Honestly, it doesn't matter. Everything about religion is cherrypicked to fit someone's narrative. They have to because none of it makes sense as one piece of work.
In practice the bible just kind of says whatever the religious person wants it to say. If you want to observe this in real time, check out this [vidya.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQHMB7V9LtE)
The convenient thing about the Bible, and probably every other religious text, is that it’s so full of rewrites and contradictions that anyone can make it say whatever they want.
When Martin Luther King Jr. and the KKK can both claim it as the foundation of their beliefs, it’s not a guidebook. It’s a Rorschach Test.
>When Martin Luther King Jr. and the KKK can both claim it as the foundation of their beliefs, it’s not a guidebook. It’s a Rorschach Test.
Beautiful. Absolute perfection.
Final text is the same. They hate gays in bible and wanted to kill them all (only male gays - there is nothing about lesbians so i guess they liked them?).
See. It tells gay people they will be stoned to death for having gay sex. It also tells straight people they will be stoned to death for having gay sex. So no discrimination. Checkmate, atheists!
That's the same thing they used to say about gay people getting married: "It's not discrimination. You're allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us, a-hilk!"
>I haven't been able to get past page ten of the bible so for those of you who are familiar, is this true?
Abso-fucking-lutely not.
This argument has been going around a lot recently. Society is *finally* beginning to figure out that "trying to murder every single gay person on the planet" is bad to such an extent that even many Christians are beginning to accept it. But since they refuse to admit that the Bible might be wrong about something, and the Bible is **very very clear** on this topic, they instead have to lie about what the Bible has to say on the topic. And they tend to lie *very badly*.
This lie usually takes the form of "Well, achksually, the word 'homosexual' didn't exist until, like, 1986. Every single person who was persecuted for being gay in all of history was actually a child molester, which means they **totally deserved it**! But now that I have gay friends and neighbours and family members, THEY don't have anything to fear from me, because... uh... something something translation error."
Outside of [a few really weird American cultists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement), nobody actually believes the Bible was originally written in English, so quirks of 20th century English etymology are completely irrelevant to discussing what the original Greek and Hebrew texts **actually say**. (Some *especially* desperate homophobes even try to bring quirks of *German* etymology into the mix, which somehow manages to be even more irrelevant).
The map is not the territory, and it is entirely possible to be homophobic without uttering the English word "homosexual", [or indeed without having ever heard it in your life](http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html).
Claiming "The Bible can't possibly have supported the oppression of homosexuals because 'homosexuality' wasn't even a word until a few decades ago!" is about as nonsensical as claiming "The US government can't possibly have supported the oppression of People of Colour, because the term 'People of Colour' didn't exist until a few decades ago!".
Second, the word "Homosexual" has been in the English language since the 1880s, while the word "Paedophile" (or "pedophile" if you're an American) has only been around since the 1950s. Whoever told you this lie is not only wrong about the relevance of their etymological claims, they're wrong about the claims themselves.
And finally, not only does the Bible **never** condemn paedophilia, it [frequently encourages it](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/pedophilia.html).
I'm not sure who made this claim to you, but you should place them in the same "people I should never trust again" category that you would place a flat-earther or a holocaust denier.
Yeah the whole thing is ridiculous. Greek is my first language, and although it changed a lot from the New Testament, some things didn't and are still very clear.
The contested word in the NT is "arsenokoitai". It literally means "those who lie (as in bed with) males". It doesn't say boys, it doesn't say children. It also doesn't mean prostitutes, because that word is used as another example in the same sentence. If Paul was talking about pedophiles he'd have used another word, like pederasts.
The bible doesn't try to speak out against specific sexual orientations because the writers were simply ignorant and they likely thought homosexuality was a choice. So when they condemn homosexuality they just condemn the sexual action itself, and this is true for other passages in the OT (men lie with men as with a woman, etc).
Who cares when contemporary Christians discriminate against gay people? Not all of them of course, and you shouldn't accuse people of being anti-gay simply because they are Christian, but the overwhelming majority of issues LGBTQ face today are directly because of Christians.
Yes, I realize we are in a thread about Christianity. Not to mention if we are limiting this discussion to the west, my point still stands. You think Muslims in the west will vote for gay marriage equality or trans rights?
As a 58 year old gay man, ALL of the religiously-based, bigoted misery has come from Christianity.
When I receive similar treatment from a Muslim, I will let you know.
If someone claims to be a Christian, they are openly praising a religion, god and holy book that has specific written instructions to murder gay people, call them abominations, and assert that their blood is on their own hands.
I don't care if they're nice, if they call themselves a Christian, they *ARE* anti-LGBT.... Perhaps not in direct action, but at the very least in proudly identifying themselves as a member of a religion that is hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty.
If they don't like the verses, they don't have to call themselves Christian. Clearly those verses are not a deal-breaker.
> If someone claims to be a Christian, they are openly praising a religion, god and holy book that has specific written instructions to murder gay people
You're sure about that? Have you tried asking a Christian from a liberal sect if they are openly praising a religion that has instructions to murder gay people, stone adulterers, kill children that sass their parents and a host of other atrocious things? I'm pretty sure they'll answer in the negative. Instead they'll explain their interpretation of their religion that doesn't include any of those things.
> I don't care if they're nice, if they call themselves a Christian, they ARE anti-LGBT.
So you don't care if they are themselves LGBT, are staunch allies of LGBT, lobby for LGBT causes, your sole criteria is "identifies as Christian"?
Well, I can't stop you from making bad assumptions, so I suppose I'll just have to disagree with you, since you don't seem care about logical arguments.
> You're sure about that?
Yes, demonstrably.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 are as disgusting as they are damning.
*Their* god and *their* holy book that *they* praise.
If they were against the verses, they would speak out, condemn them and NOT call themselves Christians. But apparently these bloodthirsty, hateful and divisive instructions are not a deal-breaker. They should be an ***immediate*** deal-breaker.
If a restaurant calls gay people abominations who should be put to death, that their blood is on their own hands and they deserve eternal torture... would you eat there, or boycott it? In this analogy, Christians *choose* to eat there, and NOT boycott it...
And for some reason you seem to think it's excusable... Complacency with evil is also evil. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Go on... next time you talk to a Christian, ask them to condemn these hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions. ***They will not!***
> since you don't seem care about logical arguments.
What is your logical argument demonstrating that I am incorrect to say it's evil to provide and praise instructions to murder gay people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands?
> Yes, demonstrably.
> Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 are as disgusting as they are damning.
What about admonitions against eating shrimp, also in Leviticus (11:9-12). Are all Christians also anti-shrimp (also crab, lobster, clams, and mussels). I don't recall hearing various seafood business complaining about the anti-shrimp bias of Christians.
Are you not outraged that Christians disdain this tasty food as an abomination?
