Does the abrahamic gods ever condemn transsexuals?

>transsexuals are crossdressers
that statement can't be justified in literally any way. how?
also not all transpeople get sexual reassignment surgery.

They are people dressing up and pretending to be the sex they aren't.

Well that's up for debate. If you look at it another way, they are women and thus MUST dress as women. either way you look at it, transsexuals don't inherently wear womens clothing. sure, you're narrowing what they can do, but things like presenting female, taking female hormones or facial surgery don't seem to be addressed.

>well that's up for debate
Not in traditional Abrahamic theology. It takes some pretty hardcore theological revisionism to think that people born males can be females (God created them: male and female).

lol what a fag
Here you go Bruder

Where in the bible does it say that people can't be born in the wrong body? it's just a version of crippling, it doesn't specify what "man and woman" means. it never says "god created them man and woman, never in the wrong body and always flawless". it's entirely not addressing the point of the matter.
This is a good argument against the idea of being non-binary in christian theology, but has literally no bearing on the question on transsexuals.

She's actually a girl you fucking faggot.

Mods please don't delete my thread just because of this one retard, I made it with genuine intents.

MODS

lol, aren't you a bunch of crybabies...

If they can be born in the wrong body, why would there be a ban on crossdressing and castration?

Why would the fathers have never discussed it? Why would the idea be completely absent from all theology?

Moreover, why would it happen? And, even if it did happen, why would God then forbid most ways of trying to "transition"?

That was a nice fap, thank you brother.

>If they can be born in the wrong body, why would there be a ban on crossdressing and castration?
Again, you're just stuck in definitions that aren't set by the bible. the bible prohibits crossdressing and emasculation, but these are only problems towards transsexuals if you have already presupposed that they can't be women. If a transperson is indeed a woman, then NOT wearing womens clothing would be what is defined as crossdressing, and a woman can not be emasculated, they are not masculine creatures.
Why would it be absent indeed? maybe because it is rather minor, there are theologies that never discuss much more common disorders, ailments and abnormalities than that. I'm not a theological expert at all, but I just don't think that those arguments you presented necessarily apply, depending on how you look at it.
Why it would happen I don't know, lots of things aren't explained by the bible.

>you're stuck in definitions that aren't set by the Bible
Because the Bible isn't the only thing important in Abrahamic theology. No traditional Abrahamic authority accepts gender theory, and they never have.

A trans'woman' is a man by Abrahamic theology, I say this as someone who has studied them fairly well; I am most learned in my own religion (Eastern Orthodoxy), but this line of thinking pretty much remains unchanged in traditional Islamic schools of thought, orthodox Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Nestorianism, etc.

Why would they all be wrong about what their own religion teaches?

nobody is born in the wrong body. "transition" involves wearing clothes and pretending to be the opposite gender and nowadays they go ahead and mutilate their bodies and inject foreign hormones which cause deformations to fool themselves into the fantasy of being the opposite gender. and many commit suicide because it doesn't end up being what they wanted.

>nobody is born in the wrong body.
Can you quote what scripture says this?
I get that this is a valid perspective, but it doesn't seem like it's one founded in religion.
>No traditional Abrahamic authority accepts gender theory, and they never have.
Define traditional? It's also not a matter of whether abrahamic religion has accepted it, it's a matter on whether they've renounced it. There are tons of phenomena that weren't codified properly in early civilization.

When I say traditional, I mean they've maintained the ancient theology.

If they renounce their ideas on gender, then what else should they renounce? They could be wrong on anything!

It's not an issue like contraception where the reasoning against it turned out to be wrong (it was thought that the things that caused someone to not get pregnant were actually killing the embryo, not preventing sperm from fertilizing egg); this is an issue of metaphysics, of the soul and body, and on this issue, the traditional teachings are quite clear: that the roles of male and female are ordained by God, and decided in creation. Anything else is revisionism designed to accommodate false teachings.

>Dueteronomy
Old testament was fulfilled

Besides some stuff meant to apply to crossdressers and eunuchs, no. The idea that a man could become like a woman through advanced surgery would have been such an alien concept to ancient peoples that they would never have even considered it a possibility, but it probably would have been condemned for the same reason homosexuality and masturbation were.

>that the roles of male and female are ordained by God, and decided in creation.
Does it say it's decided in creation? and does it define how the decision is made? it is ambiguous at best.

yeah it was fulfilled but many of the sexual teachings and teachings on morality didn't change.

As I mentioned before: He created them, male and female.

If you have a dick, you're a man. Hence circumcision as the entry into the old covenant for boys.

Fuck, these captchas are getting really complex.

The holy bible says it is an abomination to god for a male to act as a female or vise versa.

seriously though, does OP think that Judaism calls for female circumcision for transmen?

