Transgenderism and the Bible

[LG]

Does the Bible condemn transgenderism? I found this interesting article on the net, which gives both sides of the argument quite neatly and also shows that it is possible to believe in Jesus and go to church but also to believe that transsexuality is not immoral or wrong.

My own personal view is that Jesus advocated love, acceptance and tolerance. As an occasionally lapsing Christian, I often find myself trying to explain how i can tie in my wavering religious beliefs with my belief in evolution, for example, but I feel the too are not mutually exclusive.

Jesus was a kind and gentle man who may have been the son of God (depending on where you stand on all this). He never advocated hatred. So why make him out to be some monster? If you read the gospels, Jesus does not pass judgement on people. The books of the Bible that lay down the rules that divide society appear mostly in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Genesis).

I decided to post it here rather than bury it in the Politcs and Religion forum becuase more people might get to see it and comment and because I feel it is of interest to all of us and not all of us visit the dark side...I meant the Politics forum very often.

I suspect it will eventually be moved there by the mods if people start slagging each other off but I think it deserves debate rather than fighting over. Although sometimes that can be fun, too. :lol:

The emphasis, through the use of bold letters, on part of the text is my own.

And your input, of course, is always welcome...

------ ------ ------
Jesus, the transgender terminator?
By Joanne Herman (From Advocate.com)

Some citizens of Largo, Fla., cited religious grounds for the dismissal of Susan Stanton, the transgender city manager. Would Jesus really have terminated her employment? This and other transgender tales from the Bible.

With dozens of citizens speaking at the February hearing that would ultimately lead to the dismissal of Susan Stanton, the transgender former city manager of Largo, Fla., the media needed a pithy sound bite, and it found an especially good one: “If Jesus was here tonight—and believe me, I know the Bible—I can guarantee you he’d want [Stanton] terminated.” Those words were spoken by the Reverend Ron Sanders, pastor for the Lighthouse Baptist Church. Never mind that his church has only 30 members; his words were broadcast around the world. Why? Because we (or at least the media) tend to assume that any one clergyperson may speak for all religious people.

Meanwhile, in an interesting coincidence, Newsweek ran a story about Boston University professor Steve Prothero’s new book Religious Literacy. A prime tenet of Prothero’s book is that while more than 90% of Americans say they believe in God, only a tiny portion actually know anything about religion. Newsweek says that almost everyone fails Prothero’s religious literacy quiz on the basics, such as the names of the four Gospels. (You can take his quiz on the Newsweek Web site.)

If Prothero’s assertion is correct, many Americans must be relying on others to interpret religious tenets and, even worse, may be unable to recognize when clergy are embellishing a bit, to put it politely. As one of the citizens at the Largo hearing said, “I wanted to quote the story of Jesus leading the mob to come take someone’s job, but I couldn’t find that passage in the Bible.”

Of course, transgender people definitely encounter problem passages in the Bible. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.” Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.”

But as Justin Tanis, an ordained minister who is also a program manager for the National Center for Transgender Equality, pointed out in a 2006 interview for the Washington Blade, “Deuteronomy also forbids eating shellfish, mixing seed in a field, or blending fabrics.”

In fact, if all of the rules of the Bible were strictly enforced, folks would be put to death for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and stoned for using the Lord’s name in vain (Leviticus 24:16). Furthermore, any person with a handicap or any sort of blemish would be forbidden to approach the altar (Leviticus 21).

Meanwhile, biologist Joan Roughgarden has noted that the Bible actually provides evidence that transgender people were a part of regular life even in biblical times. Roughgarden is a transgender woman who has taught at Stanford University since 1972. In her book Evolution's Rainbow, Roughgarden wondered why, if Darwin’s theory of evolution were correct, diversity in the animal population did not seem to be disappearing.

But Roughgarden is also a Christian who has done extensive reading of the Bible. In her latest work, Evolution and Christian Faith, she offers the radical notion that the two beliefs are actually quite compatible. And she goes a step further to claim that Jesus’ beliefs and teachings actually were intended to help Christians live with the diversity that existed then and that would continue to be present.

