When Focus goes after transgender issues it’s both sad and comical how little they appear to know. This time they’re all worked up about a transgenderd 5 year old beginning kindergarden in Broward County, Florida. From Family News In Focus on 7/11/06:
(To be clear, Family News in Focus is a radio broadcast. I just took the audio and added a photo montage.)
First let’s have some fun with Paulk’s statement. I’m not sure what testosterone has to do with anything. Does Paulk think testosterone is an exclusively male hormone? If that’s what he was implying then he’s wrong, testosterone is present in both sexes. Here’s a handy diagram that should clear things up:
Paulk predicts the child will only become more and more confused. Perhaps Paulk should actually read the DSM:
Only a very small number of children with Gender Identity Disorder will continue to have symptoms that meet criteria for Gender Identity Disorder in later adolescence or adulthood.
What really bothered me about Focus’ broadcast is how they would have you believe the APA’s “treatment” is some sort of “fix” that magically makes people folk fall back into line on gender conformity. Sorry but that’s not the case. First, host Bob Ditmer makes a comment about “gender dysphoria” and then plays a clip of Warren Throckmorton talking about “gender identity disorder.”
Note to Bob, those are not the same thing. Here’s a little history on the current revision of the DSM.
Gender dysphoria alone isn’t the same as being diagnosed with GID according to the DSM. Gender identity disorder has two two primary criteria for diagnosis; 1) a persistent cross-gender identification and 2) the resulting dysphoria or mental discomfort.
The standards of care outlined for childhood GID by the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care dictates therapy should focus on:
Reducing distress the child experiences from his or her gender identity problem and other difficulties. The child and family should be supported in making difficult decisions regarding the extent to which to allow the child to assume a gender role consistent with his or her gender identity.
Contrary to what Focus would have you believe, the accepted treatment sides with the child being able to express their gender in a way which will reduce the child’s dysphoria or mental discomfort. I somehow doubt that’s the treatment Family News in Focus listeners had in mind.
Transcript of broadcast:
Host Bob Ditmer: Gender dysphoria, unlike homosexuality is still considered treatable by the American Psychological Association. Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a sexual orientation researcher.
Throckmorton: We don’t know what causes kids to have gender identity disorder, although most thinking on that subject is that there is something of an interaction between biological and environmental effects.
Ditmer: John Paulk, former manager of gender issues at Focus on the Family is outraged.
Paulk: This is a boy, it’s not a girl. He’s got testosterone flowing through him as he ages, and he goes through puberty, he’s going to get even more confused, he’s going to be ridiculed and made fun of in school by other peers no matter how tolerant it is.
Ditmer: The child lives with his parents and three siblings in a middle class neighborhood in Broward county.
The video is fake isn’t it? Why would Focus use the Paulk photo that got him in trouble?
Isn’t it nice to see Focus on the Family to bring back Mr. Paulk for another round of “smear the queer.” As Aaron noted (and thanks for clarifying Dan), Paulk got into trouble for continuing to frequent at least one gay bar after his alleged “fixing,” and I thought he had left his “pro-family” work. I guess they couldn’t get anyone else to comment.
So the “treatment” is to let the kid express the gender s/he wants? That’s kind of funny. It’s like saying that the “treatment” for being gay is to let them love and have sex with people of their same gender. It sounds like the treatment is less for the kid, and more for parents: to cure them of their neurotic obsession with trying to control what gender their kid is.
Near false, that’s exactly it.
Gender expression isn’t catching or fatal or uncomfortable for the individual expressing it.
This isn’t like unmedicated schizophrenia (which could ultimately be dangerous for the sufferer and the public).
This is just a matter of clothing and mannerisms.
It’s uncomfortable for their family and social group.
Therefore, accepting this condition (as we would anyone else who was considered eccentric, so to speak), I’d say it’s right to let the person just do their thing.
It does no harm.
However, Focus and Throckmorton’s saying the accepted treatment is forcing the person to express themselves as their gender is outright bullshit.
People with (Dr.) in front of their name are in professions of trust with the public.
To abuse that position, misinform the public and exploit fear to achieve their aim, is despicable.
Unless something can be dangerous, potentionally infectious or fatal-GID is comparatively a yawner.
Tyler Perry is making MINT out of playing profane grandmother, Ma’Dea.
He’s turned cross dressing into high art and is grandly entertaining.
More and more, people like Focus want to take all the fun out of life.
Wish they’d get one of their own!
Nothing against transsexuals and transgendered people, but what does this have to do with homosexuality? Why must homosexuality be linked with transgenderism?
“Why must homosexuality be linked with transgenderism?”
Well, it needn’t be, I suppose. However, at exgaywatch we observe and expose the lies and culture warfare of the ex-gay groups. And as this radio broadcast quoted Dr. Throckmorton (although it seems he might have been taken out of context) it falls under our purpose.
While I affirm transgender equality, I personally feel the connection between transgender issues and sexual orientation is marginal.
Sizable distinctions can be made between sexuality (the physical interrelationship of two or more people) and gender, which is solitary. Within each topic, further distinctions exist among biological predisposition, affinity, and behavior.
That being said, the standards of care outlined above sound reasonable to me, and John Paulk’s remarks seem gratuitously egotistical and mean-spirited. WWJD? Paulk wants us to believe that Jesus blamed the victims and praised the bullies.