Doesn't mean God changed his mind, it is still an abomination before him, it is just something no longer punished according to the Old Law. If you are an abomination to God, it's pretty serious.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do soareabomination unto the LORD thy God. There you go user.

So it's okay to murder, steal, and covet?

no because that was addressed in the new testament.

Have you read the bible?

>He created them, male and female.
yes, but again, this is not addressing the issue, no one is saying they aren't created male or female, the question is what defines male or female in this context. circumcision is not exclusive to penises.
No, I don't really THINK anything, it's just an interesting thing to consider, you don't have to be spiritually or ideologically invested to discuss something.
again, I didn't say this was about the christian god, I'd like to hear from all major abrahamic religions if possible.

>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished
The idea that "fulfilled" means "absolved" is the greatest piece of sophistry in this thread.

“At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" how's that?

Jewish circumcision is.

I'm not jewish.
You're gonna have to specify, I can't see the argument in that.

The Jews are the originators of Abrahamic thought; their gender roles is pretty much where the whole of Abrahamic thought on gender comes from.

>the question is what defines male or female in this context. circumcision is not exclusive to penises
but in judaism only males are circumcised. now I'm no expert on hebrew, but I've been rereading Samuel the past few days and I noticed a note on the translation of David's threat to kill all of "males" in Nabal's family. it says that the literal hebrew used is "he who pees at the wall", a reference to men peeing over the wall along the edges of their settlement. this seems to leave no wiggle room for your question of whether the text could be refering to just the "social construct" of being a man without being "male"

our knowledge of Abrahamic culture is very limited, it's too old to really recover much from. Does scripture itself say that the bible must be gleamed from an abrahamic context?
And wouldn't god be the originator of abrahamic thought, divine inspiration.

>but in judaism only males are circumcised
Yes but you're again making a mental leap outside of scripture. who is male in this context? did hebrews interpret correctly?

It's basically saying "God made males and females and he wants them to create life". If someone dresses as a male when they are female they are living in sin as they are not fulfilling God's plan. A man is a man and a female a female and they are designed to create life and keep that life alive. God believes a male's strengths cover a females weakness and that the opposite is true.

The scripture says to trust the clergy.

The Bible (Christian and some Jewish scripture) is a collection of writings by the clerical class of their society.

I mean, if you want a definitive answer on how to define whether someone is a male or female, I suggest looking at the Talmud, but I doubt you'd find an answer different than the one I'm giving you.

I just don't understand why you're so pressed to find something that validates that the Abrahamic God would have been okay with transsexuality, when it's clear from the way Abrahamic thought has been for its entire history that transsexuality is wrong under its moral system.

To say anything that god created isn't "good" is a sin. You're not even supposed to mark on your skin. Nothing else is good except what god made. And to try to correct god is an abomination upon him.

>who is male in this context?
anyone who can pee over a wall. if you don't have a dick your gonna have trouble doing this without a funnel

>did hebrews interpret correctly?
what is there to interpret? it's a clear reference to a cultural practice that you need a penis to do.

Yes but none of this really stops having meaning if you change the definition of male and female from a genital to a neurologically based variable.

>did Hebrews interpret it correctly
Presumably they did because they had the Law and the Prophets.

Yes it does, because then you have males who fulfill the role of females and vice versa.

But that's obviously false. I've seen no real "clear" signs of that at all. And there are religious authorities that accept transpeople.
Again, I am not invested, I just think there's a valid, interesting subject to discuss that I don't see any clarity on. it just seems like a matter that gets taken for granted were it shouldn't necessarily be. It just seems like a matter on linguistics that isn't so clear cut.
Not necessarily? you'd just have only transpeople fuck other transpeople. And is it a sin to be infertile?

>and there are religious authorities that accept transpeople
They go against the traditional teachings, which means they are false teachers.
>I don't see any clarity on
How do you not see clarity on something that isn't controversial within any of the authoritative bodies on Abrahamic doctrine. It's only modernists who are even remotely open to it.

>transpeople fuck other transpeople
If you mean transgirls fucking transguys, that's just a guy fucking a girl. You're having to change what's considered trans to bring it into being acceptable under Abrahamic Law. The fact of the matter is that the Jews always held that someone with a penis is a man; that is what they believed in the time of the prophets, which means it must be correct, because the prophets were guided by God.

>No, I don't really THINK anything, it's just an interesting thing to consider, you don't have to be spiritually or ideologically invested to discuss something.

But you need to be spiritually or ideologically invested to consider it interesting, specially since it's such an unimportant issue for everyone who isn't trans.