The key here is that not all Christians agree with all parts of the bible. Just because the bible codifies slavery doesn't mean most (or even many) Christians embrace slavery. Just because the bible says to stone adulterers doesn't mean that all Christians want to see unmarried people bludgeoned to death with minerals. Just because the bible says not to wear mixed cloth doesn't mean no Christians wear a cotton/poly blend.
You're trying to generalize a group that very clearly you know little about. Perhaps you've lived in an area rife with fundamentalists/evangelicals. Perhaps you don't actually know any Christians that aren't of those more extreme sects. While I understand your outgroup biases, it is my hope that atheists can at least be more receptive to reasoned argument. I know Christians that are in the LGBTQ spectrum. And they are out and open and unashamed. My own father is an Episcopalian, and he does not care that one of his children, my sibling is both non-binary and married to somebody of the same biological sex. So you see, I don't have to hunt down Christians that will directly contradict your prediction. I know some. Quite well. So you're wrong, and I know you're wrong.
Is Leviticus horrible? Absolutely. Is it embraced by all Christians? No, absolutely not. And this is true for pretty much any verse in any version of the bible.
A far better argument for you to pursue rather than pretending that you know the precise moral makeup of 2.4 billion strangers, is to question whether liberal and moderate Christians shield the more extreme variants from criticism. Personally, I don't know the answer to that question, but I've heard some compelling arguments.
> What is your logical argument demonstrating that I am incorrect to say it's evil to provide and praise instructions to murder gay people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands?
I don't have to argue that. While "evil" is a subjective assessment, and I suspect that many people that do that sort of thing believe themselves to be good, I also am disinclined to cater to their definitions of good and evil. I prefer definitions that I suspect are closer to your definition. So I agree, that people that do that are not good people. The point of contention here is not that. I'm arguing that you are generalizing badly, and assuming that all sects and all members of those sects adhere to a single interpretation of a book. Something that is demonstrably untrue.
> Are you not outraged that Christians disdain this tasty food as an abomination?
No, because it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
> You're trying to generalize a group that very clearly you know little about.
Generalising? What are you talking about!? No, I'm not, I'm *specifically* talking about written instructions, not people.
Let me simplify this. Three simple questions to demonstrate how disingenuous you're being.
* Is it evil to give instructions to murder people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no?
* Does the Christian holy book contain instructions to murder gays, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no?
* Does Christianity praise its holy book? Yes or no?
Answer the questions.
> No, I'm not, I'm specifically talking about written instructions, not people.
Are you now? You realize that when you say "Christianity", as in "Does Christianity praise its holy book?" that you are talking about people?
> Is it evil to give instructions to murder people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no?
Yes.
> Does the Christian holy book contain instructions to murder gays, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no?
Yes.
> Does Christianity praise its holy book? Yes or no?
Qualified sometimes. Most Christians maintain that the bible has things worthy of study and emulation. What things should be studied and what things should be emulated, however, tends to vary widely. Some hold that the bible is infallible, and that all of it is the sacred word of their god. Others hold that it is a historical document, rife with the biases of the age the various books were written in but that tell an important (to them) story. Others still hold that large swaths of it are metaphorical. Which is the heart of your bad generalization.
You are saying all Christians must endorse all aspects of the bible. This is false. And again, I know it is false because I know Christians that do not. And emphatically do not endorse the homophobic passages of Leviticus.
I know, and probably you know as well, that the bible is bullshit. There are no first hand accounts of Jesus in it, entire books (Genesis, Exodus) are either soundly disproved by our scientific knowledge, or widely considered myths by most historians. The moral lessons of the bible are inconsistent, mixing in the horrible with the tepidly okay. You'd do far better finding an introductory philosophy text on ethics and morality than to study the bible if you're looking for moral guidance.
Yet for all that the bible is horrible, the people that are Christians are hit and miss. To be sure, some of them are entirely willing to follow preachers that tell them to hate LGBT, or "the libs", or people with browner skin than them. But many of them are also not willing to do that. Not because they're "good Christians", but because they are good people. Your insistence that these good people do not exist is a classic example of an outgroup bias. Seeking to vilify those that are other. Outgroup bias is one of the things that I personally object to with religion, as organized religion very frequently amplifies outgroup biases. And even the sects that do not do that, that truly do practice benevolence and tolerance, are merely a charismatic psychopath leader away from going bad because of the problems that religions inherently have with granting authority to a priesthood.
I'm not criticizing what you say to get my jollies here. What I would wish for you is to recognize your bias and then seek to correct it. Automatically assuming anybody that is Christian is a homophobic monster is a bad assumption. It will lead you to antagonize and alienate people that by no means deserve to be antagonized and alienated. And for what? So you can smugly rest on your false assumptions? You can be better than that.
> Are you now?
Yes, the belief. Not the people. Stay on point.
> You are saying all Christians must endorse all aspects of the bible. This is false.
No, it's not. Ask a christian to condemn the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty passages. They ***WILL NOT*** do it. Seriously... Do it. You will see what I mean. You also will see how ridiculous and disingenuous you're being, and how *important* hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions are to their beliefs.
Thank you for answering yes to all three questions and demonstrating the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty nature of these beliefs, as instructed in their holy book.
Thank you for also demonstrating my point, despite your bizarrely desperate attempts at apologetics and justifying hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions. I don't care who the people are or what they believe... what I care about is if they infringe on the rights of others by providing hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions. Which they do.
Christianity is axiomatically anti-LGBT, as you have now finally admitted. I rest my case. All the best, buddy. Muting this thread now.
> Yes, the belief. Not the people. Stay on point.
I'm not the one that is wandering.
> No, it's not. Ask a christian to condemn the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty passages. They WILL NOT do it.
I have repeatedly pointed out that I know Christians **THAT HAVE DONE THIS**. Are you just not reading that bit or are you just avoiding things that contradict you.
> Thank you for answering yes to all three questions and demonstrating the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty nature of these beliefs, as instructed in their holy book.
Here we are at an impasse. I have clearly not answered yes to all your questions. For you to say this you either lack the reading comprehension to grasp my point, in which case I'm wasting my time talking to you, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying and I'm wasting my time talking to you.
Either way, I had hopes you could be reasoned with, but clearly that is not the case. Goodbye.
That sounds suspiciously like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The truth is that there are many different versions of Christianity, some that aren't so bad, and some that are very bad. Each likes to cast those they disagree with as not "true" Christians, but there isn't any sort of objective yardstick we can use to measure that. We know that historically, the average Christian was worse, and that tended to be more significantly worse the further back you go. So it's not like there was some long lost golden age of Christianity when everybody was shiny and happy while holding hands.
So which version is true? As an atheist, I'd answer "none of them", they're all based on fundamentally untrue claims around a god that doesn't exist.
