I am very pleased to publish this guest post on what the Bible might have to say about people who are transgender.  Most people probably assume they know, or at least can surmise.  Well, read on.

The post is by Douglas Wadeson, a Platinum member of the blog.  As you probably know, Platinum members are allowed to publish posts (just) for other p\Platinum members, and after a several come in then they all vote on which one goes onto the blog itself.  This one is the winner from the past batch (BTW: it was running against three other posts that were  also *terrific*).  If you would like to get in on this action — and create a blog post yourself (for example, taking a *different* point of view to this post or to any of mine, or simply posting about what you’re interested in) — check out the Platinum level of membership (click JOIN and you’ll see); there are other nice benefits as well, including a quarterly webinar that I do with Platinum members.

Here now is the post.  Do you find it compelling?  Controversial?  Something else?  Doug will be happy to respond to comments.


I recently read of a horrible incident in which a political candidate in Santa Rosa county, Florida, suggested that doctors who assisted with gender reassignment of young people should be hung from trees.[1]  Reportedly this comment was greeted with applause from the audience rather than outrage.  Applause for the suggestion of lynching someone?  Seriously?  Unfortunately, the negative, even hateful attitude toward transgender people and gender reassignment often comes from those claiming to be Bible-believing Christians.  Does the Bible say that having gender dysphoria or having reassignment surgery is a sin?

Obviously there was no transgender medicine or surgery in Biblical times – or was there?  They did have one type of gender-altering procedure: castration, to create eunuchs.  This was usually done by crushing the testicles[2] of a boy before reaching puberty, so he would remain effeminate, rather than developing masculine characteristics.[3]  Why?  Such men were considered safe around the master’s wife or harem.[4]  Since they did not marry or have children they were considered very loyal to their masters and very trustworthy.  Some eunuchs (castrati) were used for singing, as their voices remained in the higher ranges.  They were often used in church choirs when and where women were not allowed to sing, and surprisingly it was not until 1878 that Pope Leo XIII finally ended the Italian practice of castrating young males to maintain their soprano voices.  TO BE CLEAR: I am NOT saying eunuchs are equivalent to transgender, but they fall outside the strict male-female dichotomy many modern Christians adhere to, so I think there is something to be learned from the example of eunuchs since they are mentioned in the Bible.

Eunuchs are mentioned a number of times in the Bible, but the process of making boys eunuchs is never condemned.[5]  It is never said to be a sin to become a eunuch.  Let me repeat that: nowhere in the Bible does it condemn those who were eunuchs or label it as a sin.  Eunuchs could be priests, but were excluded from offering up sacrifices (Leviticus 21:20), but then so were people with scoliosis, cataracts or a number of other common conditions, none of which were considered sinful.  Still, eunuchs would likely have been looked down upon by some as sexual oddities.  However, the book of Isaiah offers them hope:

For this is what the Lord says:

“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me,

To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,

And a name better than that of sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name which will not be eliminated.

Isaiah 56: 4, 5

Not only will eunuchs be welcomed into God’s house, but they will be given a place of honor for their faithfulness, even though they have been sexually altered and do not conform to the normal sexual stereotype.

The New Testament has two significant passages concerning eunuchs; the first by Jesus:

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”  Matthew 19:12

Obviously most were made eunuchs by others.  Men like Jesus and Paul were so devoted to the Kingdom of God that they eschewed sexual relations, making themselves eunuchs in essence.  However, some literally castrated themselves, like the early church theologian Origen, or the Skoptsy sect in Russia (they also performed mastectomy of women).  But what did Jesus mean that some were “born” eunuchs?

Possibly people were aware of cryptorchidism, in which the testicles do not descend into the scrotum, but while this can cause infertility it would not cause the boy to develop into an effeminate or asexual eunuch.  I think Jesus meant something different than that.  People in Biblical times may not have had a good understanding of gender identity and sexual orientation, but they certainly knew that some men preferred the company of other men or simply had no interest in sex, and some men had feminine habits and characteristics.[6]  They were like eunuchs, but without having been castrated; they were simply that way from birth. I worked with a nurse who told me that her whole family knew her younger brother was gay long before he came to realize it; he was just “born” that way.[7]   We can argue the details, but I think Jesus was acknowledging that some people are sexually different from birth, not through the action of others, or by a later choice of their own.  Those who suffered gender dysphoria, feeling like they were born into the wrong gender, had no access to medications, and the only surgical option was castration, and that was only for boys, not girls.  So most simply had to live with it and make the best of it.  But there is no suggestion in the Bible that it was a sin to feel that way.

The other relevant passage is found in Acts 8.  There the evangelist Philip is directed by an angel to teach the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch.  The eunuch was said to have “come to Jerusalem to worship” and is struggling with a passage from Isaiah, so it is likely he is already a convert to Judaism, but it is interesting that the author has this early story of a conversion to Christianity involve a person who has two strikes against him: he is a eunuch (a sexually odd person), and he is almost certainly darker-skinned than the typical Jew, quite possibly Black.  I have no doubt that the people of that day had the same issues with different skin colors that we still see today.  Read Numbers 12: Moses’ sister Miriam seems to take exception to Moses marrying an apparently dark-skinned Cushite (Ethiopian) woman, and so is given the ironic punishment of having her own skin turn white – with leprosy!  Prejudice was as much an issue then as now.

So, this dark-skinned eunuch is converted and saved.  No issue is made of his status as a eunuch or a dark-skinned foreigner.  Perhaps the author of Acts is using this as a fulfillment of Isaiah 56 (which mentions both eunuchs and foreigners), that now even eunuchs are openly welcomed into the kingdom of God.  He doesn’t stop being a eunuch and his skin color doesn’t change, but he is welcome in the kingdom of God.  It is a beautiful message, even though it was ignored in the days of segregated churches[8], and I fear is still being ignored today.

I suspect there were those in the early church who did harbor prejudice against eunuchs, because in 325 CE the first Council of Nicaea thought it necessary to address the issue of eunuchs.[9]  They did not approve of self-castration but they did say that eunuchs could be in the clergy if otherwise worthy.  Not just in the church, but in the clergy.  That sounds like a rather clear statement of tolerance and acceptance and a rejection of prejudice.

Does any of this prove that having gender dysphoria or going through gender reassignment surgery is NOT a sin?  Maybe not, but I think the burden is on those who want to say that it IS a sin.  On what basis?  The argument that it is not natural is very weak: increasing evidence says that the variety of gender and sexual expressions we see in people is entirely natural; people are indeed “born” that way, as Jesus himself suggested.  “But you shouldn’t change the way you were born; God doesn’t make mistakes!”  Then explain circumcision to me.  God put a foreskin on the male penis only to have Abraham and his descendants cut it off?   A simpler example: God designed men to have hair on their faces and women on their legs, so is it a sin for us to shave those areas, since God doesn’t make mistakes?[10]  Or wear glasses or dye our hair?  Should we tell a child with cystic fibrosis that she can’t have a lung transplant because God doesn’t make mistakes?  We don’t apply that perverse reasoning to any number of other conditions that we are born with; why apply it to gender dysphoria?

