which only makes sense of course. Why would God write the Old Testament and then toss it aside later? That makes no sense at all and doesn't respect the Lord.

 

[Richard.20.12]

The story of Soddom and Gomorrah isn't about the morality of homosexuality per se.

People need to stop reading the Bible as a weapon to use against marginalized people. Jesus himself didn't use that hermeneutic; he openly criticized that kind of religion.

Hah! I knew this was coming. Another poster said the same thing. Honestly its sad when intelligent people, and FireDragon76 is obviously far above average in intelligence, use that gift to wiggle out of scriptural responsibility, which is really what this is. The Bible is clear but some user their intellect to try to avoid acknowledging the difficult parts. Like a lawyer skillfully defending a client they know is wrong. It will make them sick later knowing he/she went free and can hurt other people because of it. We all have our talents but its how we use them that is so crucial in this life.

So now gay people are marginalized. I see. I suppose pedos are next. Then shoplifters, thieves and thugs. It never ends. Is there anything you see around you that you acknowledge is wrong besides "judgemental people" as you probably assume people like me are when we take a stand on something that makes you uncomfortable?

 

[Richard.20.12]

For FireDragon
> This is about not embracing a death-dealing biblical hermeneutic, with our kids as human sacrifices.

I'd love to know what you mean by this. I find it perplexing. Please explain.

> Human beings are not infallible interpreters of the Bible.

I think we'd all agree with that. But that doesn't mean you don't take the Bible seriously. A lot of people just bring up the interpretation problem as a reason to ignore many passages that would mean they would have to change something in their life that they stubbornly refuse to do. Its an excuse, plain and simple. You can read the same passage with different translations to get a very good idea of its meaning. Its not difficult. Hey, we all wish we grew up speaking Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek!

> Whatever happened to letting the Holy Spirit work on people?

How would you propose to do that or let that happen? Most would want to set a good example, be patient with them, show them the Word that shows their error but in a way that doesn't seem draconian, but in the end its up to them. They're living a life of misery. You'd think they'd want to raise themselves up.

> Why does it have to be coercing and manipulating gay people into a particular model of life that obviously doesn't suit them?

Is anyone here recommending coercion or manipulation? We're not proposing concentration camps! Just standards in churches. So a guy in drag is not let in but is welcomed when he dresses like a sane individual. Mainly its because of the children in the church. The adults are not so easily influenced. So schools are not a place for drag shows. So libraries are not filled with filth.

 

[Richard.20.12]

Or at all. It's a story about mob violence against visitors, and is there to demonstrate the stark contrast with how Abraham showed hospitality toward visitors. The angelic visitors came to Abraham, and he threw a feast for them, they were welcomed; when they went to Sodom the people of the city were so vile that they wanted to gang-rape them.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "homosexuality", but everything to do with a sharp contrast between godly hospitality and the vileness of Sodom. Which is why the Prophet Ezekiel tells us exactly what Sodom's sin was: she was wealthy and prosperous but mistreated the poor and the hungry.

Rabbinical commentaries on Sodom include a tradition where the Sodomites would offer a coin to a hungry visitor, but the coin was marked so that anyone selling would refuse to sell to the visitor. When the visitor died, from starvation or murder, they would come take that coin back. The tradition points to Sodom's abomination as a place where the stranger, the hungry, and the needy were treated with the most vile disdain, a total antithesis to God's commandments to Israel to be a people who welcome the stranger, provide food for the hungry, and help for the needy.



In fact, Jesus used Sodom as an example of an inhospitable place, going so far as to speak of judgment on the cities who ran His followers out, saying "The people of Sodom will stand up in judgment against you" and "It will be better for those of Sodom on that day".

I've seen people make fun of saying that hospitality was key here, but that's only because in the modern West we don't have a cultural tradition of hospitality which the Middle East has had for thousands of years. And so the biblical ethic of hospitality, of showing welcome and kindness to strangers, of inviting the stranger in and feeding them, of providing for the needs of the stranger, is a foreign concept to us. And so the idea that hospitality could be something that important that God would have burned Sodom to the ground because of a barbaric antipathy toward the stranger doesn't make complete sense in the western mindset. But it makes complete sense in the mindset of the ancient Israelite.

Turning the story of Sodom into a story about homosexuality is a massive exegetical blunder that simply isn't how ancient Jews and early Christians read the text.