While sexual orientation and gender identity are certainly distinct issues, being sexualliy oriented towards the same sex is a violation of the normative sexual behavior of one’s gender. It is also a fact that same-sex attracted people engage in gender nonconforming behavior at a higher proportional rate than opposite-sex attracted folk due, although the extent of it, what it means, and whether it results from similar biological processes is still open to debate.
And even if there were no link at all, if anti-gay activists starting attacking, say, black people, it would still be relevant to put here.
Mike, the majority of people who have childhood GID end up as homosexuals.
Dan, you look hot in the wig and pink t-shirt! (call me!)
Mark asked “Why must homosexuality be linked with transgenderism?”.
Because society chooses to single out both of us to be rejected as sexual deviants. We have common cause in fighting those who oppose our freedom to love the one we choose. The anti-gays generally don’t see a difference between me as a transgendered girl loving a man and two gay men loving each other. The gay cause is my cause as well, I’m surprised that so many gays don’t feel they’re in this together with us transgendereds.
“as this radio broadcast quoted Dr. Throckmorton…”
I meant to also include John Paulk.
“the majority of people who have childhood GID end up as homosexuals.”
Thanks, Daniel, that’s a very good point. Some gender nonconforming kids will be straight, some will be transgendered, but many more will be gay.
Well, Mark…these are distinct issues.
But are most fundamentally linked to sexism, misogyny or the eunuch.
Throughout human history, societies have in some ways places strict rules regarding behavior on a person according to gender, rather than individual personality.
With regard to the female as inferior or weaker.
Men are not supposed to display anything resembling what a female is expected to do, and vice versa.
The ex gay ideology does require stricter gender roles, and there is no such absolute gender requirements in all of nature.
So that is to say, one’s gender is unimportant regarding some, but not all situations.
The perceived weaker, or inferior person obviously loses their entire humanity in the eyes of some cultures.
The greatest violence and oppression in this world is against women and homosexuals.
This is probably the greatest of humankind’s persistant and unnecessary tragedies.
And all of Creation’s offenses.
Because society chooses to single out both of us to be rejected as sexual deviants. We have common cause in fighting those who oppose our freedom to love the one we choose. The anti-gays generally don’t see a difference between me as a transgendered girl loving a man and two gay men loving each other. The gay cause is my cause as well, I’m surprised that so many gays don’t feel they’re in this together with us transgendereds.
I think, Randi, that a lot of gay men, myself included, don’t necessarily “get” transgenderism (I love men, and I love being a man), and also we often buy into the value of gender stereotypes that society places (e.g., personal ads for “straight-acting” gay men), so there is a similar visceral reaction to transgenderism that straight people have. I believe, although I don’t think it’s been quantified, that lesbians are likely less inclined to see the distinction between being gay and being transgender, because there seems to be much more “gender-queer” behavior in the lesbian community.
That being said (and I meant no value judgement with my statement above), as I have studied the biological argument for the cause of homosexuality, it has often seemed to me that homosexuality, transgenderism and intersexism are all part of the same continuum – that is, the “normal” process of fetal development is altered and produces an individual that is more of a combination of the male and female parents than is the typical straight person. In at least some intersexed people, that mingling of male and female is in fact at the cellular level (half the cells XY, half the cells only X). Certainly, as others have noted, homosexuality does not exist in a vacuum – it is typically part of a larger spectrum of non-gender-conforming behavior, although the extent of that behavior varies wildly by individual.
I don’t necessarily believe the processes that produce the various gender-nonvariant people are the same, but that there are many potential “mistakes” that can be made in fetal development that lead to these conditions. I say “mistakes” in quotes because I really believe that these altered fetal processes are part of the normal evolutionary process – for a species to succeed there has to be some mechanism for mutations of genes (at least some of which will be beneficial mutations), and homosexuality, transgenderism and the intersexed are the product of that inherent mutability of genes and the biological processes by which these genes are expressed. It’s “adapt or die” in nature, and we are the end product of some attempts at adaptation.
Deuteronomy 22:5 probably has more to do with ex-gay opposition to transwhatever than “sexism, misogyny or the eunuch”.
“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 so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
I don’t have any data, but I’m guessing that those who are anti-gay are probably going to be anti-transgendered as well (and are probably as responsible as any group for lumping them both together). However, I think there is a valid point to be made about putting some effort into separating the two issues – they really do seem to be separate on a fundamental level. It might benefit both groups to maintain their distinctiveness when confronting misinformation and hatred. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t common ground for defending our rights, but let’s just be accurate about who we are.
David Roberts
“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 so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Huh. I would think that would have been pretty difficult to enforce, seeing as both men and women basically just wore long tunics or sheets wrapped around their bodies.
Hey 1630r!
If you are bashing TG folks, what else ya got from the Bible? Nothing? Right.
Let’s assume we know everything and base a whole theology of hatred based on a single verse that we don’t even understand.
Sheesh.
My apologies if you are just parroting what the RR states, however, my point is no less valid.
SharonB said:
Let’s assume we know everything and base a whole theology of hatred based on a single verse that we don’t even understand.
Not basing doctrine on a single verse is certainly sound advice. I can’t speak to 1630r’s reasons for posting the passage, but the King James OT is pretty cryptic. Here is a more modern translation:
Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that. [CEV]
That’s a single verse with no context, but this is probably not the right time or place for a study of Deuteronomy 😉 Suffice to say that it’s probably about as valid against transgenderism as Lev 18:22 is for use against gays.