Many conservative Christians want men to act like men, and women like women, and yet they oppose gender reassignment.  That seems backwards to me.  Transgender men want to look and act like the men they have been since birth, and women likewise.  Christians should therefore welcome transition, not oppose it.  And even if a transgender person does not choose to go through gender reassignment common decency as well as Christian decency ought to lead us to treat those people with the kindness and concern we should express for any human being.

Frankly, I think the objection to being transgender has no basis in the Bible; I think it is prejudice, pure and simple.  Our human nature makes us suspicious or fearful of those who are different from us.   But our human intellect can be used to overcome our prejudices; that is our advantage.  I know that it may seem very strange to you that a man feels like he should be a woman, or that a woman feels that she should be a man.  Likewise with a man being attracted to another man, or a woman to another woman.  Guess what: you should “feel” uncomfortable with that!  It is perfectly OK to feel uncomfortable with that!  Of course it does not seem natural to you: you were not born that way; you are not wired that way.  But that doesn’t matter.  We need to recognize that there a lot of different people in the world and they don’t all have to be like us.  What an awful and boring world this would be if everybody was like me!  So, if I don’t “feel” comfortable with someone else I shrug it off and still do my best to treat them as a decent, worthy and equal human being.  I want to overcome my errant feelings, not consecrate them and inflict them on the world.

Let me close with some advice from the apostle Paul:

“Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we instructed you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.”  1st Thessalonians 4:11, 12

“For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?”   1st Corinthians 5:12

Paul is basically saying, “Mind your own business!”  And when he says to behave properly toward outsiders I do not think he means to lynch them!

It is not surprising to me that church membership is falling in America.  I think many people, particularly young people are tired of seeing church members condemning and trying to control those outside the church rather than being concerned with their own morality and ethics, which often seems to be sorely lacking.  How can one claim the moral high ground while calling for the lynching of others?  Maybe such people should consider what Jesus said was the second most important commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:31)  No exceptions noted.



[1] https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2022/07/20/santa-rosa-school-board-candidate-florida-suggests-hanging-doctors-transgender-kids/10099135002/

[2] Cutting out of the testicles might cause complications like hemorrhage, infection and death, so crushing was safer, but I cannot imagine the pain involved, or the mindset of someone who would perform such a procedure on a boy.

[3] Like lack of facial hair, less muscle mass, more prominent breasts, higher voice.

[4] There is evidence that some eunuchs were capable of having sex, but because they were infertile they were not a threat to the royal bloodline.

[5] Children are given virtually no specific protections in the Law of Moses.

[6] Just as there would have been girls and women who did not conform to the expected female stereotype.

[7] Being gay and being transgender are different, but both are examples of innate sexual characteristics that incur the disapproval of some religious people.

[8] Segregated churches are not ancient history; some churches are still all-white by choice.

[9] No, the council did NOT decide Jesus was divine, or define the books of the Bible, but they did address eunuchs!

[10] Actually, according to Leviticus 21:5 maybe it is a sin to shave!  And get body piercing.  Does that include pierced earrings?

Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!

We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.

Become a Member Today!

2023-02-23T11:19:21-05:00February 18th, 2023|Public Forum, Sex and Sexuality in the Bible|

Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms


  1. josephdj February 18, 2023 at 5:05 pm



  2. kt February 18, 2023 at 5:33 pm

    “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” is a fundamental understanding for me.

    ,,,combined with ” I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”.

    Does it have to be different?

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 12:38 pm

      But interesting how people can claim “God is love” while cheering for the lynching of others. Religion creates some weird contradictions.

      • kt February 19, 2023 at 4:32 pm

        Fishican,,,,I can’t agree more, !!

  3. Martin Brody February 18, 2023 at 6:10 pm

    First, I don’t agree people are born with a particular gender identity. And I don’t think it’s a good argument, even from the LGBT perspective. I believe that gender identity, sexual preference, occupation identity, hobbies, sports, and leisure activities, etc. are generally social constructs. A person may have certain genetic predispositions toward any of these social constructs they CHOOSE to embrace. But in the end, it’s a choice. Someone may choose to be become a lawyer, but then after many years realize they don’t like combative arguments. In my opinion it’s really hard to argue against someone who CHOOSEs to embrace a particular social construct because it makes them happy. I think the argument that people are “born” inclined toward any of the above both sets a battle ground for conflict and negates the RIGHT of a person to CHOOSE how to live.

    Second, whenever someone takes a revisionist approach toward Biblical interpretation, what I hear is an argument that Democritus’s atomic theory remains as valid today it was when he first theorized it.

    With my last few words, I agree in principle, but disagree in methodology. I would have taken the left turn in Albuquerque.

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 12:36 pm

      I agree people should have the right to choose, but the evidence is that many things influence our “choices” and many of those things are beyond our control: genetics, in utero environment, infancy environment, childhood development, family and societal influences, etc. We like to think we make free choices, but many of our choices are made at a subconscious level as a result of all these influences, and I don’t think we should judge people as “sinful” because they don’t turn out the way we expect them to or fit the stereotypes we feel comfortable with. We don’t live inside their heads – they do. I think our obligation is to live life the best we can as we see fit, not to tell other people how to live their lives. I suspect you agree with that?

      • Martin Brody February 19, 2023 at 1:05 pm

        Yes. I agree that people should be free to choose how they live their lives, even if I don’t agree with them. But I believe that you can challenge someone’s life decisions, if done in a loving way: “are you sure that excess drinking and the life problems it has caused you makes you happy?”

        You open up two other Pandora’s boxes: free will and sin.

        On the free will side, I’ll invoke Kant:

        “When we ask, Are we now living in an enlightened age? the answer is, No, but we live in an age of enlightenment. ”

        Just because people may have the capacity for self-awareness or Kantian maturity, doesn’t mean they will achieve it.

        With regard to sin, don’t get me started.

        I’ll reply to any reply you may post on another day. I’m going to use my second comment of the day to lambaste Bart on today’s post.

        • fishician February 19, 2023 at 8:02 pm

          Interesting that some neuroscientists today question if free will even exists, and some religious denominations preach that free will does not exist (predestination). This may be an intersection of religion and science where both are wrong! (Or both are right, but I hope not!)

          • kt February 20, 2023 at 6:11 pm

            From a person like me who have “developed” into an understanding that we come from One, and will return to One, the will is an attribute of this “Oneness with our devine origin. The “will” as an aspect of our spiritual nature, which is connected to the divine source of all existence. From a “neuroscientists” perspective, or one who percieve reality from a “concious level only, the free will is not an absolute concept since we are influenced by a variety of internal and external factors that can limit our choices and actions. In my mind, the will or free will is also a factor of our unconscious mind which plays a significant role in shaping our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, and that we are often unaware of the ways in which our unconscious influences our conscious decisions .

            So,,,,for me, the “free will” is a devine inherent gift in our being, and a sin in relation to this, is what seperate ourself with our heritage with our devine origin,,,or our potential oneness with God. Sin is not moral relative concepts from all kind of cultural philosophies originated by the time it came from, but sin is factor which seperates ourself with what we basically came from and what we should become. The fact that there are people who identifie themself as transgenders is in my mind more related to cultural, idiolistic defined moral codexes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,only!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but from my perspective is NOT a sin !!