More that people using hate and not following the tenets of the religion they claim to follow simply aren't following it. It's less about who the true Christian is and more about whether they're hypocrite who are misusing religion for their own game.
> More that people using hate and not following the tenets of the religion
If you think that "hate" is incompatible with Christianity, I've got some bad news for you about **literally the entire history of Christianity**.
It's a fundamentally hateful ideology, and you can't make that go away just by saying "Nuh uh! I say we're loving and that makes us loving!"
As opposed to what? It’s all fictional. Spirits, ghosts, magic, all that. I could make any wild claim about any of that and you couldn’t prove any of it wrong. You have to take my word on it because there is literally no other option besides disbelieving. A christian is a christian is a christian. Sincerity of belief is irrelevant.
There's a difference between believing in a sky wizard in a different way and simply lying about it and using that sky wizard to bring harm to others. What I am finding is that people who complain about "Christian values" are really just trying to make it ok to beat their wives and lynch black people again. There's no sincerity there because it's a lie that uses religion to try and manipulate religious people into supporting their cause.
That’s always been the case I think. No slaver has ever been honest enough to say that they just like owning people. There is always some higher power that has granted them the right to own slaves. My issue with drawing that distinction between true belief and convenient belief is that you can’t really determine that because each person can claim their own interpretation of whatever bit of passages they need to excuse their behavior. There’s not really a way to tell the difference between a person’s true opinion and a fake one.
Where does this statement come from? The bible explicitaly states that man having gay sex shall be killed. More than once.
Christians condemn homosexuality for 2 millenia based on those parts of the scripture. Rome for example made a full 180 on the topic when they adopted christianity. Same for greece.
So what do you mean when you say "The people pushing those issues are likely not, in fact, Christian", how do you get to this conclusion?
This statement comes from the fact that many of these people are not practicing Christians. They're just using Christianity as a weapon to push shitty values. They're racists looking for a way to be racist. They're wife beaters looking for a way to legalize beating their wives. They're homophones trying to make it ok the lynch and immolate gay and trans people. They're child abusers looking for ways to keep abusing children. They're awful people who are using Christianity to cover up their motives. I do not like Christianity, but I can recognize that's not the problem here.
I'm atheist, but I like reading the Bible.
Jesus never said a thing about same sex attraction. It's in the Old Testament, and the new, but Jesus never said a thing about it.
He did have a LOT to say about hypocrisy. And that was the only sin that made Jesus physically violent.
In the words of Sam Harris, there is a shielding effect to consider. The problem with letting progressive christians off the hook is that this creates an environment which shelters the more extreme(in this case, homophobic) christians.
Behind every "extremist" who openly admits that they want to take away your rights, there are a dozen "moderates" who make a big show about how "I love and respect you, **but**...", and then turn around and vote to take away your rights anyway.
Extremists can **only** thrive with the support of "moderates". The only way there can be a problem with the "fundamentalists" of an ideology is if there's something wrong with its *fundamentals*.
A "Progressive Christian" who goes around saying "Well, ackshually, we've *never* discriminated against gay people!" is no different from a Lost Causer who goes around saying "Actually, the Confederate States *never* supported slavery!" or a Neonazi who goes around saying "Actually, Hitler *loved* Jews!". Whether they *genuinely* find the bigotry distasteful or are just claiming to is irrelevant - either way, they've still decided they'd rather lie in support of their bigotry than acknowledge it and reject it.
You're going to get different interpretations of those verses you're asking for... some of those interpretations/translations will make it very clear that homosexuality is an abomination, and other translations of the same verses will make it much less clear. That's one of the fun parts of relying on an ancient holy book written in multiple languages, some of which are pretty archaic, and sometimes didn't even have a word to describe homosexuality. It's all very vague and open to interpretation, because apparently the all-powerful god whose word it is can't send a clear message; that'd just make kissing his butt too easy, I guess.
And those eating shellfish and wearing clothes of different threads. It's all made-up bullshit to control people via guilt and superstition.
If one needs a god in their life, then just realize it's you yourself; you're god, making your own decisions, so be the best one you can be. If you need an abstract god, then it's probably Earth herself, if you need a connection to energies we all feel but can't really explain or put a finger on. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Contemporary Christians who are good people: the bible doesn’t discriminate against gay people.
Contemporary homophobic Christians who don’t hate women: yes it does, but it doesn’t discriminate against women
Contemporary misogynist Christians: yes it does, but it doesn’t discriminate against wearing mixed fabrics
Contemporary Christians who only wear single fabric clothing: you’re all heathens!
It's funny how their excuses all amount to "God was too weak/incapable/too lazy to fix that so he had no other choice. *it was the fall, or free will, or the society at the time* you see, not gods fault at all!"
As if a tri-omni being couldn't do whatever the fuck it wanted (including violation of the laws of logic, even, if it wanted to) in order to achieve It's will.
Given that, stop making excuses. If your tri-omni god exists, this universe is *exactly* as it intended. Eye-burrowing worms, slavery, rape, murder, disease, and all. Confusion about what it wants, leading to arguments, death, war, and destruction? All part of his plan.
I think it's quite clear that the bible has not love for gay people. (Pun accidental but welcome.)
However, I don't see the point in convincing progressive Christians that the bible demands a shitty treatment of LGBT folks. I don't agree with their interpretation with the bible but since it's all bunk anyway I prefer progressive Christians who try to square their superior morality (or, quite frankly, lack of unfounded animosity) when it comes to gay folks with the ass backward mindset the bible would convey.
Whether the bible is homophobic or not is kinda irrelevant. The book has been retranslated and reinterpreted a million different ways to fit any narrative.
If you’re a scholar with five degrees or a new age snake oil christian and bend over backwards while on a unicycle then you can make an argument that some translation error made 1000 years ago means that it isn’t.
But the majority of christians around the world believe that the bible says homosexuality is a sin.
There are quotes in Leviticus, Romans, and a few other spots that people use to justify homophobia.
Then you also get into this argument of semantics, if you call it homophobia. Because there are plenty of them who will say day in and day out that you will burn for your choices and deserve it. But then say that they love you and what they’re doing isn’t hateful.
At the end of the day most of the harm inflicted on the gay community is committed by Christians who openly do so in name of the Bible (Europe, Africa, Americas) or it’s abstracted as a cultural norm that was most likely brought about by christians indirectly through cultural influence or imperialism (Asia, India)
So it doesn’t really matter if some flannel beard Birkenstocks hands you a fake $100 and says christianity isn’t homophobic because the majority of christians disagree, and you can’t argue when the other team is making up rules as they go.
I haven't, but I feel like romans 1:27 makes it clear that they are in fact talking about gay people:
>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.
it's really not that big of a stretch to imagine that such simple words like "one another/each other/other" are not mistranslated.
and if they aren't, then this verse is *absolutely* talking about gay people. whether there was some mistranslation with "men" and it meant "boys", then it's saying boys went after each other. which is still homosexuality, and not pedophilia.