Of relevance to trans people is her discussion of eunuchs. She references Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus describes three types of eunuchs—those “which were so born from their mothers’ womb,” those “which were made eunuchs of men,” and those “which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”

Roughgarden interprets the first category as describing intersex individuals and the latter transsexual individuals. She notes that Jesus’ descriptions line up with those of ancient Roman writers who described those we would today call cross-dressers as well as those who transitioned genders without physical alteration.

She points out that some eunuchs held powerful positions and that “eunuchs were common enough that writers referred to them with such phrases as ‘armies of eunuchs.’” And she asserts that the apostle Philip's baptism of the eunuch in Acts 9:27–38 serves as an “explicit instruction to include eunuchs within the church.”

But statements at the Largo hearing implied otherwise. And if Americans are truly as biblically illiterate as Steve Prothero asserts, rhetoric like Pastor Ron’s can and does end up being taken as Gospel.

Many LGBT people have been hurt by religion used in hate, and transgender people are no exception. I nervously returned to church only when my wife, Barbara, was dying of cancer and I needed a spiritual connection during those difficult days. What I discovered was that there are progressive mainline churches that truly welcome LGBT folks, and their leaders are convinced that Jesus would (and did) too.

So don’t hesitate to question sweeping generalizations about Jesus. And if you are a Christian, please do your own research. Help show Pastor Ron that his is not the last word on transgender people.

(Note to readers: Stanton began living as Susan around Mother's Day, and so I have changed name and pronoun references accordingly.)

------ ------ ------

edit 1: Trying to find a snappier title. I mean, come on now, 74 views only? What? Do you guys only look at porn?

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

:jawdrop :popcorn

[BrendaQG]

I don't know much about Christianity.

However if there were any scriptures in the bible that prohibited transsexuality (in King James it would probably be called being a "eunuch") I would be surprised.

[trish]

I was brought up in a Methodist church, but rejected it at a rather early age. Can’t say I can recall much of the Bible. But it does seem to me Jesus was all about love and transfiguration. Here’re a few related questions. Do souls (I don’t believe in them by the way) have gender? When you go to heaven (or hell, or wherever) do you go with a dick or a cunt between your legs? If so, are we supposed to use them in heaven or hell to procreate, recreate or just savor the torture of sexual frustration? If souls have no gender, I don’t see why God would give a shit about whether you cut off your noodle or not. If souls do have a gender, why doesn’t my soul’s gender match the gender of my fucking body? Speaking of the rewards of Heaven and the punishments of Hell, what’s with that anyway? Why are people being punished FOREVER, for a FINITE number of sins committed during an incredibly small duration (all finite durations are incredibly small in contrast to infinite ones) of time? That reminds me of one of my favorite bits on the Larry David show. His wife wants them to renew their wedding vows. Their original exchange of vows included the traditional stuff about “until death do you part.” As I remember it, Larry’s wife wrote the new vows they are to exchange. In the rewrite they are to pledge their love to each other forever and ever. Larry’s not happy with the change. He always thought that once he got to heaven he’d be a free man again.

[muhmuh]

imho the two go together just fine

ill abstain from commenting any further since i think youre poking a beehive here as this question goes right next to "is being lgbt evolutions way of canceling out bad genes" in terms of being a bad idea to bring it up

[Ecstatic]

Of course, transgender people definitely encounter problem passages in the Bible. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.” Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.”
Fascinating subject, LG. It reminds me of a song from Dory Previn's remarkable (and remarkably commercially unsuccessful) stage production cum album from ca. 1974, Molly C. Brown and the Hollywood Sign, "Jesus Was A Androgyne":

jesus was a androgyne
jesus was a he and she
jesus was a freako baby
just like you and me
jesus was a pagan
jesus was a priest
jesus was a beauty
jesus was a beast

Of course, as impossible as it is to accurately compare cultures as far separated in time and history as contemporary Euro-American (itself hardly a single culture) and Hebrew culture of +2000 years ago, this does raise some very intriguing points. While the subject is far too complex to go into in any depth here, it is important to consider pre-Diaspora Judaism in the context of its time.