    • MarkWiz February 19, 2023 at 6:22 pm

      Martin Brody, what evidence do you have that gender identity is not a predisposition? If a child from a very early age has an affinity for clothing, activities, company, and mannerisms that traditionally are the hallmarks of one sex or the other, what causes that affinity? One son grows up in a family with five boys, surrounded by masculinity, and yet would prefer to wear dresses and date men; how can that be a social construct? Yes, it is individual choice that will determine whether one embraces a tendency, but if one uses the Bible to label that choice as “evil” or “unnatural,” it is problematic. Denying to oneself one’s true sexual identity or preference seems like the deepest dishonesty. Does God ever ask deep dishonesty of us? What is the scriptural evidence for that?

      • Martin Brody February 19, 2023 at 9:50 pm

        I think that I actually said:

        “A person may have certain genetic predispositions toward any of these social constructs they CHOOSE to embrace.”

        I also think when someone is “finding” “one’s true sexual identity” people will “experiment” with different social norms. Even to them its not always black and white. And frankly, I think people should not be hasty to choose.

        A brief internet search reveals dresses for women began in the 18th century. Thus, I think wearing dresses for women solidly falls into the social construct category. Same-sex attraction is more difficult, but I think even in that realm you have some social constructs as far as gender roles. Those social constructs may influence a persons decision on their “true sexual identity.”

        With regard to transgender as sin, evil, or unnatural, in the Biblical context, based on a premise that such rule was dictated by God through certain privileged people, you can challenge each element of that premise.

        However, if you view “sin,” more like I do, which there are healthy, nurturing ways to live. Sin is living contrary to those healthy, nurturing ways. While there may be certain broad guideposts, each person must decide what they find health, or nurturing.

      • josephdj February 20, 2023 at 9:13 am

        Years ago I read that as the fetus is developing, the olfactory nerve begins at the nose and not at the brain. When it connects to the brain, it sometimes gets cross wired, to where a male will find that other males smell attractive, and a female will find that other females smell attractive. So would that be nature, opening a door to some propensity towards homosexuality? Throw in some nurture and the odds would seem to be stacked.
        A dog can get bitten by a rabid bat, and become rabid, to no fault of its own. Still, mad dogs are put down without hesitation. Could there be something about sins that parallels things like rabies?

  4. lanpangzhu February 18, 2023 at 7:49 pm

    Could 1st Corinthians 5:12 be problematic. wouldn’t defining a sin be within the church’s wheelhouse? (not that it should be decided by one person. (then again, i reckon there are as many sets of ‘sins’ and their weights as there are people professing what ever belief system)) i would say the soul searching required by Matthew 7:3-5 is too much to deal with.

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 12:28 pm

      1 Corinthians 5:12: “For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?” One of the most neglected verses in the NT! Thanks for highlighting that verse.

  5. dankoh February 18, 2023 at 10:07 pm

    I believe that those who are opposed to trans people, gay people, and any sexually different people, justify it by quoting Genesis: “male and female he created them” – meaning separately, or course, not hermaphroditically , though it would be fascinating to offer that interpretation and watch their faces turn colors!

    This is certainly the justification given for “compartmentalization” theory – currently popular among some American Christian groups, who argue that God assigned – compartmentalized – separate roles to the two (and only two) genders, with males dominant and females submissive, no exceptions allowed. I call that an instance of unjustified universalism.

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 12:26 pm

      Of course the Genesis passage goes on to tell them to be fruitful and multiply, yet Jesus and Paul both refused to follow that part of God’s instruction, and in fact seemed to commend those who did not marry and have children (Matt.19:12, 1 Corinthians 7) so they would be fully devoted to God. My point being that there are always exceptions to the rule, including the celibate and eunuchs as mentioned in the Bible. Yes, most people fall into the traditional male-female dichotomy, but not all, and to portray the exceptions as “sinful” is terribly narrow, judgmental, and antiquated. It’s like holding to the view that seizures are caused by demon possession because that’s what the Bible says. I think we’ve learned some things in the past 2000 years, including things about gender identity and sexual orientation.

      • forestweld February 20, 2023 at 10:23 pm

        “to portray the exceptions as “sinful” is terribly narrow, judgmental, and antiquated” — and unkind.

  6. dabizi February 19, 2023 at 3:57 am

    These verses helped me lose my faith early on, and work against Wadeson’s thesis:
    1) Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.”
    2) Deuteronomy 23:1 “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall come into the assembly of the Lord.”

    There is a discussion of the term “Assembly of the Lord” here, but in any case, people who were so prohibited were a relegated, disapproved-of class with limited rights, ie “second class citizens”:


    I think it is untrue to claim the bible does not say you can’t be transgender if it prohibits activity that is part of being transgender. The Old Testament is remarkably intolerant.

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 12:09 pm

      But the point of transition is to be true to one’s innate gender; I believe I made that point in the article. So they are not women dressing like men, they want to actually be men, but some people want to stop that transition and force them to live with that dysphoria. Don’t stop at Deut. 23:1, consider verse 2: “No one of illegitimate birth may enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, may enter the assembly of the LORD.” How many people in the ancient world (or modern world) would that exclude, including many of the patriarchs? And the next verse excludes certain foreigners, yet Isaiah 56:4-7 says eunuchs and foreigners who are faithful will be given “a name better than that of sons and daughters.” I don’t think it is fair to say the “OT is remarkably intolerant” because it is made up of many books by different authors with different ideas. Some passages seem very intolerant (much of the Law!) but other passages, like in Isaiah, seem very tolerant.

      • dabizi February 19, 2023 at 2:16 pm

        “But the point of transition is to be true to one’s innate gender; I believe I made that point in the article.”

        That is true but it is modern thinking, and your modern thinking was probably not shared by people in Bronze Age Levant. If someone dressed in the clothes of the opposite sex in Bronze Age Levant, it did not probably matter then what that person internally felt themselves to be, because others would see it as a sin and big penalties awaited. The fact there are also petty exclusions to entering the Assembly of the Lord is testament to the judgemental, intolerant mentality of the time. A case for tolerance for trans people cannot be made with the Old Testament.

        • fishician February 19, 2023 at 8:00 pm

          I totally agree it is difficult to apply modern thinking to ancient cultures (see Bart’s article today, 2/19), but we live in a modern culture (thankfully!) and I think it is valid for us to use the most generous interpretation of ancient texts rather than the most strict interpretation. I think the ancients were more tolerant than we give them credit for, but formal religion does tend to have a negative view of sex in general: consider Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 where he seems to only allow heterosexual marriage as a concession, not as the optimal arrangement! Sorry, Paul, we don’t all think like you!

  7. DanaGarrett February 19, 2023 at 10:50 am

    Interesting take. I can’t help but think, however, that when Jesus talked about people being born eunuchs, that he was not referring to gender dysphoric people but to people who found it natural or easy to be chaste. They were basically, what we would call today, asexual people who are not significantly disturbed by sexual urges. I think that because controlling one’s lusts is a big theme for many of New Testament writers and is more likely to be what they had in mind than gender dysphoria (or some equivalent term).

