/soy/ - Soyjaks

I respect that you may be skeptical of my position, due to its unusual nature. I respect skepticism, and I fully encourage you to apply great care, discernment, and skepticism to the advice I am offering you. I am, after all, a total stranger, and the only reason you have to trust me is that I profess the faith.


Well, perhaps that’s not quite true. I come to you with more than that. As you’ll see, I come with the Word of God, and almost all of what I tell you will be things you can check on simply by opening up your Bible.


So, as a servant of God, let me offer you the truth as best I know it.


You’ve no doubt heard men say that “transgender ideology” is leading people away from God. You’ve no doubt heard men say that gay men and lesbians are living in cherished sin, and that their lives are incompatible with faithfulness to God.


I don’t believe that. I believe that these men are either false prophets, wicked men, or else deeply misled by those who are. I believe that to teach these things is to bury the keys to the Kingdom of God, and to drive people away from the faith. I believe that God not only accepts His trans children, not only loves them, but actually approves of them. I believe the same of His gay and lesbian children.

I intend to prove these things, to the best of my ability. I do not intend to cut away from the Law. I intend to show it in its true light. I have known many “progressive Christians” who simply choose to ignore inconvenient parts of the Bible. I think the same of these people as I do of those who preach against God’s lesbian, gay, and trans children - that they are either false prophets, wicked men, or else deeply misled by those who are. We should and must respect the Word of God as it is given to us, and to refuse to do so is a grave error.


Before I go on proving anything, however, I want to reassure you of something: I don’t believe that being honestly and genuinely wrong about something is, by itself, enough to keep anyone out of Heaven. I believe that, so long as we trust in the Lord, He will forgive us of all our mistakes, all our errors, all our wrongness. If I’m wrong about trans, lesbian, and gay people, I will accept that, and I fully believe He will accept me, with due correction. If the people I mentioned honestly believe what they believe, and they turn out to be wrong, I believe that He will forgive them too, if they repent of that and agree to be corrected.


Indeed, I intend to prove even that very statement - that God is willing to accept us despite our honest mistakes. I’ll do that now, before we delve into the other issues, because it involves discussing truths that will help us discuss the other issues. A lot of this may well be old news to you, but I want to be able to refer back to it, and I’ve always been taught to present a complete argument, so I will do exactly that.


Explaining this, and some of the other ideas, will take quite some time. Please bear with me. I’ll provide headings from here on in so you can cross-reference and review things more easily.

snca bait

Let’s start by having a quick look at what might be the most famous verse in the entire New Testament. (Unless otherwise specified, all English quotations will be from the ESV.)


Better yet, let’s look at it in context.


“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” - John 3:16-21


Let’s exegete this passage. (I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the word. Just in case, I’ll mention that ‘exegete’ means ‘extract meaning from.’) In plainer English, this passage means basically this:


Everyone who believes in Christ gets to live forever - ‘go to Heaven’ is the common phrase and captures the general idea, even if it’s not strictly and literally accurate because we’ll actually be living on a new Earth after the Resurrection, so I’ll just say ‘go to Heaven.’ There’s the definite suggestion that this is easier through professed faith in Christ, but the word ‘name’ in the Bible has a broader meaning than in modern English, and is commonly used to mean something closer to ‘reputation’ or even ‘inner nature.’ This is clarified immediately thereafter: the separation is between people who love darkness and light.


This gives us a good hint as to who is and is not going to Heaven. We’re actually not allowed to judge specific people in this respect, but one of the interesting parts is that there's a definite hint here that some people who aren’t professed Christians might still go to Heaven. We also get a good general guideline: people who ‘love the Light’ will go to Heaven.


What we cannot do with this verse is say, as so many people do, that the Bible says that all professed Christians will go to Heaven:


“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” - Matthew 7:21-23


Naturally, that’s a very scary idea. I’ve had more than a little bit of worry about this passage myself.