Judaism emerged approximately 3800 years ago (+/- 1800 BCE) as one of the first and the oldest surviving monotheistic, god-oriented religion in a region dominated at that time by Great (Mother) Goddess-oriented religions. One of the premier forms of the Great Goddess was Cybele (Kybelle, Kudu, Rhea, and many other names in different cultures throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin). Harkening back even earlier, to a primitive time before men understood their reproductive role and the mystery of birthing and motherhood and in many cultures actually attempted to "become women" to emulate this revered status through castration (as seen in an array of creation myths in many cultures involving castration such gods as Ra, Quetzalcoatl, and Mahadeva), castration was commonly practiced by priests of the Great Mother (Cybele in any of her myriad forms). These priests became eunuchs to tend the Middle Eastern temples of Artemis, Diana, Magna Mater (lit. Great Mother), Cybele, Isis, and other forms of the Great Goddess. Circumcision itself harkens back to these more primordial beliefs.

The Great Goddess always had a consort (in later days, as in the ascension of the Greek and Roman gods and the evolution of the Gods of India, the God took precedence over the Goddess, who was then seen as an aspect of his dual nature: Shiva/Shakti, Zeus/Hera, etc.). One of these pairings in the Middle East was Cybele and Attis. Attis in myth was castrated and poured out his lifeblood to fructify Cybele, and his priests followed suit, becoming eunuchs to worship her in ways that no "intact" male or female would be allowed; they were ritualized women.

Judaism matured as a religion surrounded by such beliefs, and therefore held very strong commandments (mitzvot) prohibiting any activities which would endorse or support these beliefs. Hence, the prohibition against eunuchs.


Of relevance to trans people is her discussion of eunuchs. She references Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus describes three types of eunuchs—those “which were so born from their mothers’ womb,” those “which were made eunuchs of men,” and those “which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”

Roughgarden interprets the first category as describing intersex individuals and the latter transsexual individuals. She notes that Jesus’ descriptions line up with those of ancient Roman writers who described those we would today call cross-dressers as well as those who transitioned genders without physical alteration.

She points out that some eunuchs held powerful positions and that “eunuchs were common enough that writers referred to them with such phrases as ‘armies of eunuchs.’” And she asserts that the apostle Philip's baptism of the eunuch in Acts 9:27–38 serves as an “explicit instruction to include eunuchs within the church.”
This I think coincides with my description of eunuchs above, and is a valuable distinction between the three types.


In fact, if all of the rules of the Bible were strictly enforced, folks would be put to death for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and stoned for using the Lord’s name in vain (Leviticus 24:16).
The third commandment is probably the most frequently misinterpreted of the Mosaic Code: lo tissa et shem Ha-Shem Eloheikha la-shav, usually translated as "You shall not the Lord your God's name is vain," is most commonly interpreted as "You shall not swear or blaspheme," as in "Goddamn!" But actually, what is intended is that one is forbidden to use God's name to justify a selfish or evil cause or to perjure oneself. As Rabbi Joseph Telushin puts it in Jewish Literacy, "When a person commits and evil act, he discredits himself. But when a religious person commits an evil act in the name of God, he or she discredits God as well."


edit 1: Trying to find a snappier title. I mean, come on now, 74 views only? What? Do you guys only look at porn?
Do you have to ask?

[LG]

I'm kind of upset that this got relegated here- I knew it would but I was hoping this would happen later rather than sooner. But maybe it'll bring people over who usually stay only in the General forum.

I agree with muhmuh that Christian morality and being a transgender aren't mutually exclusive. Jesus never condemned people. I don't think being gay is evolution's way of cancelling genes out becuase even though I believe that there are physiological causes to being a transgender and possibly genetic ones to being gay, these genes may be the result of mutations. Mutation isn't always a bad thing. Mutation is part of how evolution happens.

Thanks to everyone for their comments, which make interesting reading and all shed a different light on the topic. I'll think of some things to say when I can. I think this thread might run and run, and it should, becuase it is an interesting topic and becuase it can help the TG community further its understanding of the Biblican texts and its acceptance within the church and within society. And that is what we all want.

So am I opening a can of worms? Maybe. But if you don't hook a worm, you'll never catch a fish.