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 11:50 am

      I agree, Jesus was not likely referring to gender dysphoria, but I think he was recognizing that not everyone is born with the expected sexual desires or sexual habits. I see it as a small nudge toward being more accepting of those outside the traditional norms rather than being more judgmental.

  8. veritas February 19, 2023 at 12:52 pm

    As I read your well informed post, I find you are finding fault to blame religious one’s who conform to creation/reproduction,between a man and a woman. Biologically, there is no other way to exist as mammals. What you lack to mention,somewhat surprised because you are a Doctor,is the fact of mental health. How you feel about yourself has everything to do with our complex brain that controls everything. A colt,usually less than four years of age, is castrated because of his aggressiveness not dysphoria and that usually settles him down when he is gelded. There is not enough evidence about gender dysphoria today. Just as bad as being prejudice to those who feel confused, are doctors who are quick in affirming young boys and girls feelings by proceeding with hormone blocking therapy and then surgery, which is life altering. And it starts at ages before ten. Read Abigail Shrier’s book,”Irreversible Damage”. A Canadian man,who raped a 3month old baby is being housed in a womens prison because he declared himself trans gender!! Is this acceptable? Just because the behaviour of some leans towards the other sex, it does not make them transgender. God does not control our behaviour,we do.

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 8:10 pm

      The recommendations I have read put the age to start transition at no earlier than 14 – an age that used to be common for considering marriage (like Shakespeare’s Juliet). Absolutely there can be excesses on both side of this issue, but in no case does it justify threatening people with lynching. As for mental health, there seems to be a significant reduction in suicidal tendencies among those who are allowed to transition. That’s only one marker of mental health, but I think it’s a significant one. History is littered with the corpses of those who could not fit into the role society forced upon them.

      • veritas February 20, 2023 at 3:26 pm

        Noone should be threatned for who they are,I concur. But you are delving into another beast here. I am not sure where you are getting information on transgenders, but a “significant reduction in suicidal tendencies” is not a very ethical view on approaching the dysphoria. Let me remind you that the Tavistock clinic aka,G.I.D.S, the largest gender dysphoria clinic in the world,will be closing this spring on a report commissioned by Dr.Hilary Cass, citing, ‘ serious missteps, weaknesses, and evidentially unsupported treatments of gender dysphoric children’. They rushed into judgement and then treatment, while pressuring staff to adopt an “affirmative and unquestioning approach’. Some 19,000 procedures were performed while in business. There are over,at last count, 1200 lawsuits against the clinic. The study also suggests that many children later regretted the decision and subsequently wish to de-transition. Look up Chloe Cole,a patient of the clinic at 13, who is speaking out against changing your gender prematurely, and see for yourself the devastation it causes mentally and physically to young boys and girls.Even at 14, as you say, is a child, and they can’t make these decision on their own. Come on man!!! Are you not a parent? Today……

  9. Hon Wai Lai February 19, 2023 at 6:57 pm

    The incident at Santa Rosa county is most unpleasant. No political candidate should promote vigilantism or lynching, even when the target has committed an awful crime such as forced mutilation of children (e.g. think of female genital mutation going on in parts of the world). But I can understand, without condoning, the sentiments of the audience who applauded Alisabeth Lancaster, as gender reassignment surgery of children is very controversial and elicits strong emotions. From the PNJ article, Lancaster is not targeting hatred towards transgender people, but towards doctors who performed such surgery. She may well think the children involved are the victims of an ideology promoted by adults.

    I find Douglas Wadeson’s defence of transgenderism from biblical passages contrived. Castration invariably was performed involuntarily on people in the biblical world, sometimes as punishment, not as a medical treatment of the psychological condition of gender dysphoria. Hence biblical passages on inclusion of eunuchs into the religious community is to show physical deformities were not barriers.

    Being transgender is not an innate characteristic according to versions of gender ideology. Otherwise one can’t make sense of the notions of “genderfluid” (being male one day, female another day) or “non-binary” (neither man nor woman).

    • fishician February 19, 2023 at 7:50 pm

      Genital mutilation without a minor’s consent is quite a bit different than gender reassignment done at the minor’s insistence with careful counseling and instruction. If it is done too early or without consent or without careful preparation then it is certainly wrong. Gender transition doesn’t typically begin until at least age 14 – about the same age as Shakespeare’s Juliet and likely the age of Jesus’ mother Mary, so we’re not talking “children” really. I’m curious what your source is for saying Biblical eunuchs were “invariably” non-voluntary. The Biblical passages make no such distinction. As for it not being “an innate characteristic” I suggest you talk to some people who are transgender and ask their opinion on that. Some people being gender-fluid or non-binary does not invalidate the idea of transgender any more than the existence of hypersexual people invalidates those who choose celibacy, like Jesus and Paul.

      • Hon Wai Lai February 19, 2023 at 8:35 pm

        There is a difference between surgery with versus without consent. I was making the point that even when the action was extreme such as FGM, lynching of the perpetuator is unwarranted. Hence it is also unwarranted for any less extreme action. I can understand Lancaster audience’s reactions, as signifying their view that gender reassignment of children is abhorrent. Whether their view is justified requires debate.
        Gender reassignment is a modern phenomenon hence a 14yr old is unquestionably a child, in the relevant legal context. Consider the illustration, a 30yr man having sex with a 14yr girl in today’s context is condemned as an abuse; that it would not have been in Tudor England or time of Jesus is irrelevant to this discourse.
        Notions of genderfluidity and non-binariness invalidate the notion of the transgenderism (as an umbrella term covering all non-cisgender identities) as being innate in all cases, assuming for sake of argument gender identity is a coherent notion. (Once we fix the meaning of biological sex and gender expressions, there is no coherent notion of gender identity independent from both). A gender trait cannot be innate if it readily changes from being one gender state to another, on personal whims.

        • fishician February 20, 2023 at 10:18 am

          “A gender trait cannot be innate if it readily changes from being one gender state to another, on personal whims.” I would encourage you to talk to some transgender people in your area and ask them if they can readily change from one gender state to another, or that it is based on personal whims.

          • Hon Wai Lai February 20, 2023 at 2:31 pm

            I would love to talk with transgender people including genderfluids, so I can better understand their psychological dispositions and problems. While I will endeavour to show compassion, I have to maintain equanimity that biological sex is immutable.

            I recommend gender activists and their allies listen to harrowing experiences of de-transitioners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtItMuCW0vI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8P8RJwVrZQ. Do not gaslight them as many activists have done.

            In philosophy of biology, the concept of innateness of a trait as being distinct from acquired from environment, is much debated: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innate-acquired/. One could argue innateness is a non-binary concept. Gender activists often hold inconsistent views on gender.On one hand, they maintain gender is socially constructed e.g. gender roles,dresscodes,gender behaviours, cognitive abilities (e.g. stereotype that boys are better at maths). On the other, controversially, they maintain gender is innate when it comes to one’s subjective sense of identity. How can they be sure gender identity is innate when it is often explicated in terms of gender expressions (playing with dolls, preferred dresscodes, hairstyles, hobbies) which they acknowledge to be socially constructed?

