Southern Baptists transgender eunuchs

[stephaniec]

Southern Baptists transgender eunuchs

http://planettransgender.com/southern-baptists-transgender-eunuchs/

Planet Transgender/by Kelli Busey.  07/30/2017

[DawnOday]

Acts 8:37   And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. ... The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Acts 8:38King James Version (KJV)

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

In order to believe one area of the bible you must believe all areas. It's not a Chinese menu for you to pick and choose.

[Janes Groove]

The sad thing is, like everywhere else, there are tons of transgender Southern Baptists.

[Dianne H]

Eunuchs in the Bible weren't transgender. They were castrated men who kept charge of the king or queen's possessions. The most common was eunuchs in the harems who waited on the women and oversaw what went on where non castrated men were not allowed.

Other books also bear witness to this. Castrating men to take care of and help women was and may still be commonplace in the middle east today, even though everything I have read says it is illegal but overlooked.

Being an eunuch may appear transgender by the removal of sex organs but books by those who lived with eunuchs state they were men who led a frustrated life and when harems were closed many couldn't find work. There are many true account books which back this.

I wish I could agree but just can't. There are just too many books written by middle eastern women out there.

The Southern Baptist Convention has other areas in which they go against the word of God and they are a division of the body of Christ. For those things I cannot agree with them in many areas.

In the area of eunuchs however, books state that the eunuchs in harems knew they were men and frustrated because their ability to have intercourse naturally (to keep this clean) was removed. Some common methods were crushing testicles and such. It wasn't always just cutting them off.

I searched this out years ago when I was looking for things to justify how I felt. In both scripture and secular books all I found was that eunuchs were not transgender.

[RobynD]

I'm not sure that ancient eunuchs were all that frustrated because a big source of their sex drive was taken out of the picture. Not saying that they don't have a drive but in general. Whatever the term meant, and going back to the original greek, the idea is somewhat the same.

God loves all people, cis people, people that have altered themselves, people that are intersex etc. As to what the transgender community looked like in the mediterranean at the time the bible was written is anyone's guess as there is very little data on it, but i think we can certain it existed in some form and God loved them, as he does today.

As to the bigoted special interest groups and people that draft language at conventions and such, nothing is that new there. They like all regressives are desperate for a "culture war win" and are doing as much work as they can to influence the people that they have in churches to agree with them.

[Deborah]

The early church interpreted eunuchs to be either real eunuchs or men who remained virgins in dedication to God.  Nobody anywhere interpreted eunuchs to be transgender until this generation, 2000 years after it was written. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deborah]

There were trans women known at the time the scriptures were written.  They served as priestesses to the Goddess Cybele in the temples in Rome and elsewhere.

The argument can be made that it was they who St. Paul condemned with the word "malakos", translated as men who are effeminate.   St. Augustine made exactly that point in the early fifth century in his book, "The City of God."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobynD]

Ah yes the Cybelle adherents that became eunuchs. St. Augustine seemed to do a fair amount of damage to people because of his own hangups as it were. But i didn't know him

There are a fair amount of Roman statues (maybe greek too i don't know) that picture women with male genitals, so whomever they were depicting, (intersex etc.), they had to be at least somewhat well known.

[Jamierose]

The early church interpreted eunuchs to be either real eunuchs or men who remained virgins in dedication to God.  Nobody anywhere interpreted eunuchs to be transgender until this generation, 2000 years after it was written. 

The book of Acts, Romans etc were written by Jews who saw themselves as Jews whose messiah had come. The Jews saw them as a sect and referred to them as 'those of the way'. This is why they had 'the Jerusalem council'. To debate/decide if Gentile (non Jewish) believers need to observe all the Kashrut laws. Judaism never had a doctrine of sexuality being unclean. It was the Catholic doctrine of purity through abstinence hundreds of years later that espoused the ideas of a person being less pure if engaged in sexual activity.  ie. The virgins dedicating themselves to God is a Catholic doctrine that came later. To put that into the context of someone who is born an Eunuch makes no sense.  Abstinence is not something you are born with unless you have a physical abnormality. Secondly Children dont have sex generally until they come of age. So every child unless born into a paedophile ring remains a virgin at least for a while?

[Deborah]

Paul preached abstinence in the first century.  So no, it wasn't hundreds of years before this idea came about.

See 1 Cor, ch 7.  This is the very earliest scripture in the NT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jamierose]

I dont want to argue about it, I am aware of what Paul spoke of. and outside of the Catholic church theologians do not interpret it to be about spiritual purity through abstinence. Back to the point either way Abstinence is a choice if its not a choice then its not abstinence it is a disability so you cant be born abstainant.
I should point out that all my theological knowledge is over a decade and a half old, and I havnt buried my nose in the Bible for years so apologise if new history has come to life or quote things out of contex.