What does the bible say about troons

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
かうぼーい

かうぼーい

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
i was researching the bible and found this verse from Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. im curious what this means regarding race and gender and if it could support troons thanks
 
I don't think it really says anything for or against. Even if it was against, I dont see troons caring much since I doubt many are religious at all.
 
The Bible regards homos as explicitly sinful. Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Click to expand...

Trannies have basically replaced gay/lesbian spaces so probably not.
 
Troons are either men or women.
Lusting after twink ass or munching carpet equals death.

There's a reason why twinks fell out of fashion after Rome fell.

You can make only so many burning stakes.
 
Transgenderism itself is not discussed much outside of some vague Old Testament passages saying that men shouldn't dress or act like women. My guess is they observed their neighboring cultures of Babylonia with their effeminate, dress-wearing, promiscuous priests of Inanna-Ishtar and were freaked the fuck out by it. I don't neccesarily blame them. It really seems the only instances of transgenderism existing before the 19th century were shamans/priests in ancient cultures.
Glowie said:
Troons are either men or women.
Lusting after twink ass or munching carpet equals death.

There's a reason why twinks fell out of fashion after Rome fell.

You can make only so many burning stakes.
Click to expand...
Well to be fair, this was because Christianity took a stronghold. Christianity was unique in that it had an absolute zero-tolerance of homosexuality. I attribute this to its Judaic tribal roots which basically said that all sex should be used for babymaking, probably because thye were basically tribes fighting out in the desert and they wanted to propogate as many people as they could before another inevitable genocide/war.
 
Last edited:
Chaos Sundae said:
Transgenderism itself is not discussed much outside of some vague Old Testament passages saying that men shouldn't dress or act like women. My guess is they observed their neighboring cultures of Babylonia with their effeminate, dress-wearing, promiscuous priests of Ishtar and were freaked the fuck out by it. I don't neccesarily blame them. It really seems the only instances of transgenderism existing before the 19th century were shamans/priests in ancient cultures.

Well to be fair, this was because Christianity took a stronghold. Christianity was unique in that it had an absolute zero-tolerance of homosexuality. I attribute this to its Judaic tribal roots which basically said that all sex should be used for babymaking, probably because thye were basically tribes fighting out in the desert and they wanted to propogate as many people as they could before another inevitable genocide/war.
Click to expand...
Islam is ironically only pro too of Abrahamic texts, meaning a Khalif could have harem of neutered boys to violate a loophole probably written after prophet plagiarist death.

It's the reason why Iran has its own child drag show, dancing and all.
 
Lol, you think that Paul is trans-affirming? He's the thorn in the side of every progressive 'Christian', and that's why they've attempted to kick him out of the Biblical cannon constantly.

St. Paul said:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Click to expand...

He's also the guy that said women have to wear head-coverings, that women should be submissive to their husbands, that women can't hold authority over men, that homosexuality is sinful etc.
 
Last edited:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female -- Jesus, Matthew 19:4

Those who deny the gender with which they are made are guilty of blasphemy against the image of God they are blessed with.
 
YE24 said:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female -- Jesus, Matthew 19:4

Those who deny the gender with which they are made are guilty of blasphemy against the image of God they are blessed with.
Click to expand...
thats what i wanted to hear YE24
 
The New Testament is largely a modernist, universalist implement over the Torah and contains the stories of rebellious Jews that wanted to spread an ethnic religion to other peoples and decided to modify it to make it universalist in scope.
Islam came 600 years later and essentially "returned to tradition", while performing a sneaky implicit replacement of the initial "chosen people", i.e. Jews, with Muslims, i.e. anyone that accepted the new version of desert monotheism.
It's natural to find passages that sound progressive in the NT, all the original stuff is in the OT.
Needless to say trans was not a thing.
Needless to say transitioning is a medical, modern social issue, not religious.
Needless to say that there are males and females and gender is inner feelings, which guess what?
Are often delusional.
Ignore gender. Sex matters and can be measured, gender cannot, end of story, nobody cares what you think/feel you are, you nerds.
 
1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

It's Paul mainly saying God will not lead you astray with conflicting messages, but the bolded goes for outside of church meetings as well. Ergo, if you're confused about your gender identity, it's not God telling you He made a mistake putting you in the wrong body because your body is how it's supposed to be.
 
I don't think they really had any concept of trannies as we would understand it. The closest analogy would be eunuchs. Eunuchs were considered ritually impure, but so is eating pork. There were at least a couple eunuchs in the Bible who were considered to be good guys, relatively speaking (Acts 8:26).

That's about all it says. Still, I think it would be reasonable to assume that Peter or Paul would think trannies are insane.
 
Aside from all the Bible verses that explicitly say that homosexuality is a sin (with strong association with other biproducts like narcissism, materialistic greed, lacking empathy for other people, and a "reprobate mind"), tells men and women to not wear clothing associated with the opposite sex, and that those who destroy their genitals cannot hold the priesthood or even enter the assembly, the closest thing that the ancient world had to troons were male temple prostitutes who pretended to be women. St Augustine even mentioned those who would go around in public and harass people and demand that they subsidize their shameful lifestyle.

Even the Romans thought that troons were batshit insane, they assasinated one of their emperors for being a batshit crazy troon.

If the Bible truly did not make any direct condemnation of transgenderism (rather than just homosexuality and cross dressing), it's because they thought it didn't even have to be said. They already frowned on men dressing up as ladies and taking it in the ass, as plenty of that happened. If they knew how far modern "medicine" would go to validate troons, they would be horrified and call it out for the abomination it is. Hell, self-mutilation was often associated with pagan practices, and highly discouraged.
 
Last edited:
You’re misunderstanding the statement “neither male nor female.” You have to look at it from the perspective of a writer in 50AD. Women were property, couldn’t own land, were given by their father to whom ever the father saw fit in exchange for money (dowry), etc. Their only real value was that they could be fucked and that they bore you children. (Some might argue that this holds true today but that’s for another thread). Paul was in no way insinuating that men could be women or vice versa. He was stating that the gift of redemption through Jesus Christ was available to all humans, regardless of what society said about them at that time.
 
what ive concluded is the bible is against cross dressing which is the natural progression to transgenderism but troons did not exist but if they did there would be a verse therefore yes troons are sinful case closed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom