What do you think of this biblical argument that is FOR being transgendered?
"Matthew 19:12 - For there are some eunuchs, who were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, who were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Many interpretations of this passage have arisen. Some believe it is a discussion of voluntary celibacy, but the fact that Christ mentions people born that way indicates to me a birth condition. Some have also interpreted this to mean gays, which doesn't seem out of the question. However, I think the most literal interpretation would include intersexed (born that way) and transsexual persons (made that way). Regardless of interpretation, the main point is that anyone able to receive the Kingdom of Heaven may ...do so.
"Mark 9:43-47 - If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell."
Many interpretations of this passage have arisen as well. While it is rarely taken as a literal exhortation, it does seem to say that your bodily form does not matter, and that altering it will not exclude you from entering heaven.
Much of the Deuteronomic code is not followed these days, because many of the laws are ridiculous by current moral standards. Still, those with a political agenda, whether pro or con on an issue, often pick and choose passages that back up their claims, ignoring the fact that the passages appear amidst a lot of other stuff that seems ridiculous today.
Take a look at the miscellaneous rules which follow Deuteronomy 22:5--
* A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
* Don't take a mother bird from her nest.
* Put a rail around your roof so no one falls off.
* Don't plant crops with vines.
* Don't hitch oxen and donkeys together.
* Don't wear cloth combined of wool and linen.
* Sew tassels on four corners of clothes.
* If a man marries a girl, but later doesn't want her and claims she wasn't a virgin, her parents are to bring blood stained wedding sheet to the leaders, who are to beat him and make him give 500 silver pieces to the father, and he can't divorce her. If the husband's claims are true, she's to be stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house.
* Men who have sex with others' fiancees are to be killed along with the fiancee. However, if it happens in the country, you should just kill the man, since no one could have heard the woman cry out.
* Raping single girls requires payment of 50 silver pieces to her father and marriage with no divorce.
* No sex with any of father's wives.
Being forced to marry your rapist, polygamy, stoning people to death... not exactly civilized by modern standards. Just as strange today is sewing tassels on your clothes or putting a rail around your roof.
As I mentioned earlier, the Hebrews were deeply invested in distinction and separation. Their dietary laws are about categories, and most unclean animals do not fit into an acceptable category. For instance, Jews can't mix dairy and meat. Rules against pork are because pigs have cloven hooves but don't chew a cud, thus are not neatly categorized. Only water creatures with fins and scales may be eaten-- no shrimp or frogs, etc.
Biblical scholars have commented that the laws above about mixing crops, livestock and fabrics are manifestation of this fierce urge to maintain distinctions. Think of other common phrases from the Bible: separate the sheep from the goats, or the wheat from the chaff...
The Hebrews were heavily invested in maintaining a distinction between their beliefs and the beliefs of those they conquered. This meant in part a very distinct separation of sexes.
However, there are numerous passages about people who blur these distinctions: eunuchs.
@R - Thanks for your insite! I'll work harder at bettering it.
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
1st passage - "Eunich" does not mean homosexual or transgendered. A eunich is a man who is castrated at a young age to eliminate his sexual desire, so that he may serve God without allowing his sexual desires to distract him. People can be born without a functioning reproductive system, and people were well aware of this possibility back when the Bible was written.
2nd passage - I think what this is saying is to remove from your life things that are causing you to turn away from God, even if they are seen as important or essential, like an arm or foot. If someone's only means of income were stealing, for example, a pastor reading that passage might tell them to quit their job and live in poverty to avoid burning in Hell.
Unless you're a fundamentalist, I really can't see any good argument arising from that passage for the writers literally condoning self-mutilation.
3rd passage - I totally agree with you about the Hebrews maintaining a distinction between their beliefs and the beliefs of those who they conquered. Another common issue back when the books of the Bible were written was hygiene. The Hebrews learned over time what to do and what to avoid in order to stay healthy, and they used their religion to enforce these health rules. People are more likely to follow a rule if they think it comes from the god that they believe in than if it's just a law from the government that nobody is going to be able to enforce.
What I'm really not seeing from these arguments is how being transgendered would be condoned by the Christian religion, but I really don't see how it could be condemned either. As far as I was aware, Christians are allowed to do whatever they want to their body, be it plastic surgery, tattoos, etc. Then again, you really can argue just about anything using a very unclearly written book from over 2000 years ago.Source(s): former Religion major
- 9 years ago
I did not read that whole thing, sorry, but from I did read, I agree with @R. A eunich is not a transsexual or a homosexual, but rather an asexual, whether born that way or by having, ahem, body modifications to remove sexual desires and distractions. Makes perfect sense to me
- Anonymous9 years ago
Transsexual people aren't eunuchs though
- ѕкιттℓєѕLv 69 years ago
Yeah, I'm not reading that.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Religion is stupid and homosexuality is disgusting. Humans are better off without them.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Trannys and shemales are f'ing NASTY! and should be burned alive!...they will go to hell.