^^^^^^^I made that one up just now. :)

[peggygee]

LG, thanks for this, you've really
been bringing up some great topics.

Ecstatic, thanks for all that great information.
You're going to have me hitting the books,
and reference materials.

Other related threads are:

Transexuals and religion?
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=13805&highlight=religion

Well..being a chick with a dick might not be a sin..
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=17394&highlight=religion

Having said that;

I believe in God.

I believe in a God of my understanding. However
I will admit to having a great deal of concerns as
regards organized religions and their corruption
of dogma and doctrine.

For me, I tend to adopt a 'cafeteria' approach to
religion as I have studied and belonged to a
number. I take the best from each and leave the
dogma and rhetoric that do not meet my needs
behind.

I am also not a fan of those that proselytize or try to
shove 'their' religions down 'your' throats. Nor do I
agree with those that feel that their deity or God is
bigger or better than your God, or that they are the
only chosen ones.

Finally, I can understand people that have no belief in
a deity, ie are atheist. Or those that one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the
nonexistence of God or a god, ie agnostic.

And though I will readily admit to having firm and strong
beliefs and a great deal of faith in God, I am a woman
of science and empiricism.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/labratresize.jpg

And as such I have secular
humanist leanings as well:

Tenets

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following
elements and principles:

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies
and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must
be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply
accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the
use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods
of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions
to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment,
growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in
general.

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth,
with the understanding that new knowledge and experience
constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making
it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves,
our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and
the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles
of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human
well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open
exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made
in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

[peggygee]

I'm kind of upset that this got relegated here- I knew it would but I was hoping this would happen later rather than sooner. But maybe it'll bring people over who usually stay only in the General forum.



Well, you got me over here.
But I must admit, my security
detail is as nervous as a cat in
a room full of rocking chairs. :lol:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/myteam.jpg


Let us continue quoting from the book of Leviticus, then, and even Exodus.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

:roll:

[TJT]

El,aka,Elohim originally had a female consort. There is some theorizing that the name Shekinah refers to her,but that name is also used later as a feminine term to refer to concepts of God?

Now,If that Old Testament Deity has both feminine and male attributes,what where those ol' Hebrews saying about the nature of the Almighty?

I bet Pat Robertson would crap his pants knowin' he's worshiping a big Sky Tranny?

[Ecstatic]

Ecstatic, thanks for all that great information.
You're going to have me hitting the books,
and reference materials.
A couple books I recommend highly, which I suspect you already may be familiar with, Peggy:

The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker, HarperCollins - well-researched, erudite and articulate; while biased to a degree, I have found over the years that Walker's interpretations of myth are well-supported by scholarship and even where they may conflict with other scholars (Campbell, Eliade, and others), they are at least thought provoking and at best equally valid.

Hermaphrodeities: The Transgender Spirituality Workbook by Raven Kaldera, Xlibris - an interesting blend of mythic scholarship, personal accounts, and workbook exercises

LG, interesting, isn't it, that JWBL's JW at the door thread continues to live in the main forum, lol.

[ezed]

I'm kind of upset that this got relegated here- I knew it would but I was hoping this would happen later rather than sooner. But maybe it'll bring people over who usually stay only in the General forum.



Well, you got me over here.
But I must admit, my security
detail is as nervous as a cat in
a room full of rocking chairs. :lol:

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/myteam.jpg


Let us continue quoting from the book of Leviticus, then, and even Exodus.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

:roll:

Let's not quote "The Good Book" ie the Bible (ps I see where you went with this Peggy, I'm with you) or the Koran. They were written long after the principle characters were dead or ressurected. The main characters were not the authors. And those who were, were edited by the hierarchy of the time. They were good as an evolutionary tool but now they are archaic.

People who cling to them are not using the gifts God gave them, namely their minds. We are all God's creations. To condemn anyone gay or transgender is in effect saying....."I'M JOHN FROM EAST BUMFUCK, DAKOTA AND A BOOK WRITTEN BY A BUNCH OF BEARDED GUYS WHO WERE PROTECTING THEIR COMFORTABLE EXISITANCE IS THE RULE OF LAW! AND THUS I MEAN GOD'S CREATIONS ARE FLAWED AS DETERMINE BY A PANEL OF MEN IN NIFTY VESTMENTS."