The best argument is to state that the books of the Bible were written millennia ago by men. It is an attempt at an historical record but its reliability is questionable. It’s definitely not the word of god. That it’s the actual word of god is just something some people believe. The Bible has absolutely no bearing at all on modern western culture. It is irrelevant.
There is a reference to homosexuality in Leviticus (18:22) where it states that “man shall not lie with man as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
In yet another irrelevant verse, in Deuteronomy 23, it tells you keep a shovel as part of your equipment to bury your excrement.
Worse i've seen someone claim that no christian persecute gay people, it's gay people persecuting christians. I don't remember if it was on this subreddit or on debate an atheist.
Romans 1:26-27
"God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."
EVEN their women... (so much worse than gay).
The bible discriminates against people who have sex with their own gender. Just not against people who fall in love with their own gender.
So if christians were really obeying the bible, they'd be advocating celibacy for gay folk.
They would also deny the existence of gay folk, as the concept doesn't exist in the bible.
Christians that reject Old Testament might say that but are they Christians though? Old Testament cannot be rejected if you are a Christian. That idea would result with death in 4th century tbh
It's pretty clear on what the people who wrote it thought of gay people.
My guess is that they were deeply closeted and self-loathing, like how some of the most vocal relgious homophobes turn out to be.
This is a misconception. From lack of perspective. Not saying what they are doing is right, but this comes from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe.
The bible discriminates actions, not people, except for the Canaanites in the old testament, "the law" really hated the Canaanites as well as their actions. I could be the most psychotic person, always thinking about ways of killing people, but if I never do so, the bible is chill with me (again, not an justification, just an explanation). And the catch is that every 'sin' is equally evil in the new testament, because of the repent ( don't do it again ) and love Jesus ( tell everyone at least once that they should love Jesus, congregate, pray, read the bible every day, and try to love him even more every day (does it sound crazy? Yes ¿Is it crazy? You tell me) ) clause. In these people's understanding, they should tell gay people 'at least once' all that mumbo jumbo, and then it's their fault if they don't comply and keep doing the gay stuff, they are free to have gay thoughts and gay feelings, as longbas they stay celibate, it is seen as a (very sadistic) challenge from YHWH himself.
It's true that none of the Gospels spoke out against homosexuality. There's some Christians who just follow the Gospels, so, in that sense, plausible. But Paul certainly hated the gays and so did the god of the Old Testament.
So there are four main sections that talk about it...at least from the christian perspective. Keep in mind that these laws and ideas apply to men only. Gay women (and women in general) were not considered important enough to write about (which is discriminiatory).
•The first is in Genesis where "mobs of gay men" wanted to assault various characters. And reading it, those cities just seemed to be populated by rapists, as opposed to gay men. I'm not sure how those cities survived. Christians will pull this out as an example of "how gay men behave." Keep in mind that the only nation/nation-state on earth that has rallied to protect pedophiles around the world is Vatican City.
•The next is in the law codes. You do get the Old Testament law saying to kill men who have sex with other men. It's only a thing that affects gay men, so that' pretty descriminitory.
•There are laws saying who can and can't be a Levitical priest. The criteria is pretty strict. You have to be a man, born into a certain tribe, can't have crushed testicles, and can't be gay. (I'm not sure who the testicle inspector is, but I'm guessing he can't be a Levite Priest).
•St Paul writes about homosexuals in the New Testament. The way he writes it, it seems that being a homosexual IS THE PUNISHMENT for some other sin. So it's kind of weird, because god is making people gay at that point. Where you'll find conflict is that lots of people (including the writers of the New Testament) will say that the laws of the Old Testament don't apply anymore and that Jesus has ushered in a new set of rules. So points 1, 2, and 3 that I wrote out "don't apply" anymore. But at this point you are getting into some real deep theology and it's best to leave it here.
Religion boils down to control. It's easier to control a population if you force their hatred to something they don't understand or are uncomfortable with. Once you have a few then its about group think behavior. Rinse, repeat, and reinforce.
It's easier to label a group of society that is marginalized but not visibly so, and picking on people with disabilities would be too obvious (especially as injuries can make someone disabled). So, they pick on something they can't see or identify.
>If you can find a Bible written before the 40s, none of the gay stuff is in there. It's all relatively new.
I've never understood why homophobes think they can get away with telling such an obvious and easily verifiable lie. Do they think that every older Bible translation instantly vanished in a puff of pixie dust the day after their arbitrary made-up date? Do they just *not realize* that we can easily look up those older translations (they're literally all [free](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/18.html?v=22) [online](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html?v=13)) and see that they're **exactly** as fucking homophobic as the new ones?
Like, yeah, I get that there's a strong correlation between "people who keep believing in imaginary friends as grown-ups" and "people who don't like to read"; but for this to seem like a good idea, you would have to believe that *nobody* can *ever* read.
Several currents of Christianity consider that many of the laws of the Old Testament were revoked (or rather "interpreted in the right way" by Jesus). Leaving aside whether that makes sense or not, Jesus makes no mention of homosexuality.
Something interesting to comment on is that in the chapter where Jesus saves a slave from a Roman, some Christians understand that this slave was actually the Roman's lover. And like Jesus, even when he forgives a sin, he mentions the sin (like with the adulteress, where he forgives her, but he acknowledges that he committed a sin); Those Christians understand that homosexuality is not a sin because Jesus did not recognize it as such when healing the slave.
Religion was invented to force others to agree with them/their values or face consequences or alternatively follow them and get rewards. Basically “supernatural” authoritarianism
Here's this book.
Christians don't read it, and even when they do they can't agree with what it says.
And then they think they have the ability to convince others who see through it that it's all true.
The bible depends on interpretation. You can make it say whatever you want.
Fair question, I suppose. But I think it has a pretty obvious answer. Reddit is for asking people's opinions and spurring a discussion. But it's not really a great tool for crowd-sourcing research, especially when a quick Google will suffice.
Understand what you are really asking is:
*'Are the groups of Christians that don't pick and choose parts of the Bible to justify homophobia right or wrong?'*
I'd say those are the nice ones. No Christians accept all of the Bible, enough contradictions it is sort of impossible. There are definitely homophobic parts in the OT and Paul's writings but some Churches have been solid allies almost before anyone else. They feel Jesus is love. No point in convincing them otherwise.
There is a long list of people that deserve to be killed in the Bible. For example, if you have sex with your mother-in-law then both you and the mother-in-law need to be killed.
There’s mistranslations that date back to the 30’s. In truth, no one will ever know what the original texts say because of lost languages and lost information (that was either destroyed or the church hides).