However, we do have some good guidelines:


“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” - John 13:34-35


“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” - Matthew 7:15-10


(Okay but what fruits?)


“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” - Galatians 5:22-23


“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1


Okay, that was a whole lot of quotations at once. Let's break it down.


Oh, quick side note: With the sole exception of the Galatians quote, every last word I have cited so far is a direct quotation from Jesus Christ.


Okay, now let's break it down.


Jesus recognizes his disciples as the ones who love each other.
We can also recognize people who are on good terms with God by the “fruits” they have. The ones we want are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Hey, there's love again!)
Jesus will judge us based on how we judge other people.

That last one almost seems to contradict the others, but let's look at it a little harder. If we are really people who love our fellow disciples, who have (or at least want, down in our souls, to have) joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, then we will inevitably want as many people to go to Heaven as possible,so long as they aren’t the kind of hateful and unrepentant people who would make it not really meaningfully Heaven.


The main point is that we should be as permissive as possible to our fellow Christians in terms of getting into Heaven. We should want everyone to be the kind of people who can, even if not everyone is. The correct theological position on ‘who can go to Heaven’ is the most permissive one that can logically work.


That means that God accepts our honest mistakes, even ones that, if we were doing them while genuinely believing they were wrong, would be cherished sins that might keep us from being able to repent.


God knows that we're doing our best. God knows that we're not perfect. God knows that we will sometimes have the wrong ideas about Him. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests that He will punish us for honest mistakes in doctrine. He wants us to be happy, healthy, good creatures. He's not going to throw us away over a mistake that He can correct.

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

At this point, we can't go any further until we understand what God is actually doing with us - until we understand the fundamental process that underlies Christianity, the Cross, and the Resurrection. This is both so we can understand what ‘a mistake that He can correct’ is, and so that we can examine the Pauline epistles and the Old Testament in the correct context.


Let's start with Jesus talking about sexy women.


“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” - Matthew 5:27-30


Most of this chapter is taken up with passages that are parallel to this one, where Jesus basically takes the commandments and applies them much more broadly than they originally are, culminating in Him saying, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”


Let's dig into that.


Jesus just said we literally have to be perfect. We’re doomed. None of us are perfect. (See Proverbs 20:9, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:23, James 3:2, 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10, etc.) We’re all going to Hell.


That's obviously not true. Let's try again.


What if this isn't a standard we have to meet? What if Jesus isn't being prescriptive, but descriptive? What if He's trying to show us what we are, not tell us what we have to do?


Jesus is deliberately setting an impossible standard for us here. He's basically saying, ‘This is what you'd have to do to be good enough on your own.’ He's saying that if your eye leads you to sin, cut it out - but He is actually doing something extremely clever by doing so. He's trying to get us to learn something through realization - through reading this passage, being challenged by it, thinking about it, and realizing what the real lesson is. And that lesson is that your eye doesn't lead you to sin. Your heart does - or, more precisely, your brain does.


In other words, he's saying that we can't do this on our own. We need help. The problem with us isn't that we're not following the six-hundred-some-odd commandments in the Old Testament. The problem is that we're the kind of people who don't love each other the way we (should) love ourselves. That's why the mark of his disciples is love. That's why he says this:


“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 22:36-40, partial


What God wants to do with us is rewire our brains so that we can love Him, each other, and ourselves the way we’re supposed to - so that we can genuinely and wholeheartedly want what’s best for everyone. All of this Christianity business is mostly just God preparing as many people as possible to be okay with that exact proposition, because He won't do it without our consent.


That's why He wants us to love Him and each other - because it makes us more likely to accept the rewiring, because we already want to be capable of that perfect love. That's why He doesn't want us to judge each other - because if we refuse to give up our judgmental natures, that's incompatible with the rewiring, because we'd be refusing to love “those people” - those people that are going to be in Heaven, so we’d better be willing to forgive them their trespasses as God has forgiven us. That's why he wants us to be forbearing, kind, good, faithful, and gentle - because those traits make us more willing to be rewired.