>How do you not see clarity on something that isn't controversial within any of the authoritative bodies on Abrahamic doctrine.
then why aren't you linking any examples of this? again, all the examples here only make sense as an argument against trans if you actually make assumptions beyond what the text strictly says, you could just as well read these lines as saying that transpeople MUST transition, it's a semantics argument, yet you seem to circle back to it every post without actually addressing it.

God's work's are perfect. The bible says the LORD loves you and created you in his own image. Did God create you wrong? That's an abomination upon him to even think that he is anything less than perfect. His words are true and pure more pure and true than anything a person could ever say. A man's heart is evil. To know man's heart is evil. The bible also says a way that seems right to man is the way of death only the LORD knows what he has in store for you. To change your genitals or to act as a different gender is acting as if god made something imperfectly. Which is impossible. You're picking at the wrong little details. God is perfect and your perfect as he made you. The bible says that in the new and old testaments. End of story.

>But you need to be spiritually or ideologically invested to consider it interesting,
that's retarded. I wouldn't say I'm spiritually or ideologically invested in most things I find interesting.

>God's work's are perfect.
explain birth defects in a way that wouldn't also explain transsexuals.

Are you not listening to him? You still insist on making the point of scripture not saying something, when you're already been told that scripture is not the only thing that matters.

But surely the other doctrine also has text that he can source, right? and how is that different from secondary doctrine that interprets that transsexuals are not against god? it's very hard to see the validity of this doctrine if I don't see neither the doctrine nor the authority behind it.

Your "birth defect" isn't an actual defect but how God wanted you to be. For whatever reason, he judged your burden had to be heavier or more obvious than that of the others. The mental problem about doubting about who you are is just another burden.

Your body is the body of the beast. Your soul is the body of god. Your soul is male or female. How is that?

>how is that different from secondary doctrine that interprets that transsexuals are not against god?

Can you cite that secondary doctrine?

You are aware the text came after the doctrine, right? The Bible even outright says that it doesn't include every teaching of Christ, which is why we trust what the Apostles passed down.

If you want an example of a traditional body condemning it, here:

Sometimes perverted human sexuality is manifested in the form of the painful feeling of one’s belonging to the opposite sex, resulting in an attempt to change one’s sex (transsexuality). One’s desire to refuse the sex that has been given him or her by the Creator can have pernicious consequences for one’s further development. «The change of sex» through hormonal impact and surgical operation has led in many cases not to the solution of psychological problems, but to their aggravation, causing a deep inner crisis. The Church cannot approve of such a «rebellion against the Creator» and recognise as valid the artificially changed sexual affiliation. If «a change of sex» happened in a person before his or her Baptism, he or she can be admitted to this Sacrament as any other sinner, but the Church will baptise him or her as belonging to his or her sex by birth. The ordination of such a person and his or her marriage in church are inadmissible.

mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/

And you should act upon the soul and not the beast. Such as, lust, sloth, gluttony. They are all sins of the flesh. Acting as a different gender is both a sin of the flesh and of the soul.

You can't because transsexualism is a birth defect. It's a birth defect that inclines one to sin, and so shouldn't be aided, but should be struggled against. It exists because mankind brought sin into the world, perverting God's perfect creation.

Well the scottish fucked that one up.

that's awfully arbitrary and not really and argument. Also I'm not trans.
Why isn't it a birth defect? if it isn't a birth defect defect but a burden, then you must define a burden as not being signs of something imperfect. Thus being a perfect creation of god does not exclude you from being trans.
iran has fatwas telling transpeople to transition.
Your source is the russian orthodox church then? I'm relieved, I was thinking an iranic fatwa was a pretty weak source but this is even worse. by this logic literally anything ever has doctrine against it in some way, I had hoped for something ancient and fundamental. not even gonna read this one, sorry. This would only make sense if we are exclusively arguing on the views of the russian orthodox church.
I might be missing something here, sorry, I don't mean to be dismissive.
Yeah, except you still haven't defined why it's a sin, you're just applying your personal interpretation as if it's abrahamic law.

>and you should act upon the soul and not the beast. Such as, lust, sloth, gluttony.
not seing transsexuality in there.

It means you shouldn't wear clothing that was made with the intent of being worn by the opposite sex. It's the intent of the manufacturer, not the functionality of the clothing.

uh oh you're stepping into very confusing territory with this one.

>wanting ancient proclamations arguing against an idea that only started existing like 30 years ago
user, are you retarded? Besides, we've already provided ancient texts showing that pretty much everything that defines transsexuality is banned under the Old Law.

It's a sin because it's rebellion against God's creation. It's thinking that you know better than God what sex you are.

Besides, Church councils like the one that ratified that document are acceptable sources of ancient teachings, because the Church councils discern what the ancient teachings are.

But what if its girl's clothing with the intent to be worn by boys.