Listen, all you predjudice assholes, when you quote the book, written by men, to further your predjudice, you just called GOD an idiot! So ya think the bearded guys who wrote the good books will be there to defend you on judgement day.

[LG]

Interesting points all round- great comments from Ecstatic, peggy and others. TJT: I'm going to look that one up....

Anyway...Glad to see people coming over to the Politics forum (formerly known as "The asshole of the universe").
Peggy said:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

:roll:
Funny points...Do you want to smite your neighbours? I know I do sometimes! :lol:
And know what you're saying with all this. Orthodox Jews follow these things to the letter as far as I know, while Christians do not. If these Bible-bashing hypocrites who use the Old Testament to attack gays or transexuals were true to their word they would eat wear natural fibres and never visit Red Lobster.

ezed said:

They were written long after the principle characters were dead or ressurected. The main characters were not the authors. And those who were, were edited by the hierarchy of the time. They were good as an evolutionary tool but now they are archaic.
I agree. Once the Bible would have served as a useful tool. Some experts suggest that the instruction to avoid anything that lives in the sea but has no scales was not actually there to stop people from eating shellfish but to stop people from eating pufferfish (also called blowfish) which have spines instead of scales and are highly toxic.

I won't knock the Old Testament because it has many useful things we can take from it, but I don't believe it is the word of God. The New Testament I'm pretty cool with, especially the four gospels. In those four books is the story of Christ, who may be different things to different people, but who told us there are two commandments that both summarize and supercede all others: love God (whatever you choose to see God as, whether an old man in the sky, the Manitou, Jehova, allah, nature itself) and love they neighbour as yourself. Within these two instructions are all the principles of tolerance, ethics, respect and morality you'll ever need.

And nowhere within the four gospels does Jesus condemn or even judge people. Jesus cured the sick, loved the poor, befriended prostitutes and forgave criminals. If the people who are so ready to condemn transsexuals remember their much used and abused motto of "What would Jesus do?" and apply it correctly, they'll see the truth for once.

[muhmuh]

I agree. Once the Bible would have served as a useful tool. Some experts suggest that the instruction to avoid anything that lives in the sea but has no scales was not actually there to stop people from eating shellfish but to stop people from eating pufferfish (also called blowfish) which have spines instead of scales and are highly toxic.

most of what youll find in leviticus had some sort of real world value the ting most people love to forget though is that because of that almost none of these have any religious meaning whatsoever


who told us there are two commandments that both summarize and supercede all others: love God (whatever you choose to see God as, whether an old man in the sky, the Manitou, Jehova, allah, nature itself) and love they neighbour as yourself. Within these two instructions are all the principles of tolerance, ethics, respect and morality you'll ever need.

1) its 3 commandments actually... love god... love yourself... and love everybody else just as much
2) if you choose to accept christian ethics for yourself... theres another ting people love to forget which is you cannot be christian unless you live according to these ethics which forbid any form of discrimination or egoistic behaviour which makes the republican chirstan agenda so hilarious

[LG]

1) its 3 commandments actually... love god... love yourself... and love everybody else just as much

I agree with all your points except the above. I suppose it's semantics, anyway because the second commandment covers both.

From Matthew 22:34-40

22:34. But the Pharisees, hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together.
22:35. And one of them, a doctor of the law, asked him, tempting him:
22:36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
22:37. Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind.
22:38. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
22:39. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
22:40. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.


Otherwise, we wholeheartedly agree.

[LG]

A shameless and gratuitous bump, but I think the topic is still worthy of discussion.

The highest goal for mankind is for a man to love a woman and a woman a man and to raise children.

That said, not all are destined for this path. There's some of you born with the wrong body or whatever. There's some of you who are attracted to the same sex. Jesus does not say "Do not pass judgment". That is a poor interpretation of scripture. Jesus DOES say "Do not condemn". Do not shut others out of your heart. Do not close your heart.

Jesus was the original Compassionate Conservative.