This is also why it's perfectly possible and even likely that many non-Christians will get to Heaven. When presented with “hey, I'm God, here’s what I want to do with your brain, you want in?”, it's entirely possible that many non-Christians will accept the deal. However, it's more likely that a given person will accept it if they're already headed that way in life, which is why Christianity is important to begin with.

Now that we have a solid picture of how salvation works, let’s apply it back to being trans, gay, and/or a lesbian. Jesus Christ specifically said that there is only one unforgivable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31). This is commonly understood to be a refusal to believe in God - or, in our understanding, a refusal to accept the rewiring. Even if being trans, gay, and/or a lesbian is a sin, we can therefore know for certain that God will forgive this sin if the sinner repents.


So, the worst possible scenario is that someone is wrong, and has to eat some humble pie before going to Heaven.


Let’s move on to seeing if that’s the situation we’re in.

Let's start with transition, because there's less ground to cover.


There are three main arguments used to assert that gender transition is prohibited by God: An argument from Genesis 1:27, an argument from Deuteronomy 22:5, and, to be frank, a completely unbiblical argument surrounding the concept of natal sex.

Argument from Natal Sex
Let's start with the unbiblical one. The argument is usually phrased as “God doesn't make mistakes.”


This is literally true, but says absolutely nothing about trans people. The argument is intrinsically incomplete. To get from “God doesn’t make mistakes” to “God doesn't want people to transition,” we must go through several other steps. These steps generally go unstated by people making this argument, either because the arguer has not noticed this fact, or because they know that the full argument is very easy to defeat.


Here’s the form of the full argument.


“God doesn’t make mistakes, and God personally decides exactly how all children develop in the womb, and God wants all children to remain exactly as they developed, without any medical or surgical intervention. Therefore, you should not medically transition, because God wants your body to stay the way it was when you were born.”


That’s the minimum argument that covers trans people without specifically calling out trans people before the conclusion. Every premise in it is necessary to prove the conclusion, and we cannot mention trans people in any of the premises because doing so amounts to a circular argument: “God doesn’t want you to medically transition because God doesn’t want you to medically transition.” That’s an obvious fallacy.


So, let’s examine each of these premises.


God doesn’t make mistakes: Correct. Inarguable. Biblical fact.


God personally decides exactly how all children develop in the womb: Possible, but unlikely. God certainly chooses to control some aspects of how some people are born, but God is benevolent, and does not generally wish for people to suffer. While God is willing to permit things like birth defects to exist for various reasons related to the nature of sin and the demonstration of the necessity of His salvific work, it is far more likely that He merely permits these things to exist according to the laws of nature of our present Universe, which is broken by nature due to the sin of Adam and Eve. (Theodicy is a complex topic which I’m not going to dive into right now.) I personally actually believe that some people are made trans by God, with the expectation that they will transition, because it is part of how He wants them to develop as people, but I can’t prove this and it’s not relevant.


God wants all children to remain exactly as they developed, without any medical or surgical intervention: Inarguably false. This idea directly contradicts numerous passages in the Bible, including multiple instances of Christ healing people, and His words in Matthew 12 asserting directly that it is always lawful to heal someone. This argument isn’t just wrong. This argument is blasphemy.


Therefore, the “God doesn't make mistakes” argument against gender transition is blasphemous, heretical, and unacceptable.

Literally zero people read this snca

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” - Genesis 1:27


The argument here is in two parts:


First, that nonbinary identities are invalid because the text does not mention them.
Second, that God created male and female people, and that He did so according precisely to their natal sex, and that gender transition is forbidden because this natal-sex-based strict binary is immutable for each person, ordained by God for each person, and must not be changed.

To begin with, the second part of this argument is blatantly unsupported by the text. Nothing in the text of this verse remotely suggests that human beings are made male or female according to their natal sex, that they should not change their natal sex, nor anything else suggested in the second part of the argument. All of these premises are blatantly made up. Let’s look at Deuteronomy 4:2 to see how God feels about that:


“You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.”