For those who aren’t aware, Childhood Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is considered for the most part a “pre-homosexual” condition. Although homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973, Childhood GID was left in. Being gay as an adult is no longer considered a mental illness, but any child diagnosed with Childhood GID is considered a pre-gay, a pre-bisexual, or a pre-transsexual child, and is considered to have a mental disorder. NARTH’s Nicolosi picked up on the treatment of Childhood GID in Preventing Homosexuality: An excerpt from the intro (page 13) of the book:
The available diagnosis of Childhood GID is where anti-gay activists come up with the idea that gays have gender identity problems — check the language folk like Nicolosi use to describe gay people. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are linked together as all having the same condition of being “gender confused” with regards to reparative therapy.>Excerpts of NARTH documents on Childhood GID:- Childhood Gender-Identity Disorder Diagnosis Under Attack:
– How Should Clinicians Deal With GID In Children?
– Gender Identity Disorder in Children:
Recommended reading for those who don’t see how gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are linked by reparative therapists through the diagnosis of Childhood GID: Gender Identity Disorder
by George A. Rekers, Ph.D.
For those who aren’t aware that “ex-transsexuals” and “ex-transgenders” aren’t linked with “ex-gays” to reparative therapy, Please take some time to root around Reality Resources, an Exodus affiliated ministry/counseling service. Back in the late ’70’s, I went through what would now be called reparative therapy with Christian psychologist Galen Larson because I’m transgender. (I don’t believe, looking over Dr. Larson’s website, that he’s still involved in reparative therapy.)
One last transgender tie-in to ex-gays: Gender Identity; What Does This Have to do With Homosexuality?. It’s an article from Exodus International’s Youth Leader Manual.(A search of the phrase “gender identity” on Exodus International’s website indicates the article was published online on 18 May, 2006.)
As a recent seminary grad and a trans woman, I have three answers to the Deuteronomy verse.
First, it is obvious that men’s and women’s clothing are culturally conditioned. 200 years ago my wanting to wear tights would have made me a perfectly mainstream man.
Second, that is not what the verse actually says, a better translation of the Hebrew would be something like, “Soldiers should not dress like non-combatants and non-combatants should not dress like soldiers because it will get the non-combatants killed.”
Third, since I identify myself as female, when I wear women’s clothing I am actually trying to obey this rule rather than breaking it by wearing men’s clothing as I have been forced to do for most of my life.
Meghan wrote:
“Second, that is not what the verse actually says, a better translation of the Hebrew would be something like, “Soldiers should not dress like non-combatants and non-combatants should not dress like soldiers because it will get the non-combatants killed.” ”
That’s actually very close. The Hebrew is ‘kli gever’ and ‘simlat’. Literally, the words mean close to ‘holder (or vessel/container) of strength’ for the male and ‘robe’ for the female. Alot of this is related to gender roles and ancient cultic practices related to power and fertility.
Transgenderism is actually recognized in some Orthodox rabbinic rulings, so that once transitioning is complete, the person is considered the sex they identify with.
This site discusses some of the Christian views:
https://www.whosoever.org/v3i3/deut.html
As a child I exhibited most of the female version of GID, so I find it interesting that this is considered a pre-homosexual condition, as Autumn has stated. Today, I’m fairly comfortable in both ‘roles’, tend toward androgyny and don’t have any dysphoria. It seems somewhat arbitrary, though, because I’ve discussed the issue with straight women who had similar experiences in childhood and lesbians who were and are very feminine.
I agree that the gender roles in and of themselves are cultural to a great extent. Gender identification and orientation appear to be a different matter and inborn.
Meghan Foote said:
Second, that is not what the verse actually says, a better translation of the Hebrew would be something like, “Soldiers should not dress like non-combatants and non-combatants should not dress like soldiers because it will get the non-combatants killed.”
I just tried to provide a more contemporary translation since the verse had already been posted. I’m not addressing the context of the verse for reasons I mentioned before. However, to be fair in our application of posting guidelines, let me mention that we ask such statements as this be accompanied by a supporting reference from a generally accepted source.
Meghan, since you have expounded on it, do you have a reference to a translation that would support your version for those who might want to check this out?
David, aside from Meghan providing a reference, which would be appropriate, the answer is in the Hebrew, as I tried to point out. The masculine garment is described by the words ‘kli gever’ (mistranscribed in the Whosoever reading – the letters gimel and nun are very similar in Hebrew script, so that’s just a mistake). Kli is the word for vessel/container/holder and is used for dishes and for the body, as when we ask to be made a vessel for holiness. Gever is from the same root and the word gevurah (gever is masc./gevurah is fem.), both mean strength or might, some kind of power. The garment being described is one that is warrior-like, some sort of ‘power item’. Simlat (or simlath, as the whosoever site has correctly transcribed – I’m using Sephardic Hebrew, there are various ways to trascribe the tav correctly) is a common word for robe, which probably, IIRC, can be both masculine and feminine, but this implies that there was a specific style of robe for women that is being referenced. Meghan’s term ‘combatants’ is appropriate for the language used, though I tend to extend the meaning to ritual objects that were associated with masculinity, as well as a warrior type item.