-CryptoLutheran

Wow I never realized Sodom should have been called Inhospitable City. Silly me! I wonder where the word Sodom came from? Definitely from the Latin "inhospitable". That makes sense. It wouldn't happen to mean SODOMIZING men would it? Of course not. Why would it? Its only the same word there. How about all the other areas of the Bible that condemn male to male sex? Are you going to intellectually wiggle out of those ones too?

I'll make sure I have enough finger food at the next house party so the guests don't want to stone me.
Is there no common sense anymore? Let's change "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shall be nicer". That'll work.
You're reading what you want to read, what you feel will make you appear agreeable to those around you. Its time for a spine. Life is so much better with one.

 

[Richard.20.12]

To CryptoLutheran
> I don't know anywhere in my Bible that actually talks about trans people.

That's because what gives way to trans behavior/homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. "Lie with a man" is pretty clear. And there was no trans surgery 2000+ years ago though they might have tried with horrific consequences. The Bible is a hetero book from cover to cover.
There is not one example of gay life that is not condemned.
And yes there may be biological abnormalities today but everyone knows this is extremely rare. And God provides solutions for those that seek them. Celibacy is not the end of the world. Many examples of that are in the Bible in both Old and New Testaments. Celibacy can be a very peaceful way to live. It has distinct advantages just as married life does.
Probably all the junk food, drugs (and possibly vaccines but who knows?) that people ingest today are messing up the biology of a few.
The facts are that the vast majority of gay people were abused sexually early in life and this traumatized them and distorted their perception of sexuality and they didn't get over it. Or they were raised in a very unbalanced household with little to no fatherly influence and a mother that smothered them so females later alienate them.

Most women remark how good looking so many gay men are. This is no accident. Good looking people get noticed and those that get noticed are far more likely to get abused. So it does make sense in a tragic way.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wow I never realized Sodom should have been called Inhospitable City. Silly me! I wonder where the word Sodom came from? Definitely from the Latin "inhospitable". That makes sense. It wouldn't happen to mean SODOMIZING men would it? Of course not. Why would it? Its only the same word there. How about all the other areas of the Bible that condemn male to male sex? Are you going to intellectually wiggle out of those ones too?

You've got your etymology backward. The word "sodomy" is an English word that is taken from the name of the city, based on the late idea that Sodom's big problem was sexual deviance, including (but not exclusively) homosexuality.

I'll make sure I have enough finger food at the next house party so the guests don't want to stone me.
Is there no common sense anymore? Let's change "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shall be nicer". That'll work.
You're reading what you want to read, what you feel will make you appear agreeable to those around you. Its time for a spine. Life is so much better with one.

As I mentioned in my previous post, we westerners have a hard time conceiving how hospitality could be such an important concept biblically and int he ancient near east. But feel free to do your own homework on this subject. But Scripture is clear what Sodom's issue was, as written in Ezekiel 16:49-50. Likewise rabbinic commentary points to the same, such as in Pirkei Avot 5:10,

"There are four types of people: One who says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" is a boor. One who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" — this is a median characteristic; others say that this is the character of a Sodomite. One who says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" is a chassid (pious person). And one who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine" is wicked."

In the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 109a, we see several references to Sodom's sin, all relate to Sodom's pride, arrogance, and mistreatment of travelers, such as here,

"The people of Sodom said: Since we live in a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold, we have everything that we need. Why do we need travelers, as they come only to divest us of our property? Come, let us cause the proper treatment of travelers to be forgotten from our land, as it is stated: “He breaks open a watercourse in a place far from inhabitants, forgotten by pedestrians, they are dried up, they have moved away from men”"

According to St. John Chrysostom, the abundance of luxuries and gratifying the gluttonous appetites of the flesh by the elite is routinely the cause of judgment and destruction,

"For indeed both Adam by the incontinence of the belly was cast out of paradise; and the flood in Noah's time, this produced; and this brought down the thunders on Sodom. For although there was also a charge of whoredom, nevertheless from this grew the root of each of those punishments; which Ezekiel also signified when he said, "But this was the iniquity of Sodom, that she waxed wanton in pride and in fullness of bread, and in abundance of luxury."" - Homily 13 on Matthew, 2