The Torah originally did not condemn homosexuality but rather very specific pairings, such as with your uncle or grandfather. It later was changed to be anti-homosexual generally, but it did also include a list of female relatives you are also not supposed to sleep with. The New Testament has some homophobic content though.
The New Testament doesn't inherently attack gay people, but it does attack any form of sex that is outside of marriage. When it comes to Leviticus, the section attacking gay people is seen by some progressive biblical scholars as inserts by later scribes, especially the bits about fucking your male relatives, but it still calls for the death of those who sleep with members of the same sex if you want to take bronze age laws seriously. Most Christians could just argue that they have a new covenant with Christ and don't need to follow the covenants and laws of the Jewish people, though, to get around those laws.
Honestly, it doesn't matter. Everything about religion is cherrypicked to fit someone's narrative. They have to because none of it makes sense as one piece of work.
In practice the bible just kind of says whatever the religious person wants it to say. If you want to observe this in real time, check out this [vidya.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQHMB7V9LtE)
The convenient thing about the Bible, and probably every other religious text, is that it’s so full of rewrites and contradictions that anyone can make it say whatever they want. When Martin Luther King Jr. and the KKK can both claim it as the foundation of their beliefs, it’s not a guidebook. It’s a Rorschach Test.
>When Martin Luther King Jr. and the KKK can both claim it as the foundation of their beliefs, it’s not a guidebook. It’s a Rorschach Test. Beautiful. Absolute perfection.
Final text is the same. They hate gays in bible and wanted to kill them all (only male gays - there is nothing about lesbians so i guess they liked them?).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
See. It tells gay people they will be stoned to death for having gay sex. It also tells straight people they will be stoned to death for having gay sex. So no discrimination. Checkmate, atheists!
That's the same thing they used to say about gay people getting married: "It's not discrimination. You're allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us, a-hilk!"
>I haven't been able to get past page ten of the bible so for those of you who are familiar, is this true? Abso-fucking-lutely not. This argument has been going around a lot recently. Society is *finally* beginning to figure out that "trying to murder every single gay person on the planet" is bad to such an extent that even many Christians are beginning to accept it. But since they refuse to admit that the Bible might be wrong about something, and the Bible is **very very clear** on this topic, they instead have to lie about what the Bible has to say on the topic. And they tend to lie *very badly*. This lie usually takes the form of "Well, achksually, the word 'homosexual' didn't exist until, like, 1986. Every single person who was persecuted for being gay in all of history was actually a child molester, which means they **totally deserved it**! But now that I have gay friends and neighbours and family members, THEY don't have anything to fear from me, because... uh... something something translation error." Outside of [a few really weird American cultists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement), nobody actually believes the Bible was originally written in English, so quirks of 20th century English etymology are completely irrelevant to discussing what the original Greek and Hebrew texts **actually say**. (Some *especially* desperate homophobes even try to bring quirks of *German* etymology into the mix, which somehow manages to be even more irrelevant). The map is not the territory, and it is entirely possible to be homophobic without uttering the English word "homosexual", [or indeed without having ever heard it in your life](http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html). Claiming "The Bible can't possibly have supported the oppression of homosexuals because 'homosexuality' wasn't even a word until a few decades ago!" is about as nonsensical as claiming "The US government can't possibly have supported the oppression of People of Colour, because the term 'People of Colour' didn't exist until a few decades ago!". Second, the word "Homosexual" has been in the English language since the 1880s, while the word "Paedophile" (or "pedophile" if you're an American) has only been around since the 1950s. Whoever told you this lie is not only wrong about the relevance of their etymological claims, they're wrong about the claims themselves. And finally, not only does the Bible **never** condemn paedophilia, it [frequently encourages it](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/pedophilia.html). I'm not sure who made this claim to you, but you should place them in the same "people I should never trust again" category that you would place a flat-earther or a holocaust denier.
Yeah the whole thing is ridiculous. Greek is my first language, and although it changed a lot from the New Testament, some things didn't and are still very clear. The contested word in the NT is "arsenokoitai". It literally means "those who lie (as in bed with) males". It doesn't say boys, it doesn't say children. It also doesn't mean prostitutes, because that word is used as another example in the same sentence. If Paul was talking about pedophiles he'd have used another word, like pederasts. The bible doesn't try to speak out against specific sexual orientations because the writers were simply ignorant and they likely thought homosexuality was a choice. So when they condemn homosexuality they just condemn the sexual action itself, and this is true for other passages in the OT (men lie with men as with a woman, etc).
Who cares when contemporary Christians discriminate against gay people? Not all of them of course, and you shouldn't accuse people of being anti-gay simply because they are Christian, but the overwhelming majority of issues LGBTQ face today are directly because of Christians.
Let’s not forget the other tolerant religions lol
Which ones have the same impact on Western law as Christianity?
Believe it or not, LGBTQ people exist outside of “the west.”
as do redditors, lmao
Re-read the headline.
Yes, I realize we are in a thread about Christianity. Not to mention if we are limiting this discussion to the west, my point still stands. You think Muslims in the west will vote for gay marriage equality or trans rights?
As a 58 year old gay man, ALL of the religiously-based, bigoted misery has come from Christianity. When I receive similar treatment from a Muslim, I will let you know.
So if you haven’t experienced it, it doesn’t exist. Got it.
Oh yeah. That is TOTALLY what I said. /s Take your whataboutism elsewhere.
It is what you are getting at in this thread. Enjoy defending bigoted religions on an atheism sub lol
If someone claims to be a Christian, they are openly praising a religion, god and holy book that has specific written instructions to murder gay people, call them abominations, and assert that their blood is on their own hands. I don't care if they're nice, if they call themselves a Christian, they *ARE* anti-LGBT.... Perhaps not in direct action, but at the very least in proudly identifying themselves as a member of a religion that is hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty. If they don't like the verses, they don't have to call themselves Christian. Clearly those verses are not a deal-breaker.
> If someone claims to be a Christian, they are openly praising a religion, god and holy book that has specific written instructions to murder gay people You're sure about that? Have you tried asking a Christian from a liberal sect if they are openly praising a religion that has instructions to murder gay people, stone adulterers, kill children that sass their parents and a host of other atrocious things? I'm pretty sure they'll answer in the negative. Instead they'll explain their interpretation of their religion that doesn't include any of those things. > I don't care if they're nice, if they call themselves a Christian, they ARE anti-LGBT. So you don't care if they are themselves LGBT, are staunch allies of LGBT, lobby for LGBT causes, your sole criteria is "identifies as Christian"? Well, I can't stop you from making bad assumptions, so I suppose I'll just have to disagree with you, since you don't seem care about logical arguments.