            Asking transgender people whether their identity is innate doesn’t settle the question, any more than women in premodern Christendom affirming their conviction that gender roles are rooted in innate gender differences e.g. women by nature are submissive while husbands are natural heads of households.

          • fishician February 20, 2023 at 10:31 pm

            I’m not sure I understand your basis for saying “biological sex is immutable.” I think the more science studies these complex issues the less they seem immutable. But the science side is not what my article was about. I am suggesting that there are passages in the Bible that might move us to acceptance and compassion toward those who fall outside the traditional male-female stereotypes, rather than the blanket condemnation that often falls on them. Regardless of what you or I or anybody else thinks, or what ancient texts say, the destiny of one’s life should lie in one’s own hands, and not be forced upon one by anybody else.

  10. daveb1 February 20, 2023 at 3:31 pm

    Brilliant analysis, Dr. Wadeson. Thank you.

  11. veritas February 20, 2023 at 3:51 pm

    is not 2000 yrs ago or the 19th century,where women were given in marriage at young ages(usually at 12 or higher once they reached their menstruation cycle). We have evolved and learned,in some ways and not in others, from our ancestors on how to improve our life struggles for the good of all,ok most. Most of Europe is already transitioning to the advise and care suggested by Dr. Cass because of the medical malpractice being used in many ,if not most cases. One reporter said it best,I think, “Let this be a lesson to those Americans and American organizations who are huge advocates of “affirmative care.” As I said, money talks louder than anything in America, and if we’re to assure that gender dysphoric children get thoughtful and empathic treatment, only the threat of lawsuits will do that. Even ideology must bow before Mammon.

    • fishician February 20, 2023 at 10:21 pm

      Money can be an unfortunate influence in medicine, and there certainly can be other suspect motives. I would be the first to object to pushing children too hard in one direction, before they can understand the implications of life-altering therapy. Keep in mind that for a long time the needs of people with gender dysphoria were neglected, and that was wrong, too. But to get back to my article: there are passages in the Bible that suggest to me room for tolerance and compassion rather than blanket condemnation of those who fall outside the traditional male-female stereotypes. I don’t think we should base our decisions on a narrow interpretation of only selected passages from ancient texts. As for the medical side, science needs to continue to study and explore this complex issue, but should not use religion as its deciding factor.

  12. jscheller February 21, 2023 at 12:49 pm

    Another great post Douglas! I’ve used both, Matt 19:11-12, as well as Acts 8 to teach along the same lines that you are using them in now. One word of caution when teaching about eunuchs – be sure there are no software engineers in the audience, or you end up talking about a computer operating system 🙂

    • fishician February 21, 2023 at 5:07 pm

      Ha! Although some programmers I’ve known live like eunuchs while working on Unix…

  13. mini1071 February 22, 2023 at 4:44 pm

    Doug, as a fellow Gator I’m sure you understand Santa Rosa County is part of LA? Lower Alabama that is!

    U F ‘71.

    • fishician February 22, 2023 at 8:27 pm

      Very true, but some beautiful beaches there, at least!

  14. mkoufakis March 5, 2023 at 9:20 am

    I believe Jesus was all about inclusion, love and hope for everyone. Therefore, I agree with Dr. Wadeson. I don’t believe making a transgender decision is a sin.

    A more interesting question would be. Why doesn’t the Bible or Jesus condemn the making of eunuchs from children?

    Perhaps the 11th commandment should be “Thou shalt not abuse children.”

    • fishician March 5, 2023 at 11:14 am

      When I read through the OT I was surprised and disappointed how little consideration or protection was given to children. Consider how the famous Ten Commandments are given in Exodus 20 and in the very next chapter it says a man can sell his daughter as a slave (21:7f. No, not hired out as a servant as the KJV implies). Seems like parents “owned” the children; they were a valuable asset. So, forcing your child to become a eunuch doesn’t seem like much of a stretch in that ancient culture.

  15. mkoufakis March 6, 2023 at 5:17 am

    Ultimately then, is the Bible and religion static or dynamic (similar to the Constitution) and who decides?

    Jesus broke the status quo and expanded on the ideas before him. After 2000 years does it just stop or does it need revision?

    The founding fathers knew the Constitution was a major step forward (not perfect) but also had the wisdom to know it needed to evolve and change with the times. Hence the 3 division of government.

    Whether the question is of transgender, is it OK to make children into eunuchs, how to deal with people with mental health issues, let women be priests or whatever. Do we need to wait for return of Jesus before these questions can be answered or is it too late because we will be dealing with an apocalypse?

    • fishician March 6, 2023 at 10:06 am

      Clearly there are those who think Biblical religion is static: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” Others see it as guiding principles that can evolve over time. Personally, I think it’s worth studying ancient religious texts to understand ancient history and its impact on modern history, but ultimately we each have to consider what is worth keeping and what needs to be discarded. For example, I think loving one another is an excellent idea, but as an MD I think people suffering seizures should seek medical help, not exorcism. Based on accumulated knowledge and experience I accept some ideas, but reject others, as I think most (all?) people do.

      • AngeloB July 1, 2023 at 6:44 pm

        The Bible is a flawed attempt to understand God.

    • Martin Brody March 6, 2023 at 5:47 pm

      mkoufakis you raise an excellent parallel with the Constitution. A principal of statutory interpretation is “in pari materi,” which involves evaluating the meaning of a statute against others on the same subject.

      Thus, maybe a better question would be “what does the bible say about sexual behavior, including both intimate sexual relations and sexual expression?”

      A brief Google search reveals that this probably doesn’t help the transgender argument much.

    • magnificentbeast March 13, 2023 at 9:18 pm

      Anyone who has ever written anything substantial can tell you that there is nothing particularly ETERNAL TRUTH about the thoughts you wrote down rather than the thoughts you didn’t write down. I don’t think people really understand what writing is, and how terrible it is to watch generations of people parsing these written thoughts as if they must hold eternal secrets of the universe just by nature of being written down sometime in the past.

      As Thomas Jefferson said (in words inscribed on his memorial so they MUST have an element of eternal truth)
      “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

      I for one am so tired being ruled by the dead.

  16. KathleenM March 6, 2023 at 3:52 pm

    I just saw the movie about Whitney Houston called “I Wanna Dance”. In the movie story she doesn’t want to be involved sexually with another woman, so tells her friend that she can be her “best friend” but not her lover/wife. It makes the lesbian mad for sure, but she backs off somewhat. (She personally said Bobbie might have been “jealous” of her career in a real life interview. But maybe he had multiple jealousies?)

    People, men or women, really can be frightening when they act aggressive sexually, outweigh you, and it’s like dark outside or even indoors at a Burger King. Heterosexual people don’t have to “experiment” with same sex people, or be experimented with by the medical profession. Sparta failed because they didn’t want married warriors, but then there wasn’t any army after a generation or so, not enough soldiers for a legion, because the adult citizens never had enough kids. Some traditional ways will always matter for survival. I think that is what the Bible was about. Some now traditional ideas became status quo over time.