"Would you that I bring before you those [that live] in luxury? Let us ascend from the last to the first. The rich man who is burning in the furnace; the Jews who live for the belly, "whose god is their belly" Philippians 3:19, who were ever seeking ease in the wilderness, were destroyed; as also those in Sodom, on account of their gluttony; and those in the time of Noah, was it not because they chose this soft and dissolute life? For "they luxuriated," it says, "in fullness of bread." Ezekiel 16:49 It speaks of those in Sodom. But if "fullness of bread" wrought so great evil, what should we say of other delicacies? Esau, was not he in ease? And what of those who being of "the sons of God" Genesis 6:2, looked on women, and were borne down the precipice? And what of those who were maddened by inordinate lust? And all the kings of the nations, of the Babylonians, of the Egyptians, did they not perish miserably? Are they not in torment?" - Homily 29 on Hebrews, 4

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

So you skip over passages you don't like. I see. How would you like it if you took the time to put together a carefully written book and some of the readers just skipped passages, all of which were integral to the whole? I notice you don't like being specific when you communicate so you can't be pinned down and so you're not taking a stand on anything.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian. It's that simple. I see no reason to accept a Fundamentalist hermeneutic of the Bible.

I see that a lot in dead churches. Basically its how they survive a waning congregation. They're so afraid of saying no to someone's actions for fear of losing their donations every Sunday. Yet Jesus warned us He was a doubled edged sword. We shouldn't be overly cautious of representing what the Word says. Be courageous like a Fire Dragon, whatever that is. I'm not into gaming so I'm clueless.

I'm not into gaming, either. It refers to the year I was born in.

 

[FireDragon76]

You've got your etymology backward. The word "sodomy" is an English word that is taken from the name of the city, based on the late idea that Sodom's big problem was sexual deviance, including (but not exclusively) homosexuality.



As I mentioned in my previous post, we westerners have a hard time conceiving how hospitality could be such an important concept biblically and int he ancient near east. But feel free to do your own homework on this subject. But Scripture is clear what Sodom's issue was, as written in Ezekiel 16:49-50. Likewise rabbinic commentary points to the same, such as in Pirkei Avot 5:10,

"There are four types of people: One who says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" is a boor. One who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" — this is a median characteristic; others say that this is the character of a Sodomite. One who says, "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" is a chassid (pious person). And one who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine" is wicked."

In the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 109a, we see several references to Sodom's sin, all relate to Sodom's pride, arrogance, and mistreatment of travelers, such as here,

"The people of Sodom said: Since we live in a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold, we have everything that we need. Why do we need travelers, as they come only to divest us of our property? Come, let us cause the proper treatment of travelers to be forgotten from our land, as it is stated: “He breaks open a watercourse in a place far from inhabitants, forgotten by pedestrians, they are dried up, they have moved away from men”"

According to St. John Chrysostom, the abundance of luxuries and gratifying the gluttonous appetites of the flesh by the elite is routinely the cause of judgment and destruction,

"For indeed both Adam by the incontinence of the belly was cast out of paradise; and the flood in Noah's time, this produced; and this brought down the thunders on Sodom. For although there was also a charge of whoredom, nevertheless from this grew the root of each of those punishments; which Ezekiel also signified when he said, "But this was the iniquity of Sodom, that she waxed wanton in pride and in fullness of bread, and in abundance of luxury."" - Homily 13 on Matthew, 2

"Would you that I bring before you those [that live] in luxury? Let us ascend from the last to the first. The rich man who is burning in the furnace; the Jews who live for the belly, "whose god is their belly" Philippians 3:19, who were ever seeking ease in the wilderness, were destroyed; as also those in Sodom, on account of their gluttony; and those in the time of Noah, was it not because they chose this soft and dissolute life? For "they luxuriated," it says, "in fullness of bread." Ezekiel 16:49 It speaks of those in Sodom. But if "fullness of bread" wrought so great evil, what should we say of other delicacies? Esau, was not he in ease? And what of those who being of "the sons of God" Genesis 6:2, looked on women, and were borne down the precipice? And what of those who were maddened by inordinate lust? And all the kings of the nations, of the Babylonians, of the Egyptians, did they not perish miserably? Are they not in torment?" - Homily 29 on Hebrews, 4

-CryptoLutheran

Those are all good points. You are right, it's hard for a western person to understand the story of Soddom and Gomorrah being about hospitality, or the lack thereof. Hospitality is still an important value in Middle Eastern cultures, with attention being given to the concept of ibn-al-sabeel, a "son of the road", a traveler that is vulnerable or in need.