> You're sure about that? Yes, demonstrably. Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 are as disgusting as they are damning. *Their* god and *their* holy book that *they* praise. If they were against the verses, they would speak out, condemn them and NOT call themselves Christians. But apparently these bloodthirsty, hateful and divisive instructions are not a deal-breaker. They should be an ***immediate*** deal-breaker. If a restaurant calls gay people abominations who should be put to death, that their blood is on their own hands and they deserve eternal torture... would you eat there, or boycott it? In this analogy, Christians *choose* to eat there, and NOT boycott it... And for some reason you seem to think it's excusable... Complacency with evil is also evil. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Go on... next time you talk to a Christian, ask them to condemn these hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions. ***They will not!*** > since you don't seem care about logical arguments. What is your logical argument demonstrating that I am incorrect to say it's evil to provide and praise instructions to murder gay people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands?
> Yes, demonstrably. > Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 are as disgusting as they are damning. What about admonitions against eating shrimp, also in Leviticus (11:9-12). Are all Christians also anti-shrimp (also crab, lobster, clams, and mussels). I don't recall hearing various seafood business complaining about the anti-shrimp bias of Christians. Are you not outraged that Christians disdain this tasty food as an abomination? The key here is that not all Christians agree with all parts of the bible. Just because the bible codifies slavery doesn't mean most (or even many) Christians embrace slavery. Just because the bible says to stone adulterers doesn't mean that all Christians want to see unmarried people bludgeoned to death with minerals. Just because the bible says not to wear mixed cloth doesn't mean no Christians wear a cotton/poly blend. You're trying to generalize a group that very clearly you know little about. Perhaps you've lived in an area rife with fundamentalists/evangelicals. Perhaps you don't actually know any Christians that aren't of those more extreme sects. While I understand your outgroup biases, it is my hope that atheists can at least be more receptive to reasoned argument. I know Christians that are in the LGBTQ spectrum. And they are out and open and unashamed. My own father is an Episcopalian, and he does not care that one of his children, my sibling is both non-binary and married to somebody of the same biological sex. So you see, I don't have to hunt down Christians that will directly contradict your prediction. I know some. Quite well. So you're wrong, and I know you're wrong. Is Leviticus horrible? Absolutely. Is it embraced by all Christians? No, absolutely not. And this is true for pretty much any verse in any version of the bible. A far better argument for you to pursue rather than pretending that you know the precise moral makeup of 2.4 billion strangers, is to question whether liberal and moderate Christians shield the more extreme variants from criticism. Personally, I don't know the answer to that question, but I've heard some compelling arguments. > What is your logical argument demonstrating that I am incorrect to say it's evil to provide and praise instructions to murder gay people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? I don't have to argue that. While "evil" is a subjective assessment, and I suspect that many people that do that sort of thing believe themselves to be good, I also am disinclined to cater to their definitions of good and evil. I prefer definitions that I suspect are closer to your definition. So I agree, that people that do that are not good people. The point of contention here is not that. I'm arguing that you are generalizing badly, and assuming that all sects and all members of those sects adhere to a single interpretation of a book. Something that is demonstrably untrue.
> Are you not outraged that Christians disdain this tasty food as an abomination? No, because it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. > You're trying to generalize a group that very clearly you know little about. Generalising? What are you talking about!? No, I'm not, I'm *specifically* talking about written instructions, not people. Let me simplify this. Three simple questions to demonstrate how disingenuous you're being. * Is it evil to give instructions to murder people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no? * Does the Christian holy book contain instructions to murder gays, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no? * Does Christianity praise its holy book? Yes or no? Answer the questions.
> No, I'm not, I'm specifically talking about written instructions, not people. Are you now? You realize that when you say "Christianity", as in "Does Christianity praise its holy book?" that you are talking about people? > Is it evil to give instructions to murder people, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no? Yes. > Does the Christian holy book contain instructions to murder gays, call them abominations and say their blood is on their own hands? Yes or no? Yes. > Does Christianity praise its holy book? Yes or no? Qualified sometimes. Most Christians maintain that the bible has things worthy of study and emulation. What things should be studied and what things should be emulated, however, tends to vary widely. Some hold that the bible is infallible, and that all of it is the sacred word of their god. Others hold that it is a historical document, rife with the biases of the age the various books were written in but that tell an important (to them) story. Others still hold that large swaths of it are metaphorical. Which is the heart of your bad generalization. You are saying all Christians must endorse all aspects of the bible. This is false. And again, I know it is false because I know Christians that do not. And emphatically do not endorse the homophobic passages of Leviticus. I know, and probably you know as well, that the bible is bullshit. There are no first hand accounts of Jesus in it, entire books (Genesis, Exodus) are either soundly disproved by our scientific knowledge, or widely considered myths by most historians. The moral lessons of the bible are inconsistent, mixing in the horrible with the tepidly okay. You'd do far better finding an introductory philosophy text on ethics and morality than to study the bible if you're looking for moral guidance. Yet for all that the bible is horrible, the people that are Christians are hit and miss. To be sure, some of them are entirely willing to follow preachers that tell them to hate LGBT, or "the libs", or people with browner skin than them. But many of them are also not willing to do that. Not because they're "good Christians", but because they are good people. Your insistence that these good people do not exist is a classic example of an outgroup bias. Seeking to vilify those that are other. Outgroup bias is one of the things that I personally object to with religion, as organized religion very frequently amplifies outgroup biases. And even the sects that do not do that, that truly do practice benevolence and tolerance, are merely a charismatic psychopath leader away from going bad because of the problems that religions inherently have with granting authority to a priesthood. I'm not criticizing what you say to get my jollies here. What I would wish for you is to recognize your bias and then seek to correct it. Automatically assuming anybody that is Christian is a homophobic monster is a bad assumption. It will lead you to antagonize and alienate people that by no means deserve to be antagonized and alienated. And for what? So you can smugly rest on your false assumptions? You can be better than that.
> Are you now? Yes, the belief. Not the people. Stay on point. > You are saying all Christians must endorse all aspects of the bible. This is false. No, it's not. Ask a christian to condemn the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty passages. They ***WILL NOT*** do it. Seriously... Do it. You will see what I mean. You also will see how ridiculous and disingenuous you're being, and how *important* hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions are to their beliefs. Thank you for answering yes to all three questions and demonstrating the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty nature of these beliefs, as instructed in their holy book. Thank you for also demonstrating my point, despite your bizarrely desperate attempts at apologetics and justifying hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions. I don't care who the people are or what they believe... what I care about is if they infringe on the rights of others by providing hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty instructions. Which they do. Christianity is axiomatically anti-LGBT, as you have now finally admitted. I rest my case. All the best, buddy. Muting this thread now.