    • fishician March 8, 2023 at 2:05 pm

      Obviously the biological plan is reproduction with a male and a female, and that fits the majority of people, but in life there are lots of exceptions to the rules. Only 10% of people are left-handed, but that doesn’t make them abnormal or less human, as a very crude analogy. Jesus and Paul apparently had no problem with some people choosing celibacy and not contributing to reproduction. Some people being transgender or having a same-sex marriage is not going to seriously reduce the population, which is approaching 8 billion! So, those who follow traditional roles really have no need to fear the LGBTQ community or to persecute them, which is too often the case.

  17. apmorgan March 13, 2023 at 2:39 am

    I have been absent from the blog for a while, because life has been like that. Happily it’s not hard to catch up.

    As for the topic of this post, I am personally active in the transgender community and so in theory I have a lot to say, but in practice I don’t know what I should say. It’s hard to start without falling down some rabbit hole or other (which is also why I haven’t read the other comments for the time being lest I be tempted).

    I will point out that being transgender is far broader than discomfort around one’s genitalia, which need not be a component at all.

    Bart, I recall that your wife is a Shakespeare scholar, and I wonder if I may be so bold as to ask if the two of you have seen Abigail Thorn’s stageplay _The Prince_, which is now available online for the price of a Nebula subscription. It explores gender identity and other themes through the device of characters being trapped inside a Shakespeare play. I liked it, but felt it could be more fully appreciated by someone who really knows their Shakespeare.

    • fishician March 14, 2023 at 3:05 pm

      Thanks for your comment – I wish we had more input from the LGBTQ community on this article. I am sympathetic to the LGBTQ community, but I certainly can’t speak on their behalf. I just would like to provoke more reasoned thought about LGBTQ issues instead of assumptions used to assail that part of society. As for your question to Bart, he may not see it since it’s attached to my post. I suggest you ask it on his latest post, even though it may seem off-topic.

      • apmorgan March 14, 2023 at 8:33 pm

        I’m not sure exactly how it works, but I gather guest bloggers usually hand the reins back to Bart after a few days, whereas you’ve chosen to hang on for longer. Perhaps I’ll add an abbreviated version of my question as a postscript next time I have occasion to post a comment.

        Feel free to let me know if I might be able to help with anything. This comment section is probably not the right place for an in-depth discussion, but you might nominate an alternative. I don’t claim any kind of expertise, but I’m a moderator on an online support forum for the gender diverse community, so I have connections.

        I think the most virulent transphobia from religious sources isn’t based on any kind of reasoned theology. It boils down to the fact that trans people are living proof that their assumptions cannot be correct, and must therefore be hidden from sight or eliminated. A quote from the Doctor Who serial _Face of Evil_ sums it up: “They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”

        • fishician March 15, 2023 at 1:27 pm

          I think you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for your comments. If I write another article on this subject I might be interested in running my ideas through your forum to see if I am properly addressing the concerns of that community.

        • AngeloB July 1, 2023 at 6:58 pm

          I really like that quote!

  18. airic May 24, 2023 at 3:55 pm

    wow…respectfully, i’m baffled at this exegesis.

    1. Matthew 19:12 doesn’t permit homosexuality at all, you cant use this verse to justify homosexuality since gay people say they’re “born this way” as if that’s the same as a eunuch – which is a physical defect, not a mental one. The Bible explicitly states homosexuality as a sin NUMEROUS times, while the term ‘eunuch’ is never interchangeable with homosexuals. Transgenders want to become the opposite sex and be intimate with the same sex, which is not what a eunuch is. That’s homosexuality.

    2. The verse of Paul regarding “minding your business” is again, out of context. The verse right before that says:

    “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is *sexually immoral*,” etc. etc.

    3. I’m not sure what the context is of that statement that inspired this blog, regarding “hanging doctors who provide sex change surgeries”, but Jesus Himself says in Matthew 18:6, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

    • fishician May 25, 2023 at 10:25 am

      Do you know that the term “homosexuality” has no Hebrew or Greek equivalent in the Bible? We need to be careful not to enforce our views on what was written by the ancients, as some translators have. The Bible does not “explicitly state” that homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuality is not the same as being transgender. There are quite a few posts on the blog about the issue of homosexuality. Go back to May 7, 2022 and you’ll find a link to Dr. Ehrman’s webinar on the subject. More recently (March 14, 2023) on his Misquoting Jesus podcast Dr. Ehrman talks with Jeffrey Siker on the subject. And frankly, with all the truly pressing issues in the world today, I’m not sure why the Supreme Being is so preoccupied with our sex lives. Better to see people expressing love, not hate, in my lowly opinion.

      • airic May 25, 2023 at 12:51 pm

        interesting rebuttal…I’m looking forward to hearing what Bart says about that. Considering that homosexuality was a known practice I can’t imagine how “the term ‘homosexuality’ has no Hebrew or Greek equivalent in the Bible”, to be honest, that sounds like a reach…but I’ll watch those talks with Bart ASAP and report back. ‘preciate the reply.

        • fishician May 27, 2023 at 1:11 pm

          Look up the term in any standard concordance that shows the underlying Hebrew or Greek words.

      • airic May 26, 2023 at 3:21 pm

        so I watched Bart’s Zoom lecture on the topic… and I have to say, that was very…interesting. lol. (Bart if you read this, I’m curious to know how’d you come to these conclusions on this topic without realizing the contradictions of that conclusion.) Let me explain:

        in the 15:28 mark – he says the bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality since supposedly the idea of sexual orientation/categories did not exist in those days, but then confirms that the Bible does say same sex acts are bad…as if that is any difference? The idea of “not having any gender/sexual categories” doesn’t seem accurate considering Genesis 18:20-21, detailing the whole reason why the angels went to the city in the first place! The verse says, “So the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so blatant that I must go down and see if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests.” – so by Bart’s lens, was Sodom merely sinning by constantly mistreating the town’s guests and that’s all? LOL cmon…

        Let’s not forget Jude 1:7.

        For the sake of comment limitations on the amount of words, I’ll continue in the next reply…

        • Martin Brody May 28, 2023 at 9:31 am

          I agree with you that some of Bart’s statements regarding certain “hot button” where he says “the Bible says NOTHING about [given topic]” tend to ignite reactions such as yours. Bart’s rather hyper-technical perspective that the Bible doesn’t specifically address abortion, homosexuality, or transgender disregards the other moral principles contained in the Bible that, as you point out, very much apply to the topic. It’s similar to the argument that people make regarding the 2nd amendment: “the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, not AR-15s.”

          But I try to overlook the, self-described, controversial character of Bart’s statements to understand them in a less offensive way.

          First, to understand the cultural context of certain Bible passages that seem to address abortion, homosexuality, and transgender. Second, and for me this is the key, what did the authors of the Bible consider “bad” about those topics? Understanding the Bible authors’ perspective on these topics perhaps can help evaluate if they truly would condemn abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism.