Oh my, is this argument heretical too? Yes. Yes it is.


Well, at least the second part is. Let's see if there's any hope for the first part. Male and female, right? No in between. (This is not scientifically correct, because of the existence of intersex disorders, but we’ll focus on just the Bible for now.)


First off, let me just say this. We’re going to have to find some kind of actual evidence in favor of the ‘no non-binary people’ argument in order to accept it as non-heretical. Ambiguity isn’t acceptable, because of Deuteronomy 4:2. The burden of proof is on the anti-trans position.


Let’s give this verse some context. I’m just going to cut this down a bit, because the full chapter is like a whole page by itself, so let’s just look at an abbreviated list of stuff God created - specifically stuff that’s contrasted in sets from one another.


Light and darkness
Day and night
Sky, sea, and land
Creatures of the sky (e.g. birds), land, and sea
Male and female humans

This is where I must mention that, by the grace of God, I was blessed to attend a Lutheran university, at which I studied Biblical Hebrew. I am familiar both with the language and with the conventions of its literature and poetry. Hebrew poetry is fond of parallel passages, of the “rhyming of ideas,” so to speak, and of certain repetitive structures.


In other words, Hebrew poetry has rules. And according to the rules of Hebrew poetry, all of the sets of things listed above are intended to be parallel to one another. They mirror one another, at least in every sense that matters to the poem. If one set is a strict binary (or otherwise fully distinct), all of them should be, if that’s relevant to the theological point of the poem. If any of them aren’t strict binaries, then that means that a strict binary is not the point of the poem, and that's not part of the message. That would mean there is no evidence here to support the transphobic position, and saying that there is such evidence is heresy.


Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s see if any of these things transition from one state to another.

So, let’s go down the list:


Light and darkness: Not a strict binary. Shadows exist, and they don't even have strict edges. The penumbra of a shadow is a gradual transition from full illumination to the relatively complete darkness of the umbra, and even then, nearly all (or all) shadows are not completely dark. Lightness and darkness exist on a continuous sliding scale, with no strict binary to be found. Indeed, one can find situations where two people cannot even agree if an area is bright or dark. If I were to intrude on a sleeping person in a dark room, having come in straight from full daylight, and switched on a single light bulb in the room, I could easily still think of the room as dark, while the former sleeper would think of it as bright.


Day and night: Not a strict binary. Sunset exists. Night and day change into one another - a form of transition. Even ambiguous cases exist. When does night begin, exactly? When the Sun begins to dip below the horizon? When it is halfway? When it is finished? When the sky turns dark blue? Black? When the stars become visible? If night begins when the Sun is no longer visible, does that mean that night begins later on a mountain than in a valley, or at the top of a skyscraper than at the bottom? If the night begins at a certain level of darkness, does the weather affect this? This is a fuzzy boundary indeed.


Sea and land: Not a strict binary. Wetlands and sandbars exist. So do beaches. Sandbars are temporary by nature, transitioning between land and sea. Beaches are arguably neither land nor sea, or at least the part of them that is currently being washed by the waves and then exposed to the air every few seconds. Is a saltwater swamp land or sea? If the parts of it that are liquid are sea, then when exactly does mud turn from land to sea? If there is a strict binary, why do we have a word for mud at all? Why do we understand it as being neither strictly ground nor strictly water?


Creatures of the sky, land, and sea: Not a strict binary. Ducks, penguins, frogs, sea turtles, and beavers exist. Several animals, such as sea turtles, must begin life as one type of creature and turn into another, such as sea turtle eggs needing to be laid and hatched on land before taking to the sea, or caterpillars transforming into butterflies and taking to the air, or ant queens that fly only once in their lives and live underground before and after. A less extreme example is frogs, which spend most of their time on land but begin life as tadpoles, which must remain in the water until they mature. Flying squirrels are capable of gliding, but not powered flight - how should we classify them?