>pretty much everything that defines transsexuality is banned under the Old Law.
No, it prohibits men from doing womanly things and woman from doing manly things, it doesn't define what is woman and what is man.
If god gives a male body a female brain, something that science more and more suggests is a physical state of being, not a nurtured or implanted idea, then that might as well imply that god created you to be a woman with the burden of a male body, than a male with the burden of a female brain. It's a semantics argument that I can't see any of these quotes actually giving a clear solution/answer to.
And if those are acceptable sources, then that makes all theological scholars acceptable sources, regardless of cultural and personal bias.

Again, it depends on the design. If it's literally just girls clothing meant to be worn by men, then it's cross dressing, but if it's a female article of clothing adapted and changed for men, then it's mens' clothing, because it's not meant to be worn by females.

For example, this controversy came up in the Orthodox Church, over women wearing pants, and it was decided that women could only wear pants if they are specifically womens' pants.

A guy can't wear a wedding dress and say it's meant for guys, because it's still a wedding dress, but a kilt is a garment specifically meant for men.

You also have to remember that what clothing is for women, and which is for men, is one of those things that is actually dependent on culture. When the Israelites were writing this down, pants were something that steppe barbarians wore.

>If it's literally just girls clothing meant to be worn by men, then it's cross dressing, but if it's a female article of clothing adapted and changed for men, then it's mens' clothing,
that's incredibly nebulous. If this was made by a tailor to be worn for men because these men find it to look comfortable, is it crossdressing?

OK, I get what you're saying. There's nuance. But I don't understand why God made these incredibly convoluted rules with no hints as to what you just said and gave them to pre-modern man.

The way for a man to enter the old covenant is for blood to be drawn from the penis. If blood cannot be drawn, then it is not a male, and therefore cannot enter the old covenant as a male.

Textwall incoming

10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
יא וּנְמַלְתֶּם, אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם; וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.
יב וּבֶן-שְׁמֹנַת יָמִים, יִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל-זָכָר--לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם: יְלִיד בָּיִת--וּמִקְנַת-כֶּסֶף מִכֹּל בֶּן-נֵכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזַּרְעֲךָ הוּא. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.
יג הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ, וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ; וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, לִבְרִית עוֹלָם. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
יד וְעָרֵל זָכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִמּוֹל אֶת-בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, הֵפַר. {ס} 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.' {S}

How do you define penis :^)? is it the sexual organ of a man?

Why would they condemn something even every child since time and memorial know is wrong and go against the laws of nature but only mentally unstable people thinks is right? All while the degenerate G-d hating West push for it.

Seriously, back then any abnormality would be seen as the work of the Devil or an evil entity like an extra limb or someone born with an mental illness sperging out. And someone willingly wanting to mutilate themselves and dress like the opposite gender wasn't even heard of, cause no one back then was that stupid unless they suffered from some severe mental illness. But even if they did, the only ones who would support it were Satanists and other Cults of vile Evil and corrupting intent.

"For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” Matthew 19:12

"Expanding every possible care on their outward adornment, they are not ashamed even to employ every device to change artificially their nature as men into women....Some of them...craving a complete transformation in women...have amputated their generative members."
Philo

So wait. you're saying that... if someone lost their penis, say, through a surgery, they wouldn't be men?

Castration is against the Law.

No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 23:1

fair enough, that's pretty solid. I'm not sure I can think of anything else.good talk user.

But you can cut a women's clitoris and draw blood.

Being born intersexed =/= deliberately mangling your body

So we can't eat blood rice, blood pudding and rare beef?

But transgender people are also born with physical abnormalities, their brains PHYSICALLY resemble women more, in ways that are unalterable after birth. it's also very common for transpeople to have chimerism, which is intersex.

It's not blood from the foreskin.

"drawn blood from the penis" was amended in by orthodox rabbis as a possibility after Americans started circumcising themselves nonreligiously. It's basically supposed to be a second circumcision for converts, because the first one didn't count.

the hood is foreskin.

>blood rice
Unless I misunderstand wiki, the dish isn't actually the blood, it was just cooked *in* blood. If you could get rid of the blood by causing it to evaporate/boil, then you could eat it.
>blood pudding
Forbidden
>rare beef
Depends on the method of slaughter. In most Western countries, blood is drained from the animal during slaughter, and the red fluid is actually muscle tissue mixed in with water.

I know because I asked a rabbi friend.

>It's not blood from the foreskin.

The clitoral hood is literally foreskin. They're homologous.

that does not look comfortable at all for the dick

It's formed from similar tissue, but it is not the same grammatically.

The ancient Hebrews and the prophet Abraham understood this to mean the foreskin of the penis.

Doesn't matter, the Hebrews understood it to mean the foreskin of the penis.

Only the water in the blood evaporates.