For the Hebrew and Jewish interpretation:
https://www.beki.org/crossdress.html
This is an Egalitarian Conservative Rabbi.
Ya know people….I think this should really come down to what’s comfortable and tasteful for the wearer.
Period.
All I have to do is recognize you as a human being. I don’t think gender specific clothing is necessary these days.
A lot of women’s garments (and shoes) in so many cultures have been restrictive, cumbersome and horribly impractical-even deadly.
It’s just the last 60 years or so that clothing finally got more practical and less complicated.
There’s enough unisex stuff out there that are appropriate for everyone, I think sometimes this whole argument is pretty moot.
When it’s all said and done, we don’t need outrageous or distinct dress to know men from women.
Faces, expressions..in the most natural state possible, these are the things that matter.
A person that’s comfortable and secure will be attractive, period.
Whether in a tailored garment, or a potato sack.
Unfortunately I don’t have I reference to cite, I was working from memory of my own exegetical work.
Because I am between jobs and homes, all of my Hebrew reference materials are locked in a storage facility in Atlanta while I am in Colorado.
So, I apologize for not being able to be as rigorous as I would like to be.
Considering that so many of the anti-gay (and anti-trans) activists love to quote “the Bible”, it’s great to have those here who are truly familiar with the Hebrew in which the Scriptures they quote were written.
Sometimes I think that these activists believe that God typed up the Bible in English and that culture hasn’t changed since.
Thanks all, for a very enlightening discussion of the true meaning of this “clobber text.” It will come in very handy in dealing with ignorant religious bigotry.
Hey 1630r!
If you are bashing TG folks, what else ya got from the Bible? Nothing? Right.
I’m not bashing anyone. I’m saying ex-gays, who identify as Christians first and gay second (if at all), would take (what they claim is) a Biblical viewpoint on trans stuff.
As for Bible versions – I just googled cross dressing bible (because I knew there was something about it in the Bible), found the Deuteronomy verse, checked it in a Bible comparison site and cut and pasted the first version I found. And as David Roberts says, the modern versions ain’t exactly pro-trans.
It baffles me why anyone on this site would expect ex-gays to ditch traditional Christianty for modern feminist theory.
“It baffles me why anyone on this site would expect ex-gays to ditch traditional Christianty for modern feminist theory.”
I think that we can agree that most people who participate in ex-gay programs adhere to fundamentalist literalist interpretations of Scripture as it is currently translated into English (although selectively). Most neither know nor care about the original Hebrew or Greek, nor do they know or care about context, audience, transcription error, author’s use of coloquialism or slang, overall meaning of Scripture v. proof-texting, or even the self-referencial definitions of much of the supposedly anti-gay text.
So of course there’s no surprise that ex-gays would find a single clobber passage, ignore the Hebrew, ignore the context, ignore the application, and quote is as condemnation against trans-folk. What else would we expect?
1630r said:
And as David Roberts says, the modern versions ain’t exactly pro-trans.
Just to be clear, all I did was post a modern translation for the sake of clarity. I do know that most of those types of prohibitions in the first 5 books of the Bible are even more culturally and temporally entrenched than what came after. They can rarely be understood without that context. This is why using the Levitical Code (eg. Lev 18:22) against gays is so weak.
I will say that I haven’t yet found any translation or commentary that corresponds to the soldiers and non-combatants illustration above. Again, I haven’t studied it but I have access to quite a few translations. I was hoping that we could get a link to something authoritative on that so I could study it.
Actually, the Bible — spoecifically including a quote from Jesus in Mathew — has commentary on transpeople. The term used is “eunuch.”Excerpt from Intersexuals in the Body of Christ:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.–Matthew 19:12For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.–Isaiah 59:4-8
More on Deuteronomy 22:5
> What hit me most is the unanimity of disagreement concerning this verse!
https://gendertree.com/Deuteronomy.htm
[Moderator note: this post was made by the person identified as 1630r earlier in this thread, but came in as anonymous, possibly by mistake. This note is to help avoid confusion in the thread.]
Translations are thorny creatures. Even contemporary texts present many issues. In the case of Deuteronomy, we’re talking about a text that was written down quite possibly close to 3 millenia ago, over 2 1/2, at least. Many of the words have to be guessed at, even by people who speak modern Hebrew as their first language.
It’s probably good to remember that Hebrew was a purely literary and liturgical language by the time we get to the extant texts and many of the translations are based on earlier translations into Latin or Greek. Agenda’s often interfere with good translation and just basic readability and the enormous cultural differences that exist between European based people and the ancient Middle East produces great difficulties for translators.
As Timothy already stated, fundamentalists – which includes most Exgays – are not likely to take a nuanced approach to clobber texts and not likely to place these texts into textual, cultural or historical context, but we can always hope.
I’m not completely convinced of the eunuch interpretation, but I find it interesting to consider. History does suggest that most eunuchs were homosexual (Bagoas, for example)*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagoas_(courtier)
Also interesting is that the first non-Jewish Christian was Philip’s conversion of an Ethiopian eunuch. Considering this in a symbolic way, this could be viewed as God’s endorsement of a radical inclusivity. If indeed “eunuch” (or actually its Greek equivalent) was a term that included both castrati and gay or other gender-nonconforming people then – from a Christian perspective – God’s first demontrated expansion of his “chosen people” was to a black queer.
