• m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. […] Jesus was 100% biologically male.

    Oh did they find his body?

    Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that the probability of Jesus being biologically male equals the human average of males being biologically male? Ie 99.5%.

    Couldn’t his radical compassion for outcasts and the downtrodden be related to personal struggles growing up with gender dysphoria?

    If you believe he was conceived in a virgin, wouldn’t it be MORE likely that he had XX chromosomes?

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        The Bible is not accurate regarding Jesus’ early life.

        I don’t think it’s wrong to exercise an iota of skepticism.

        Was Luke there at the circumcision? What was his source?

        Wouldn’t Jesus being trans and Luke being misinformed (or actually trying to avoid outting him) explain why there isn’t really any testimony about Jesus’s life during puberty? It was an incredibly misogynistic era right? Is it inconceivable for a person without a penis to try to pass as a man in that era?

        If a person can better appreciate Jesus by understanding him as a trans-man should a christian tell them they’re wrong? Does it put them in spiritual jeopardy? Is it dishonest to say “maybe”? I don’t think so.

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Yeah, and I’m positing that the probability he did not have a penis is at least 0.5%.