I've said it before that it takes some guts for the girls on this board to make the decision they make and do all the surgery, injections and pills. I think that says something about the convictions behind their beliefs and as much of a stud as I am, I'm not getting in their way. But I also realize there are some poor souls out there, confused about their place in the world who decide to make the same decision without realizing all the implications.

It's not my place to condemn those poor souls or condemn others. That's what's great about being a good Christian. You don't have to carry those hateful thoughts in your heart. Granted, some people don't carry those thoughts anyway, but that's few and far between. Especially reading the vitriol on the P&R board.

[LG]

The highest goal for mankind is for a man to love a woman and a woman a man and to raise children.

That said, not all are destined for this path. There's some of you born with the wrong body or whatever. There's some of you who are attracted to the same sex. Jesus does not say "Do not pass judgment". That is a poor interpretation of scripture. Jesus DOES say "Do not condemn". Do not shut others out of your heart. Do not close your heart.

Jesus was the original Compassionate Conservative.

I've said it before that it takes some guts for the girls on this board to make the decision they make and do all the surgery, injections and pills. I think that says something about the convictions behind their beliefs and as much of a stud as I am, I'm not getting in their way. But I also realize there are some poor souls out there, confused about their place in the world who decide to make the same decision without realizing all the implications.

It's not my place to condemn those poor souls or condemn others. That's what's great about being a good Christian. You don't have to carry those hateful thoughts in your heart. Granted, some people don't carry those thoughts anyway, but that's few and far between. Especially reading the vitriol on the P&R board.

Welcome back TFan.

Jesus said:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again". So I go by that and try- though it is hard, sometimes- not to pass judgment on people.

I will not comment on you saying you are "a stud". But I do have something to say on your comment that "Jesus was the original Compassionate Conservative" and that comment is this: LOL

Why does everyone try to ascribe a political position to Jesus? You could equally well say that Jesus was a radical or even that he was a Marxist. Certainly, you can realistically say that he was a socialist at least- telling people that the rich couldn't easily get into heaven, telling them to share their possessions with others, teaching them to be like the Good Samaritan...

And to me, the highest goal for mankind is to reach for the stars, to rid ourselves of what is simply earthly and reach beyond, to try and achieve the seemingly impossible, and through our work, to make life better for even a few. Jesus did not get married and did not have kids.

Other than that, we actually agree on most of your points.

[trish]

Heaven sounds like a monarchy to me. Jesus was perhaps the first compassionate devine king. But there were sooo many kings before him claiming divinity that one of them had to compassionate as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe on several occassions the Bible ascertains that Jesus spoke of His kingdom. This is not at all surprising given that the models of government available to the simple men who authored the Bible were empires and monarchies. True, the Athenian experiment in democracy predated the early church fathers, but I would be interested if there are any passages of the New Testament that indicate any cognizance of the fact.

Jesus the first compassionate conservative...no way. Would a conservative tell you to give away your money, leave your family and follow him into the deserts of the Middle East to help spread the word? Don't answer that!

[ezed]

The highest goal for mankind is for a man to love a woman and a woman a man and to raise children.
Jesus was the original Compassionate Conservative.


Oh shut up. The highest goal for each individual, is to take the cards they were dealt and make the best hand they can out of it.

I love to see these self appointed apostles running willy nilly spouting the mind of God, like you grew up with him or something.

Jesus, was a liberal noted for free wine, fishes and bread. A conservative would charge $1,000 a plate.

[trish]

there are two commandments that both summarize and supercede all others: love God (whatever you choose to see God as, whether an old man in the sky, the Manitou, Jehova, allah, nature itself) and love they neighbour as yourself. Within these two instructions are all the principles of tolerance, ethics, respect and morality you'll ever need.


I quite agree that these are praiseworthy guidelines. I do find it interesting that they are not rules or commandments really. You can't command someone to love the gods, nature, yourself nor anyone else. Nor can you ask them to love someone or something. Nor can you decide you're going to love someone or something. Love is just something that happens or it doesn't. The best you can do is give it a chance.

My favorite rule is the golden one. To it i might add the commandment: don't be a jerk.