I don’t believe it is a coincidence that those who would have kept Philip’s convert out of their churches 50 years ago for being black would still not welcome him today.
* – a side thought: I suspect it is far to long after the fact to ever determine, but it would be interesting to know whether the choice to castrate was made because of observed gender atypical behavior or if following castration same-sex activity was either the expected or the only possible form of sexual outlet.
“Many of the words have to be guessed at, even by people who speak modern Hebrew as their first language.”
I wonder how people in the future will understand some of the words and slang we currently use but which means something far different than could be guessed by it origins or literal translation. Some samples:
strategery (usually used mockingly)
I could care less (means the opposite of the actual words)
that’s Christian of you (means something VERY different than just 50 years ago)
ex-gay (well…)
Hava Israel: Agenda’s often interfere with good translation
Do you honestly believe a pro-gay/trans agenda got ‘lost in translation’ over the last three thousand years of Jewish/Christian history? How did all the previous scholars miss it?
It’s not cool to bash gay/trans people but it is silly to claim the people who wrote the Bible were crypto GBLTI activists
I just wonder how talking about this child on the radio and identifying hir school makes anything any easier on hir. 🙁
And I feel perfectly okay about hating John Paulk again.
1630r,
please don’t make strawman arguments. No one has said that ancient Scripture writers were “crypto GBLTI activists”. To refute such non-existent arguments is silly.
What people here are discussing is the idea that over time certain words change meaning, certain emphasis changes, certain cultural references are lost.
For example, if I wrote a letter decrying the bowing to Mecca five times a day, you would know exactly what I was opposed to. However 3,000 years from now it’s possible that someone would not have any idea that my reference was to Islam and would think I was opposed to bowing or perhaps to mecca. A whole doctrine could spring up about the evil abomination of bowing.
As a more relevant example, look at the understanding of Sodom and the reason for its punishment. Through most of history, this has been seen as a punishment primarily because they were inhospitable and selfish (“pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy”). And it’s pretty clear that Jesus shared that understanding and context. Yet currently, some churches see the story of Sodom as a only a warning on homosexuality.
https://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/07/18/ap/religion/d8irnms8f.txt
They just can’t imagine why hospitality was such a big deal, and since they are opposed to homosexuality anyway, this is easy for them to believe.
We are arrogant when we assume that God’s word for the ages was written specifically for our 21st Century understanding and culture and think that we need not study the history and context.
1630r wrote:
“Do you honestly believe a pro-gay/trans agenda got ‘lost in translation’ over the last three thousand years of Jewish/Christian history? How did all the previous scholars miss it?”
Bit touchy, eh?
To answer your accusation, unfounded as it was, I don’t believe that there was a ‘pro-gay/trans’ agenda in the original text, but then I don’t believe these were really conceptual categories in the ancient period.
When I wrote that I was actually thinking of a conservative agenda in translations like the NIV. As far as Deuteronomy 22:5 goes, the KJV is much closer to the original Hebrew. Kings James’ translators has less of an ‘agenda’ here. The same can be said for the Sodom story. The word in question there is ‘to know’ as opposed ‘to have sex with’. The literal Hebrew is ‘to know’, and it should be translated that way. I guess I prefer the translation to be closer to the original words, if at all possible, to let the text speak in the new language rather than have an interpretation superimposed on it through the translators bias.
I do know that there are Orthodox Rabbis who have ruled that a transgendered person who has transitioned is to be recognized as the sex they have transitioned to. It’s not really an agenda, just a realistic look at the situation.
I’m not fond of any translations, in a general sense, though there’s not much I can about it if I don’t read the language except hunt for the most reliable translation. I read the Bible with the Hebrew text next to the translation and a Hebrew dictionary for when I don’t know the word. I do have plans to learn the Greek alphabet, at least, but since I’m not a Christian, this isn’t something that is as urgent to me as the Hebrew is.
Since the story of Sodom and Gomorrah came up twice in the responses to 1630r, I suppose I should add to Timothy’s comment that the story was also cited as “proof” of the evils of interracial sex just a hundred years ago. I have citations available if anyone wants me to post them, but for now I’m feeling a bit lazy–please forgive me.
Skemono, I’ve never heard of this. When you feel less lazy, I for one would be extremely interested.
It’d be my pleasure, Ms. Wiggins-Lunacharsky.
I can’t claim that this claim was widely made, but I certainly do have a few quotes to that effect. The most prominent in my mind comes from a vile little man by the name of Charles Carroll, in his book The Negro A Beast, published first in 1900. That title, by the way, is also this book’s thesis, which should go a ways telling you just how far out his views were, as well as the very different conclusions that Biblical exegesis can lead to.
On pages 143-4, he says:
And on the next page (145) he explains what this means:
“Amalgamation”, of course, is sex between blacks and whites. Carroll also says that this was the sin of the antediluvians and Canaanites, hence his parenthetical statement when quoting Jude.
This was likely not a terribly popular view, but there were others who espoused it. We have a pamphlet by the pseudonymous “Ariel” entitled “The Negro: What Is His Ethnological Status?”, published in 1867. On page 36 he says:
Adam, naturally, was white. But you need not just take my word for it–Ariel’s pamphlet is available from the Library of Congress’s website, in either text or images (though they’re missing one page).