Not all of the items in this list are strict, immutable binaries, which is the burden of proof that the anti-trans argument must meet. In fact, there is not a single strict binary in this list, except that the sky is arguably fully distinct from the land and sea. Further, many of the listed categories do transition from one to another. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to even suspect that this passage is meant to imply or enforce a strict gender binary or to forbid gender transition. As such, arguing this is heretical.

Argument from Deuteronomy 22:5
The argument from Deuteronomy 22:5 is the most difficult to defeat, so I saved it for last. The verse in question:


“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”


So, first off, this is a circular argument if we’re trying to use it on trans people. It takes the following form: “You aren’t a woman, because that requires wearing women’s clothes, which is not allowed because you aren’t a woman.”


Thus, the argument cannot apply at all to trans people. If anything, someone trying to force a trans woman into men’s clothing would be violating the commandment.


Let’s go further, though, because this commandment probably doesn’t actually have any legal force on Christians whatsoever.


This commandment is in a section of the Bible that contains many commandments prohibiting certain religious practices that were common among other religions in the regions around ancient Israel. This was to create a sense of religious distinctiveness - to give neighboring peoples the idea of ‘oh, hey, this religion is really something new’ - and to prevent syncretism - basically just making the one and living God into a member of a larger pantheon. The idea there is that if you stop people from doing the same stuff as in other religions, it’s harder to mash the religions together. There were a lot of rituals involving crossdressing - and, indeed, male prostitution - in the religions around Ancient Israel. (This will be very important later on as well.)


Thus, it’s quite likely that this commandment wasn’t intended to prohibit crossdressing per se, but instead to prohibit specific cultic practices. Even if it was intended to prohibit crossdressing, it’s far more likely that this was to prevent men from dodging the Ancient Israelite Draft and to keep women from doing Designated Dude Stuff (mainly entering the Temple) than it was to prevent any kind of trans or trans-adjacent activity.

If this is true, then even conservative theology would have to accept that the law no longer applies, and it certainly seems to make sense to do so. Other commandments in this same chapter include putting parapets on all house roofs, not planting multiple crops in a given field, plowing with a donkey and an ox, not wearing clothes made of wool and linen, and putting tassels on your clothes. About half of those are references to other cultic rituals having to do with magic - and notably, the crossdressing commandment is in with those, and not in the section right after about sexual immorality.


So, it’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation to say that this commandment doesn’t apply at all, and it is not reasonable to apply it to trans people wearing gender-affirming clothing. A person can see cis (i.e., not-trans) crossdressers as violating this commandment, but they’re probably wrong, and they’re definitely not allowed to go beyond gently cautioning them that they might be doing something wrong, since their argument is very weak to begin with. Judging them for it or, say, kicking them out of the church, is actively forbidden.


Beyond that, it is worth noting that cultural standards about what clothes are appropriate for which genders change over time, so any attempt to apply this commandment in any cultural context other than that of Ancient Israel would require guessing at what it means for a given society, which is an unacceptable practice in any serious theology.


So, we’ve found zero evidence that the Bible has anything to say against trans people. Is that it? Are we done?


No. Now we need to talk about the verses that affirm trans and nonbinary identities.

Wait, what? The Bible supports trans people’s existence? Am I serious?


I’m dead serious.


Let’s start with Deuteronomy 23:1.


“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.”


Okay, ouch. But let’s think about what this means.


In the cultures of the Ancient Near East, especially in Babylon, eunuchs were, broadly speaking, considered a third gender - a non-binary identity, in other words. This understanding was not so clear or complex as the modern understanding of gender, but it is still very much present.


This verse is evidence that Ancient Israel shared this understanding of eunuchs, to at least some degree, even as far back as the giving of the Law. It also implies that God shared this view and endorsed it. See, the thing is, only men were allowed to enter the Temple. That means that eunuchs were not counted as men - hence a third gender.


