Please, don't hate me anyone but here it goes. The bible does say in the first book of Corinthians Chapter 6 Verse 9 that 'the effeminate do not inherit the kingdom of god" basically it puts effeminate and clearly effeminate birth males in that spectrum. The Bible basically  aligns effeminate males or essentially transwomen and homosexuals as well with the unrighteous. I used to be a Christian but many things hurt me in that book and religion after reading the bible the few times I did.


Anyway... thoughts?

I can recommend reading, 'Those 7 References'  A study of 7 references to homosexuality in the Bible, by John Dwyer.  It's available on Amazon for the Kindle Reader.

I think that some linguistic and historical background would help enormously. The translation you're relying on has taken some liberties.

Hello Claire

I am always troubled by literal interpretations from any group's holy writings, since so many are exclusionist, and what was valid during tribal times two millenia ago is not always applicable to how we live and interact today.

In this sense, as a thinking person, I try to take a humanist approach.  Is what I am doing in my life materially hurting people?  Am I being a good person to other humans?  If I was to hold up a mirror to myself, how would I judge my behaviour?   Frankly, I find many so-called religious people to be sorely lacking in this sense, especially when they believe that anything in  their personal behaviour can be justified by their religion's writings.

I would advocate that you find a place - emotionally, physically, spiritually - where you can be who you are, and practise a life of kindness to others without adherance to precepts that originate in guidance from a bygone age.  There is a lot in our species' holy writings which is good, but there are parts that I think require some strong interpretation for our time.

I hope you find the tranquility and direction you deserve.

Regards
Julia

Poking holes in a holy book is easy.  Written by Mark, Luke or L Ron Hubbard, the fantastic supernatural claims and archaic wisdom need commensurate proofs that are yet to materialize.   While some find faith enough, others require confidence born of results that lead to an ethical and loving world where not just the righteous have rights.

Reading the Bible is a trans-cultural experience which is why so many folk who believe in 'literal' Bible interpretation end up making themselves look stupid.  Another useful book is 'Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes', Removing cultural blinders to better understanding the Bible, by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien.  Again it's on Amazon for the Kindle reader which is how I carry most of my scripture study books around with me these days.

If I may, I would suggest that nearly any verse from any translation of the Bible can be refuted within the same book and translation. Strict interpretation of sentences without context can make a strong point for any given personal, spiritual or political stance.

If i am looking at a quote from the Bible I like to start by the King James translation. Mostly because it was the first English version. All others have come from that one. I don't read Hebrew, Latin, German(I do a little but not well enough to do more than "Dick and Jane" type stuff) or any of the ancient languages. So, for me, King James is were it starts. It is about the same time period as Shakespeare. So, if we can follow Hamlet's  angsty feelings and reasons for doing or not doing things, we can do the same with King James. I am no biblical or religious scholar(I don't even play one on TV). I just took a really good class in college.

King James version does include the word effeminate:
"6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

I am not arguing that using only that word and not men takes power away. Males would be implied since Paul didn't really hold a lot of appreciation for teaching women. Reading that line makes it absolute. However, if you read before and after, there is more to the story. Paul continues to list others as unworthy to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  Reading before the passage, Paul is talking about who should one turn to as judges to decide things of this life. He then lists what he sees as the problem of going to secular judges are. They will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven because of these issues and are not able to decide from there. Interestingly enough he is talking about wordly things. If we want to go the the source of those ideas Jesus said that wordly things are of this world. That whole give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, thing.

Paul goes on to talk about how many in the Church of Corinth were of the groups of terrible descriptions that were listed in 6:9 and 6:10. However they have been "washed clean". He goes on to talk about how the body is not for fornication but for God. He says that it is not good for a man to touch a woman. However, if he must then he should be married.

My problem with much of this passage is historical context. If we consider all who are listed in those two verses as wrong doers, there is no one who will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. One of the important messages of the New Testament is that no one is really worthy to inherit it on their own. It is only through Jesus's actions and the grace of the Holy Spirit that any human is saved. Whether you believe in Christianity or not that is what it all boils down to. Might I add that Christianity is a following  of Christ. If you follow Christ, you should look at what he is quoted as having said. His apostles are all well and good and interpret with authority but Jesus did not say, "I came to save the Jews, a few of the Gentiles and really the good ones who show up on Sunday already knowing just how good they are. I am not saving those terrible people who are like the residents of those evil cities of the Torah, nor the abortion doctors, nor other wrong doers." 

If you believe in Christianity, he came to help those in trouble. If you believe, Christianity seems to be a journey, not just a destination. Much like in Islam, or any other religion, it is an ongoing (dare I say it) transition within yourself to do what you feel your God wants or requires of you. Please don't take my word for it. Yes, as I child I went to Sunday school and I took a really good class. Read it yourself. However, read it all. It may hurt a little, most growth or change does. Don't let some overly zealous person just pick and grab a line or two and point to it as an absolute. It feels like some of the people making these arguments are trying to keep the undesirable elements out of their heaven.  What is important to remember is that Jesus ate and hung out with those undesirables. If these are your beliefs, who would he show up to today?

I don't mean to sound as critical as I do. I am constantly doubting and questioning my own beliefs, convictions, place as a transgendered person... I just get so sick of potentially uplifting texts and beliefs being hijacked to not just exclude others but to make you feel bad about yourself.

If you liked how Christianity felt when you practiced it(even that is a very interesting phrase considering what I just suggested), don't give up on it. Maybe you are a sinner according to those verses. There are other verses. Looking in what Jesus said the greatest commandment is to "Love God and then love others as you have loved yourself". Wow, it hadn't even hit me till just now. I have been pretty self-loathing for a long time. I am now trying to love myself. So, as much as I can love myself(and everyone tells me I have to do more of that) I should love others at least that much.

So that's my 200 cents.

With loving thoughts,
Joanna

The King James Bible is a good translation to use because it's a reasonably accurate English translation without any modernist taint and compares well with other translations of its times such as the Douay-Rheims.

My Greek is terrible, but despite that I do have my doubts over the translation my Greek Interlinear New Testament gives for the word ἀρσενοκοῖται.  My modern Greek Interlinear gives 'homosexuals' for this word, but another older common rendering is 'sodomites', or as the 1599 Geneva Bible says 'buggerers'.  The simple truth is the Greek word 'ἀρσενοκοῖται' or 'arsenokoitai' doesn't have a clear English translation and has stumped Greek scholars for a very long time.  The possibility has been suggested by some scholars that 'arsenokoitai' was the word for male customers of effeminate call boys.
Back in in 1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible took it upon himself to translate this word as 'homosexual' even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew.  And that's how the word 'homosexual' was introduced to the modern English Bible.  Good luck with trying to explain that to a Southern Baptist.