Hell, you don’t need to go back a hundred years. Even now you can find such interpretations on several hate groups’ web sites:
Christianparty.net:
Scripturesforamerica.org:
Aryannations.org:
[Moderator note: this post was held up by the system because it supposedly had too many links (we raised the limit). It was released about 10 hours later when it was noticed. Our apologies for any confusion.]
Hava Israel said:
I guess I prefer the translation to be closer to the original words, if at all possible, to let the text speak in the new language rather than have an interpretation superimposed on it through the translators bias.
As Timothy just pointed out, those words may have enormously different meanings today. Ascertaining their historical meaning and context has always been the duty of the translator. I would like to interject here that major translations of the Scriptures are not taken on lightly. They generally involved large groups of interdenominational/interfaith scholars who, in many instances, devote much of their lives to accurate translation of the texts into all known languages. I’m not going to say that they never miss the mark (that’s what translator’s comments are for), but let’s not overemphasize that degree of error either.
I believe that sufficient material exists so that anyone, with even a modest desire, can determine the contextual meaning of Scripture. I would also say that the basic meaning of sin, salvation, forgiveness, grace and love can be understood without any further study at all. And since we are discussing God here, let’s not forget the supernatural in the writing and preservation of those Scriptures. (for those who do not believe in God, the issue is moot)
Can someone twist Scripture into something it is not? We all know they can. Can a lazy Christian (or even a “faux-Christian” as some have coined) buy into those twisted interpretations if they don’t study for themselves? Again, absolutely. But from my experience, perversions of Scripture are most often created at the end-user level, not by those who are devoted to their accurate translation. Those who do not study, and (in the case of Christians) listen to the gentle voice of the Holy Spirit while they do, will inevitably end up in error.
To briefly address this Deut passage; even if it can be accurately translated as don’t dress/act like the opposite sex, it would not necessarily apply to transgender issues today. Take a look at the surrounding text. This seems to have a lot more to do with how God dealt with Israel in that time and place, than it does with us in the here and now. Remember one of the important guidelines of understanding Scripture – not everything is a command.
For those who have no faith in the God of the Bible, please forgive the detailed discussion here. You are free to believe or not to believe. But since the topic has taken this path, we sometimes need to dig more deeply into these issues of belief. No one is trying to impose this on you. Your faith or lack thereof is between you and your conscience.
“I would also say that the basic meaning of sin, salvation, forgiveness, grace and love can be understood without any further study at all.”
David,
I don’t think you really mean that.
You and I don’t agree on the basic meaning of “sin” and we come from the same end of the Christian spectrum.
And in the original, several different words are used for what the English Bibles translate as “love”. If they each have differences in meaning, how can we think that we understand them when we call them all “love”.
And even the “authority of Scripture” is not an agreed upon absolute amongst various denominations.
Methodists teachings, for example, are “grounded in Scripture, informed by Christian tradition, enlivened in experience, and tested by reason.”
Presbyterians “confess their beliefs through statements that have been adopted over the years and are contained in the Book of Confessions … and it is up to each individual to understand what these principles mean in his or her life.”
and Southern Baptists have this to say “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man… It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” Clearly, unlike Methodists, experience and reason are not part of Southern Baptist faith.
I caution against assuming that there is any shared understanding of Scripture that can be called “correct”. It is this sort of thinking that justifies imposing that “correct” view on everyone, whether they agree with you or not.
David, we’ll have to agree to disagree a bit on this issue. I don’t believe that concepts like sin, salvation, grace and love, etc., are as obvious to understand as you are implying and I certainly don’t believe that scripture, of any kind, is easily understood, even with the holy spirit hovering directly over one’s head. I do agree that much of the perversion, as you put it, is on the user end, though I consider translations to be a part of the user end! I’m particularly biased about this 🙂 Some of that bias is coming out of the Jewish tradition, because there is a strong emphasis on reading and learning the Hebrew and a general distrust of translations and some of that comes out of being more academically minded.
Briefly: Translation teams do reflect doctrinal bias, especially if they are using the Dynamic Equivalence approach to translation. NIV’s is conservative Evangelical, despite the variety of denominations the translators were drawn from.
This article discusses this issue:
https://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html
This is a very well researched and readable article about translation issues in regard to Christian bibles:
https://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm
He compares different translations here:
https://www.cob-net.org/compare_bibles.htm
I briefly browsed through Bart Erhman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’ while I was at the bookstore last night. He discussed the difficulty in maintaining accuracy from copy to copy and used Paul’s letter to the churches in Galacia (Galatians) in the page that I read. To paraphrase (badly):
It appears that Paul did not physically write the letter himself but dictated the letter to a scribe. This seems evident from Galatians 6:11-18 where Paul points out that he’s now verifying the epistle by writing in his own hand (which used much larger letters). It is difficult to know whether Paul spoke every word to the scribe or if some was left up to the scribe’s better knowledge of sentence structure and language.
Galacia was an area, not a city, so the letter was intended to either be circulated or copied. If copied, since there were no printing presses or xerox machines, it was by hand. And since copies by hand almost always include errors, which church in Galatia received the “true word of God” and which received a mistake?
We don’t have the original of any Scripture but copies of copies of copies. The oldest existing copy of Galatians (in fragments) is from about 200 c.e., or about 150 years after it was written.