          • airic May 30, 2023 at 7:41 am

            yeah, context is key. But Bart’s presentation of the context feels too close to cherry-picking to prove a point. I want objective truth, which granted, that could be subjective to one’s interpretation, but I expect all the valid points to be presented so that one can come to a truly informed conclusion regardless of disagreements…don’t ignore key points to bend the perception, ya know? Bart’s usually great at addressing all the points even when they oppose his stance, which is why I love Bart’s work, but he dropped the ball on this one… for example, at the end of the Zoom lecture during the Q&A section, he was forced to acknowledge his purposeful exclusion of “pederastic relations” because “it would’ve ruined his point that he was trying to make”… cmon Bart. lol. I’ve noticed he’s done this with other topics before, but I always overlooked it in good faith. But man…it’s becoming a pattern. (Love ya Bart! I’m just being real…)

          • Martin Brody May 30, 2023 at 3:44 pm

            Based on your response, you might appreciate the following quote by Albert Einstein outside the National Academy of Science in Washington, D.C.

            “The right to search for truth implies also a duty. One must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

            I agree that oftentimes Bart makes comments very much out of character with his otherwise rigid insistence on evidence-based reasoning.

  19. airic May 26, 2023 at 3:27 pm

    Bart then says that Paul does not mean homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ in the sense that we think it means today. He quotes 1 Corinthians 11:13 to show Paul using the term ‘natural’ in another sense to prove his point, (“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him,”). Fair enough. But the NET footnote on the word ‘nature’ says: “Paul does not mean nature in the sense of ‘the natural world’ or ‘Mother Nature.’ It denotes ‘the way things are’ because of God’s design.”

    So Bart isn’t completely wrong here, but he’s overlooking the true intention by only mentioning one side (the multi-application of the use of the word ‘nature’) without explaining the other side (how the word ‘nature’ is a general term for God’s ways.) – which is surprising since I love Bart’s work BECAUSE he usually always presents all sides unbiasedly even when it’s against his stance…so i found this explanation on his part to be odd.

    I reached my 2 comment limit for today, so tomorrow I’ll explain further regarding his comparison with the “Domination Doctrine”.

    • fishician May 27, 2023 at 1:18 pm

      You should put these comments on the post with J Siker so Bart will respond. To boil down my article: eunuchs were men who retained female characteristics due to castration so they did not conform to traditional expectations, yet they were accepted into Jewish and early Christian communities. I think there is something to learn from that.

      • airic May 30, 2023 at 7:59 am

        To continue: the “Domination Doctrine” doesn’t disprove homosexuality.

        These ancient couples (to name a few) debunk the idea of Bart saying the concept of homosexuality or sexual orientation wasn’t practiced:

        1. Harmodius and Aristogeiton (both died 514 BCE) were a same-sex couple of Athens who were honored as “the tyrannicides” for toppling the rule of Hipparchus (514 BCE) and Hippias (510 BCE) (though that was never their intention).

        2. Alexander the Great & Hephaestion: Alexander the Great (l. 356-323 BCE) and Hephaestion (l. c. 356-324 BCE) were lifelong friends, having grown up together, but writers such as Plutarch suggest they were also lovers. They seem to have patterned their relationship on that of Achilles and Patroclus, and one story relates how, when visiting the site of Troy, Alexander lay a wreath on Achilles’ tomb and Hephaestion on that of Patroclus. When Hephaestion died of fever, Alexander had the doctor who had failed to cure him killed and declared funerary rites only observed for royalty. Alexander is known to have had another lover, the Persian youth Bagoas, but this was not as deep or as lasting as the relationship with Hephaestion.

        Sounds like homosexuality more than mere dominating pleasure^ …right?

        • fishician May 30, 2023 at 3:25 pm

          There have been same-sex couples throughout history, but the question is whether the ancients thought about gender identity and sexual orientation like we do today. Even today many people assume it’s just a matter of choice but it’s really much more complex than that. If you can cite any ancient discussions about the nature of same-sex relationships it would be most illuminating.

          • dankoh May 30, 2023 at 6:55 pm

            Try John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

          • airic June 1, 2023 at 10:47 am

            I actually forgot to mention this part, regarding the “Domination Doctrine”…think about it,

            1. if the one being dominated is viewed as the one in error, since it’s okay for the dominator right? Then that would mean the ONLY WAY both parties could not be in error is by heterosexual relations…since females are meant to be dominated by men. So with that logic alone, homosexuality is not the correct lifestyle in ANY worldview and more importantly, it’s not “natural” (God’s way)…doesn’t that make sense?

            2. if same-sex relationships weren’t such a big deal, why do all ancient cultures look down on it in various degrees even when it’s supposedly accepted (ie. Domination Doctrine) or why do numerous homosexual couples keep it a secret, especially when they have status like Alexander The Great who should be able to do as he pleases right?

            It’s inherently wrong, and we know this deep down but we find ways to justify it. It’s def complicated…Gay/bi people bear the heaviest cross…and i feel for them. Christianity clarifies the guard rails to life of what’s right or wrong, it’s up to us to know God’s law and do our best to adhere to it. And love those who fail, or “miss the mark”.

            As far as citing ancient discussions, there’s so many besides the 2 i already mentioned… look up Achilles and Patroclus, Khnumhotep & Niankhkhnum or Duke Ling & Mizi Xia.

          • fishician June 1, 2023 at 4:59 pm

            I was referring specifically to ancient discussions of the nature of sexual orientation and gender identity, like why are some oriented differently? Is it in utero factors? Childhood development? Genetics? A little of each? The ancients didn’t have our accumulated knowledge of biology so I wouldn’t expect them to have much to say but would be interested in any such discussions. As for us knowing what God says on such matters, having read the Bible cover-to-cover I don’t see any reason to think the ancients had more insight into God and morality than we have today; arguably they were less equipped to properly make moral judgments. Their god seems to be a reflection of their culture and knowledge and here we are 2,000 years later and yet unable to move forward.

          • airic June 2, 2023 at 10:23 pm

            I might’ve replied incorrectly to your comment and responded as a new comment instead (didn’t see the “reply” option next to your response) so I’m just leaving this one so that you’re notified…go check my other comment.

  20. airic June 2, 2023 at 6:45 pm

    I hear ya…we’re here 2,000 years later because people cherry-pick the Bible without accurate exegesis.

    the reality of intersex people is one of the hardest situations to clarify under God’s law. But, this is a physical defect that is out of anyone’s control. Other than that, it is a psychological need (or more accurately, a spiritual battle), which could be resolved by subduing one’s urges (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)…same as any other temptation.

    This is why I am of the stance that homosexuals bear the heaviest cross, I can’t imagine dealing with that temptation every second of everyday…it’s a lifestyle, not a momentary decision like murder, stealing, adultery, lying, or any other sin where you can choose not to do it in that moment, ya know? But homosexuals have to live with that battle all day everyday… The way I see it is this, some flaws seem “lesser” than others, but we have to remember that Yeshua taught no sin is any less than another (Matthew 5:27-28, Matthew 5:21-24). Therefore, by carrying your cross, your testimony is THAT MUCH STRONGER when you show others that it IS possible to live happily and righteously in this fallen world.

    The Postmillennial view is the answer.