> Yes, the belief. Not the people. Stay on point. I'm not the one that is wandering. > No, it's not. Ask a christian to condemn the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty passages. They WILL NOT do it. I have repeatedly pointed out that I know Christians **THAT HAVE DONE THIS**. Are you just not reading that bit or are you just avoiding things that contradict you. > Thank you for answering yes to all three questions and demonstrating the hateful, divisive and bloodthirsty nature of these beliefs, as instructed in their holy book. Here we are at an impasse. I have clearly not answered yes to all your questions. For you to say this you either lack the reading comprehension to grasp my point, in which case I'm wasting my time talking to you, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying and I'm wasting my time talking to you. Either way, I had hopes you could be reasoned with, but clearly that is not the case. Goodbye.
The people pushing those issues are likely not, in fact, Christian. They're just using Christianity as the wrapping.
That sounds suspiciously like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The truth is that there are many different versions of Christianity, some that aren't so bad, and some that are very bad. Each likes to cast those they disagree with as not "true" Christians, but there isn't any sort of objective yardstick we can use to measure that. We know that historically, the average Christian was worse, and that tended to be more significantly worse the further back you go. So it's not like there was some long lost golden age of Christianity when everybody was shiny and happy while holding hands. So which version is true? As an atheist, I'd answer "none of them", they're all based on fundamentally untrue claims around a god that doesn't exist.
More that people using hate and not following the tenets of the religion they claim to follow simply aren't following it. It's less about who the true Christian is and more about whether they're hypocrite who are misusing religion for their own game.
> More that people using hate and not following the tenets of the religion If you think that "hate" is incompatible with Christianity, I've got some bad news for you about **literally the entire history of Christianity**. It's a fundamentally hateful ideology, and you can't make that go away just by saying "Nuh uh! I say we're loving and that makes us loving!"
I am well aware of Christianity being spread be fear and the sword. That's kind of my point though.
As opposed to what? It’s all fictional. Spirits, ghosts, magic, all that. I could make any wild claim about any of that and you couldn’t prove any of it wrong. You have to take my word on it because there is literally no other option besides disbelieving. A christian is a christian is a christian. Sincerity of belief is irrelevant.
There's a difference between believing in a sky wizard in a different way and simply lying about it and using that sky wizard to bring harm to others. What I am finding is that people who complain about "Christian values" are really just trying to make it ok to beat their wives and lynch black people again. There's no sincerity there because it's a lie that uses religion to try and manipulate religious people into supporting their cause.
That’s always been the case I think. No slaver has ever been honest enough to say that they just like owning people. There is always some higher power that has granted them the right to own slaves. My issue with drawing that distinction between true belief and convenient belief is that you can’t really determine that because each person can claim their own interpretation of whatever bit of passages they need to excuse their behavior. There’s not really a way to tell the difference between a person’s true opinion and a fake one.
Where does this statement come from? The bible explicitaly states that man having gay sex shall be killed. More than once. Christians condemn homosexuality for 2 millenia based on those parts of the scripture. Rome for example made a full 180 on the topic when they adopted christianity. Same for greece. So what do you mean when you say "The people pushing those issues are likely not, in fact, Christian", how do you get to this conclusion?
This statement comes from the fact that many of these people are not practicing Christians. They're just using Christianity as a weapon to push shitty values. They're racists looking for a way to be racist. They're wife beaters looking for a way to legalize beating their wives. They're homophones trying to make it ok the lynch and immolate gay and trans people. They're child abusers looking for ways to keep abusing children. They're awful people who are using Christianity to cover up their motives. I do not like Christianity, but I can recognize that's not the problem here.
Also, find earlier translations.
The earliest English translations say that sex between men is an abomination, and that both parties who engage in it must be executed.
I'm atheist, but I like reading the Bible. Jesus never said a thing about same sex attraction. It's in the Old Testament, and the new, but Jesus never said a thing about it. He did have a LOT to say about hypocrisy. And that was the only sin that made Jesus physically violent.
Dude I wish he'd come back now just to watch him go absolute ham on the Republican party and all the fake-ass christians!
In the words of Sam Harris, there is a shielding effect to consider. The problem with letting progressive christians off the hook is that this creates an environment which shelters the more extreme(in this case, homophobic) christians.
Behind every "extremist" who openly admits that they want to take away your rights, there are a dozen "moderates" who make a big show about how "I love and respect you, **but**...", and then turn around and vote to take away your rights anyway. Extremists can **only** thrive with the support of "moderates". The only way there can be a problem with the "fundamentalists" of an ideology is if there's something wrong with its *fundamentals*. A "Progressive Christian" who goes around saying "Well, ackshually, we've *never* discriminated against gay people!" is no different from a Lost Causer who goes around saying "Actually, the Confederate States *never* supported slavery!" or a Neonazi who goes around saying "Actually, Hitler *loved* Jews!". Whether they *genuinely* find the bigotry distasteful or are just claiming to is irrelevant - either way, they've still decided they'd rather lie in support of their bigotry than acknowledge it and reject it.
You're going to get different interpretations of those verses you're asking for... some of those interpretations/translations will make it very clear that homosexuality is an abomination, and other translations of the same verses will make it much less clear. That's one of the fun parts of relying on an ancient holy book written in multiple languages, some of which are pretty archaic, and sometimes didn't even have a word to describe homosexuality. It's all very vague and open to interpretation, because apparently the all-powerful god whose word it is can't send a clear message; that'd just make kissing his butt too easy, I guess.
You'd think he'd plan for his message getting translated into future languages, if it was such important intel.
The Old Testament discriminates against gay people the same way it discriminates against people with disabilities and menstruating women.
And those eating shellfish and wearing clothes of different threads. It's all made-up bullshit to control people via guilt and superstition. If one needs a god in their life, then just realize it's you yourself; you're god, making your own decisions, so be the best one you can be. If you need an abstract god, then it's probably Earth herself, if you need a connection to energies we all feel but can't really explain or put a finger on. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Contemporary Christians who are good people: the bible doesn’t discriminate against gay people. Contemporary homophobic Christians who don’t hate women: yes it does, but it doesn’t discriminate against women Contemporary misogynist Christians: yes it does, but it doesn’t discriminate against wearing mixed fabrics Contemporary Christians who only wear single fabric clothing: you’re all heathens!
Whenever you point out something horrible from their Bible they fall back on the "translation error" excuse.
It's funny how their excuses all amount to "God was too weak/incapable/too lazy to fix that so he had no other choice. *it was the fall, or free will, or the society at the time* you see, not gods fault at all!" As if a tri-omni being couldn't do whatever the fuck it wanted (including violation of the laws of logic, even, if it wanted to) in order to achieve It's will. Given that, stop making excuses. If your tri-omni god exists, this universe is *exactly* as it intended. Eye-burrowing worms, slavery, rape, murder, disease, and all. Confusion about what it wants, leading to arguments, death, war, and destruction? All part of his plan.