In other words, we can know that Paul “wrote” the letter to the Galatians and that the message included in the letter came from him, but if we start focusing too closely on a particular word or even a verse, we may actually be debating what was written by a scribe or copiest rather than by Paul.
David said “And since we are discussing God here”… “since the topic has taken this path, we sometimes need to dig more deeply into these issues of belief.”
Actually we were supposed to be discussing Focus’ inaccurate attack on the transgendered child. I don’t particularly care if people go off topic but please give me the same leeway the next time I do, even if I justify it on the basis of “since the topic has taken this path we sometimes need to dig more deeply into this issue”.
Timothy said “I caution against assuming that there is any shared understanding of Scripture that can be called “correct”. It is this sort of thinking that justifies imposing that “correct” view on everyone, whether they agree with you or not.”.
Thanks for clarifying the significant differences in approaches. All of this complicated talk of interpretation guided by the holy spirit has me more convinced the best approach to morality starts with the simplest of principles – fairness, equality, “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”. In that framework all the complicated details are going to tend to fall into a just place, at least as close as imperfect humans can get anyway.
Timothy Kincaid said:
I don’t think you really mean that.
Well, actually I do 🙂 I said basic understanding, i.e. enough to place one’s faith in God, believe in the sacrifice of His Son, and accept the gift of Salvation through Grace. After that, Scripture itself enjoins us to study and verify that what we are told by others is accurate. The farther away from these core tenants we go, the more the interpretations tend to differ. But I believe it is safe to say that the major Christian denominations have far more in common than not. I can attend services in most of these denominations and recognize common ground quickly and I believe fully in the priesthood of the believer.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, which forms the basis for Presbyterian doctrine, states what I mean quite well:
Even pure reason demands that we must have certain things in common to honestly call ourselves Christian and be part of the Church. In my experience and understanding, the single most fundamental issue for any Christian is “what do you think of Christ.” If we are to believe Scripture at all, there is only one right answer to that one for the Christian – whatever the flavor. Obviously, I am not addressing this part to Hava.
It is part of my own faith that God both inspired Scripture and has protected it from serious error throughout time. There is no doubt in my mind that our universe and all that is in it came from the mind of God, and I think He is capable of protecting His own revealed word – it’s just too important. In as much as this is part of my faith, it is not up for discussion debate. I’m simply explaining my own point of view. Faith, by definition, is not solely an academic or intellectual matter.
Hava Israel said:
David, we’ll have to agree to disagree a bit on this issue.
I’m pretty sure we will. These are also issues which are not, at least for me, best debated by text. I prefer to have these discussions verbally, if for no other reason than to keep my fingers from cramping as they try to keep up with my brain.
Timothy Kincaid said:
I caution against assuming that there is any shared understanding of Scripture that can be called “correct”. It is this sort of thinking that justifies imposing that “correct” view on everyone, whether they agree with you or not.
I’m not imposing anything on anyone so please don’t cast me in that role, but I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t tell you that I believe there are certain undeniable truths in Scripture. I’m not hard headed enough to think that Deut 22:5 means that God cares whether you wear a dress or not, but there is a common basis for our faith. If Scripture is seriously flawed, then we may as well forget the rest – there is no other reliable source for our faith. This is one area where my faith kicks in and I accept that we have reliable sources. The differences in the finer points of the faith I will leave to the priesthood of the believer, i.e. that’s between you and God. Does that keep me from studying the source text to check up on what the translator did, not at all.
Randi said:
I don’t particularly care if people go off topic…
Well I do so lets just chastise ourselves for doing so instead of promising leeway at a future date for anyone else to break the rules. I guess 1630r started this diversion into the OT but the rest of us certainly carried it forward. All I wanted to do was post a less cryptic version than the KJV originally offered, not spark an interfaith convention 😉
Another time and place perhaps.
David said “In as much as this is part of my faith, it is not up for discussion.”.
I can’t imagine feeling that way. Its a core part of my being that its all up for discussion. Its the only way to maximize conflict resolution. What happens when two different peoples with two conflicting faiths feel its just not up for discussion?
I missed your previous post David, sorry for continuing.
Randi said:
I can’t imagine feeling that way. Its a core part of my being that its all up for discussion. Its the only way to maximize conflict resolution. What happens when two different peoples with two conflicting faiths feel its just not up for discussion?
I’m going to let Timothy explain this as I think he understands what I mean. My back is killing me and I have to take a break but I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you.
David, I’m just going to say that I think that you see more uniformity within Christian belief than I do – and leave it at that.
Randi, “What happens when two different peoples with two conflicting faiths feel its just not up for discussion?”
Well, what happens is this:
https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-lebanon19jul19,1,7120736.story?coll=la-headlines-world
and this
https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq19jul19,0,886772.story?coll=la-home-headlines
and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
and finally,
“Actually we were supposed to be discussing Focus’ inaccurate attack on the transgendered child. I don’t particularly care if people go off topic but please give me the same leeway the next time I do”
Absolutely correct. We are way off subject and edging into the areas of arguing for arguing sake. Thanks for the reminder.
Timothy, I was stopping myself from answering Randi’s question in the same way you just did.
Great minds think alike…
I do understand a bit of what David is saying, though. If textual criticism causes a loss of faith, then the faith that was lost was not very strong to begin with.