But, you know, maybe that’s a reach. I’m definitely reaching. There’s no way the Bible explicitly recognizes trans or nonbinary identities. Right?


Isaiah is one of my favorite books of the Bible, and my favorite out of the Old Testament. Isaiah is, I believe, the best poet in the Tanakh, and not only puts forth some of the most beautiful theology in the Old Testament, but also some of the most artful. The first main section of Isaiah 14 is essentially an ancient diss track. So is Isaiah 25, which relies on Philistine theology, the details of which were actually unknown to us before the excavation of Ugarit, to make a point about God being mightier than Ba’al - essentially, Ba’al was swallowed by death and later escaped, but God will swallow Death and Death will never escape. The reversal there is choice.


So, let’s ask the Diss Track Prophet himself, Isaiah ben Amoz, what God thinks about trans people. Isaiah, give me a 56:4-5!


“For thus says the Lord: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.’”


Now, you can argue, based on the context of this verse, that “a name better than sons and daughters” might mean “hey, you don’t need sons and daughters because I’ll exalt you so highly, so don’t feel bad about your missing anatomy.” However, that’s only one possible explanation, and we don't even really need to reject it for this verse to be very important for this discussion. The key here is that God is specifically praising righteous eunuchs and in a way that specifically acknowledges them as eunuchs and exalts that aspect of their identity.


That closes off any interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:1 that implies that God finds eunuchs detestable, insufficient, or unworthy, which is very important. If we want to argue that eunuchs are not a third gender, we need to assert that they are men, and that despite being men, they are not allowed in the temple. The passage in Isaiah makes this impossible, because the only things that could bar men from the temple were various things that God found detestable, such as ritual uncleanliness or being estranged from Him, and God makes it abundantly clear that being a eunuch does not separate a eunuch from God.


In short, if eunuchs are accepted by God, but are not allowed in the temple, then they cannot be men. They must be a third gender, unless one wishes to try to argue that they are women, which would still affirm the existence of trans people and transitioning.


It is therefore impossible to argue that God does not actively approve of trans people.

But you know what? Let’s go even further. Let’s ask our Lord Jesus Christ what He thinks of eunuchs.


“But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.’” - Matthew 19:11-12


That’s very interesting! Let’s break this down.


“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth[.]”


This explicitly affirms the existence and validity of intersex people, which absolutely kills any argument that there are only two biological sexes, and any argument about gender derived from such an argument. The concept that there are more than two sexes is an inarguable Biblical fact. Any argument otherwise is heresy.


“[A]nd there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men[.]”


Eunuchs made the normal way are here equated with intersex identities. This at least strongly implies the third-gender thing, so that’s more support for what we had up above.


“[T]here are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”


Oh my!


Did Jesus Christ, the Son of God, just say that some people undergo gender transition because they are moved by God to do so?


I think He just did!


Okay, let’s not get too excited. Let’s look at the only alternative interpretation I can possibly think of. Maybe it means some people castrate themselves to get rid of their sexual urges, and that’s good.


Does this seem reasonable? Would Jesus actually advocate for this? Would that be a form of loving oneself? Would this fit with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30, and the meaning we extracted from it?


Paul, what do you think?


“In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.” - Ephesians 5:28-30


That doesn’t sound like an endorsement of self-harm to me.


There’s no way around it. We have the words of Jesus Christ himself endorsing the concept of gender transition, insofar as the culture to which he was speaking was able to understand the concept. The Word of God is that trans people are His children, and that He not only accepts them as trans but actively wants them to transition. Any form of transphobia is therefore not only heretical, but an accusation that the Almighty God is wrong about something. Therefore, transphobia is blasphemy.


Now is a good opportunity to discuss homosexuality in the Bible.

>>14081715
i did

I know this is bait but it does genuinely raise some good points tbh

I read the whole thing and decided only god can judge our trans brothers and sisters