    • fishician June 4, 2023 at 9:59 am

      I appreciate that you are trying to be sympathetic to the LGBTQ community but there is wide disagreement about what constitutes “God’s law” and there is certainly disagreement about orientation being “a psychological need” or “spiritual battle.” But I know people have their firm beliefs about this. What mostly bugs me is when people use their view of “God’s law” to persecute and discriminate against LGBTQ and others, even to the point of using legislation to force their views upon others. (I’m still waiting for conservative legislatures to criminalize adultery, divorce and remarriage – things Jesus actually talked about!)

      • airic June 4, 2023 at 12:52 pm

        but it’s actually the opposite…there are no laws “persecuting and discriminating against LGBTQ” unless it affects Christian traditions. There is no legislation forcing Christian views on anyone other than the view of Marriage, which is inherently founded on a Christian tradition: a union between 1 male & 1 female. In contrast, other cultures permit polygamy in marriages, or tolerated concubines like Greeks and Romans. So, considering that, who is actually forcing a view here when the one’s who don’t believe in Christianity want to change the Christian tradition? See what I’m saying? I have yet to hear about any efforts from LGBTQ people to create a third bathroom area (or sports category), the same way we already have “family bathrooms” so why aren’t there any suggestions for a “LGBTQ Bathroom”? On the contrary, they’re forcing their minority views on the rest of the majority insisting on allowing trans in any restroom they choose…that my friend, is forcing a view…don’t you think?

        Conservative legislatures don’t need to criminalize adultery, divorce and remarriage because that’s merging church and state (Matthew 22:17-22). Marriage laws only matter because it plays a practical role in society (shared credit, bank accounts, etc.) but it’s a Christian tradition.

      • airic June 4, 2023 at 1:04 pm

        regarding orientation being “a psychological need” or “spiritual battle”, we don’t even have to look at it from a Christian lens, in secular psychology, “gender dysphoria” is a very real condition and was treated **humanely** until very recently where psychology courses began conforming to this “gender fluid” agenda. We all know how corrupt the medical industry is, and any practitioners who push back risk losing their license, etc. The percentage of those who **truly** suffer from this dysphoria is so minute that knowing the truth about this issue encourages more compassion for those who truly have this condition. But the reality is that the majority of those who claim to have this inclination is in fact, a choice. Have you seen the documentary “What is a Woman” by Matt Walsh? I highly recommend seeing it…the proof of this primarily being a psychological need is presented very well, from a guest who identifies as a wolf (literally) to the common responses of the supporters who defend “gender affirming treatment” showing the incoherent arguments by not even being able to define what a woman is… this ideology is a dangerous slippery slope that blurs the lines of reality on society.

        • fishician June 5, 2023 at 10:54 am

          I suppose labeling the medical community as “corrupt” frees your mind from listening to doctors so you can instead listen to people like Walsh, but since I’m a member of that “corrupt” community I don’t expect I will have much influence with you. However, I’m glad you’re participating in the blog. We all need to have our views challenged if we are to make any progress.

          • airic June 8, 2023 at 5:26 pm

            There’s doctors like Dr. Peter A. McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone or Dr. Rashid Buttar who I definitely listen to, then there’s those who played along with the recent corrupt mandates that changed the world (covid)…there’s a difference.

            I wasn’t implying that everyone involved in that field is corrupt. If that were the case, then society would be MUCH worse! lol I’m grateful for every professional practitioner who has the courage to speak up when necessary as a “checks-and-balances”, and I hope I’m not insulting you in anyway, I respect you! But as someone with a grandfather who’s a renowned doctor, I hear horror stories all the time. I’m sure you can think of a few sketch moments as well right? But anyway, I found this article recently and decided to share…

            It’s interesting to see the debunking of the “born this way” theory still denied even when a recent advancement in modern science as described in this article proves them wrong by confirming the non-existence of a “gay gene”. But yet, somehow, the original author of this article manages to flip the information to insist on homosexuality still being “natural”…read below:


          • fishician June 9, 2023 at 8:23 am

            Is that the right link? Seems like an unrelated article. Anyway, I don’t know anyone who thinks gender identity or sexual orientation is related to a single gene. Human development is much more complex than that. I’m curious how you know that the doctors who side with your views are the good ones and the ones who don’t share your views are corrupt. It’ kind of like the way people know their own religion is correct and everybody else’s is wrong! We all have our biases, and objectivity is a constant challenge. But this is a blog about the Bible and early Christianity and my article was simply suggesting that the Jewish and early Christian communities accepted eunuchs, who were outside the traditional model of maleness. I don’t see how anyone can read the teachings of Jesus and think that justifies violence against those who are different. I don’t think “love your neighbor” means to lynch them, or to legally execute them, as can happen in places like Uganda.

          • airic June 12, 2023 at 9:33 am

            Sorry, that Forbes site has a weird way of changing the URL after reading an article since it automatically pushes you to the next article. Here’s the link I meant to share: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/08/30/the-gay-gene-is-a-myth-but-being-gay-is-natural-say-scientists/?sh=783ae4827fa7

            To answer your points,

            1. it’s not about “siding with my views” when there’s lives at stake, even homosexual lives at stake, everyone suffers from the malpractice of doctors – it’s a non-partisan issue. If a doctor notices the corruption behind the scenes (ie. inflating cause of death for a check, when they know for a fact the patient died of something else. Or continuing to prescribe inefficient care because it’s the status quo, etc.) and still decides to play along, then that’s corrupt. Three years later, we all know the truth now. The docs I mention risked their licenses to call out corruption, on behalf of all people gay or straight.

            2. the Bible explicitly states homosexuality as a sin, while the term ‘eunuch’ is never interchangeable with homosexuals. Transexual’s want to become the opposite sex and be intimate with their original sex (gay), which is not what a eunuch is.

            3. Yes, I agree, no Christian should ever incite violence under no circumstance.

          • fishician June 12, 2023 at 11:04 pm

            At least we agree on point #3!

          • airic June 12, 2023 at 9:51 am

            to clarify a bit further, being a eunuch is synonymous to being feminine, which like i said, is not the same as carrying out homosexual acts. I honestly believe that’s apart of the problem with homosexual confusion, too many men are called gay as kids because they do feminine things like wearing pink, or getting manicures, or being overly sensitive and shy of confrontation, cries easily, not good with girls (as if dating skills at such a young pubescent age define a person) …etc etc list goes on. I actually saw this type of social pressure affect a member of my family, who’s gen-z, and instead of being reassured that everyone has different talents (gift of gab with girls or not) and different taste (pink colors) which doesn’t define manhood, he was unfortunately reaffirmed as being gay. Sure enough, his younger sister followed suit as non-binary. The cultural influence is very obvious to me.

            We should accept feminine men (or masculine women) like Matthew 19:12 says, without making them feel uncomfortable in their skin for not being the standard form of a “manly man” or soft female. That’s when truth will prove the deception of gender fluidity.

          • airic June 12, 2023 at 11:43 pm

            🍻 ‘preciate the dialogue.

          • AngeloB July 4, 2023 at 7:07 am

            If we all thought that the medical industry is corrupt, we would all be unvaccinated and dying very young!

Leave A Comment