I rather enjoy interfaith conventions, so I probably owe an appology for helping to derail the thread.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at July 19, 2006 03:40 PM
Actually Timothy, I was hoping you would explain this the same way you did your similar statement when once discussing elements of your own personal faith (I believe it was concerning your concept of sin). Two people (or even groups of people) of differing faiths certainly do not necessarily lead to a holy war just because their faith is not up for debate. I’m not imposing anything on anyone, but simply sharing part of who I am. I am open do discuss conclusions I may make as a result of these beliefs, but not the beliefs themselves.
Please forgive me for the additional post on this subject.
All I can say is I’m happy I’m an atheist and don’t have to be concerned about the interpretation of some ancient text. You would think that an all powerful God could make sure his commandments were crystal clear to everyone.
Faith is belief without any good evidence, and therefore it is not really open for rational discussion. Nobody has “faith” that the sun exists or that a Boeng 747 can travel 600 miles per hour because those things are obvious and scientifically provable. The alleged “fact” that Jesus is God cannot be proven.
Sorry, David. I’m confused. What did you want me to explain? I’ll try (if there is some concensus that this is worth pursuing) but I’m not sure what I’m to address.
As Deut 22:5 is probably the sole “moral” underpinning for Focus to forego reason and logic in the case of the TG child, I absolutely think that the study of the historical and linguistic context of that verse was absolutely on topic. I learned a lot, and I’ve been studying the bible and debating issues like this with fundamentalists for decades.
There’s other scriptures some Christians use to indicate cross-dressers and transsexuals are behaving in a sinful way: From Of transgender and sin in Asia.
From The Biblical Ethics of Transsexual Operations:
From Help 4 Pastors:
FIRST-PERSON: This boy is a girl?Jul 20, 2006By Penna DexterBaptist PressPenna Dexter is a board of trustee member with the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, a conservative activist and an announcer on the new syndicated radio program “Life on the Line” (information available at http://www.lifeontheline.com). She currently serves as a consultant for KMA Direct Communications in Plano, Texas, and as a producer for “Washington Watch Weekly,” a broadcast of the Family Research Council. She formerly was a co-host of Marlin Maddoux’s “Point of View” syndicated radio program.Excerpt:
That’s some epic scripture twisting for fun and profit, Autumn. Some truly inventive reading into the texts what isn’t there in order to support a preformed opinion of ignorance and repugnance. Not too surprising, considering the source(s).
Autumn Sandeen,
Did you just ignore the several posts just above yours where we acknowledged that this extensive foray into the OT was off topic and agreed to stop? If everyone else has to halt their comments to preserve the continuity of the thread, I’m afraid you do as well.
If you do post germane references to other threads, please try to take smaller quotes, and link the reference so we can read the rest if we choose to. This makes posts easier to follow.
As for your excerpt from the Baptist Press, you appear to be asking us to accept the opinion of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi over the American Psychological Association. While bucking the conclusions of a major professional body such as the APA might sell some books, it’s not likely to contribute to an unbiased and scientific conclusion. Quoted sources should be generally accepted and authoritative in the field.
Full disclosure: I am a member of a Southern Baptist church and quite familiar with the BP. They print opinions of the APA that border on paranoia.
Now honestly, if you needed open heart surgery, who would you want to cut on you; a member in good standing of the AMA or a guy who rants about their procedures being wrong because they cater to this or that lobby?
SharronB, there’s even more scripture twisting logic out there that makes use of Deut. 22:5.For example, I found a few places online where writers extrapolate from I Corinthians 11 (specifically the scriptures that have to do with the length of men’s and women’s hair) and I Timothy 2 (about modesty in dress) to bolster Deuteronomy’s prohibition on cross-dressing to state women shouldn’t wear pants (What About Women Wearing Pants?; Should women wear pants?; Essential Doctrines of the Bible (Section: Holiness and Christian Living – paragraph 5. Appearance)).
My apologies David — I was responding to the comments of a post, and didn’t adequately consider the comments on veering from the main topic.The difficulty I find is that trying divide the Biblical scriptures/God from reparative therapy is near impossible –the two aren’t distinct in the view of the reparative therapists/certain Christian psychologists. As an example, I quoted Dr. Warren Throckmorton on another thread (Transgender: Nature, Nurture and When It All Goes Awry) when he stated ” I have no problem believing that our genders are hardwired by God,” Throckmorton says, referring to a recent study that found gender differences in the mouse brain prior to the hormonal developmental stage — a finding that was widely trumpeted by the media, the homosexual community and the transgendered community … I tend to agree that God could hardwire our genes for gender – not for sexual orientation or attraction, but by the fact that He had in mind male or female from the beginning. Tainted by sin…” It’s hard to un-mix Kool-Aid and water when the two are already blended in a pitcher by someone else.I won’t comment on this thread any further.
Autumn Sandeen said:
The difficulty I find is that trying divide the Biblical scriptures/God from reparative therapy is near impossible –the two aren’t distinct in the view of the reparative therapists/certain Christian psychologists.
Well, I can’t fault your honesty on that one. Go tell that to NARTH – they think we don’t notice.
I’m not sure I understand the rest. It seems to be largely some bits of quotes from Dr. Throckmorton. He posts here occasionally so perhaps he might understand your point.
I suggest you start fresh with a new thread the next time you see something that interests you. Please try to be a bit more concise and organized, especially with the quotes. It’s hard to know where they end and you start.