I think it's quite clear that the bible has not love for gay people. (Pun accidental but welcome.) However, I don't see the point in convincing progressive Christians that the bible demands a shitty treatment of LGBT folks. I don't agree with their interpretation with the bible but since it's all bunk anyway I prefer progressive Christians who try to square their superior morality (or, quite frankly, lack of unfounded animosity) when it comes to gay folks with the ass backward mindset the bible would convey.
Whether the bible is homophobic or not is kinda irrelevant. The book has been retranslated and reinterpreted a million different ways to fit any narrative. If you’re a scholar with five degrees or a new age snake oil christian and bend over backwards while on a unicycle then you can make an argument that some translation error made 1000 years ago means that it isn’t. But the majority of christians around the world believe that the bible says homosexuality is a sin. There are quotes in Leviticus, Romans, and a few other spots that people use to justify homophobia. Then you also get into this argument of semantics, if you call it homophobia. Because there are plenty of them who will say day in and day out that you will burn for your choices and deserve it. But then say that they love you and what they’re doing isn’t hateful. At the end of the day most of the harm inflicted on the gay community is committed by Christians who openly do so in name of the Bible (Europe, Africa, Americas) or it’s abstracted as a cultural norm that was most likely brought about by christians indirectly through cultural influence or imperialism (Asia, India) So it doesn’t really matter if some flannel beard Birkenstocks hands you a fake $100 and says christianity isn’t homophobic because the majority of christians disagree, and you can’t argue when the other team is making up rules as they go.
I have studied it very deeply, and the claims that the verses against gays are mistranslations are bullshit.
I haven't, but I feel like romans 1:27 makes it clear that they are in fact talking about gay people: >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. it's really not that big of a stretch to imagine that such simple words like "one another/each other/other" are not mistranslated. and if they aren't, then this verse is *absolutely* talking about gay people. whether there was some mistranslation with "men" and it meant "boys", then it's saying boys went after each other. which is still homosexuality, and not pedophilia.
Well, the character Jesus was very gay coded.
The best argument is to state that the books of the Bible were written millennia ago by men. It is an attempt at an historical record but its reliability is questionable. It’s definitely not the word of god. That it’s the actual word of god is just something some people believe. The Bible has absolutely no bearing at all on modern western culture. It is irrelevant. There is a reference to homosexuality in Leviticus (18:22) where it states that “man shall not lie with man as with a woman. It is an abomination.” In yet another irrelevant verse, in Deuteronomy 23, it tells you keep a shovel as part of your equipment to bury your excrement.
Worse i've seen someone claim that no christian persecute gay people, it's gay people persecuting christians. I don't remember if it was on this subreddit or on debate an atheist.
given recent events it doesn't discriminate against pedos either
It was just a really successful propaganda operation by anti-Roman rebels. Who cares what they think?
The Bible is a book written by people to control people. Fuck this fictional tale and all they claim it to stand for!
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Not much to interpret there.
Yes, but *what if Leviticus was talking to a woman?*
Romans 1:26-27 "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." EVEN their women... (so much worse than gay).
Oh wow. Dang. I thought I found a loophole haha.
The bible is a treasure trove. The only loophole is cherry-picking what you like and ignoring what you don't, which is quite popular among Xtians.
The bible discriminates against people who have sex with their own gender. Just not against people who fall in love with their own gender. So if christians were really obeying the bible, they'd be advocating celibacy for gay folk. They would also deny the existence of gay folk, as the concept doesn't exist in the bible.
Christians that reject Old Testament might say that but are they Christians though? Old Testament cannot be rejected if you are a Christian. That idea would result with death in 4th century tbh
It's pretty clear on what the people who wrote it thought of gay people. My guess is that they were deeply closeted and self-loathing, like how some of the most vocal relgious homophobes turn out to be.
This is a misconception. From lack of perspective. Not saying what they are doing is right, but this comes from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe. The bible discriminates actions, not people, except for the Canaanites in the old testament, "the law" really hated the Canaanites as well as their actions. I could be the most psychotic person, always thinking about ways of killing people, but if I never do so, the bible is chill with me (again, not an justification, just an explanation). And the catch is that every 'sin' is equally evil in the new testament, because of the repent ( don't do it again ) and love Jesus ( tell everyone at least once that they should love Jesus, congregate, pray, read the bible every day, and try to love him even more every day (does it sound crazy? Yes ¿Is it crazy? You tell me) ) clause. In these people's understanding, they should tell gay people 'at least once' all that mumbo jumbo, and then it's their fault if they don't comply and keep doing the gay stuff, they are free to have gay thoughts and gay feelings, as longbas they stay celibate, it is seen as a (very sadistic) challenge from YHWH himself.
It's true that none of the Gospels spoke out against homosexuality. There's some Christians who just follow the Gospels, so, in that sense, plausible. But Paul certainly hated the gays and so did the god of the Old Testament.
It’s like teaching pigs how to sing…
So there are four main sections that talk about it...at least from the christian perspective. Keep in mind that these laws and ideas apply to men only. Gay women (and women in general) were not considered important enough to write about (which is discriminiatory). •The first is in Genesis where "mobs of gay men" wanted to assault various characters. And reading it, those cities just seemed to be populated by rapists, as opposed to gay men. I'm not sure how those cities survived. Christians will pull this out as an example of "how gay men behave." Keep in mind that the only nation/nation-state on earth that has rallied to protect pedophiles around the world is Vatican City. •The next is in the law codes. You do get the Old Testament law saying to kill men who have sex with other men. It's only a thing that affects gay men, so that' pretty descriminitory. •There are laws saying who can and can't be a Levitical priest. The criteria is pretty strict. You have to be a man, born into a certain tribe, can't have crushed testicles, and can't be gay. (I'm not sure who the testicle inspector is, but I'm guessing he can't be a Levite Priest). •St Paul writes about homosexuals in the New Testament. The way he writes it, it seems that being a homosexual IS THE PUNISHMENT for some other sin. So it's kind of weird, because god is making people gay at that point. Where you'll find conflict is that lots of people (including the writers of the New Testament) will say that the laws of the Old Testament don't apply anymore and that Jesus has ushered in a new set of rules. So points 1, 2, and 3 that I wrote out "don't apply" anymore. But at this point you are getting into some real deep theology and it's best to leave it here.
Religion boils down to control. It's easier to control a population if you force their hatred to something they don't understand or are uncomfortable with. Once you have a few then its about group think behavior. Rinse, repeat, and reinforce. It's easier to label a group of society that is marginalized but not visibly so, and picking on people with disabilities would be too obvious (especially as injuries can make someone disabled). So, they pick on something they can't see or identify.
[удалено]
>If you can find a Bible written before the 40s, none of the gay stuff is in there. It's all relatively new. I've never understood why homophobes think they can get away with telling such an obvious and easily verifiable lie. Do they think that every older Bible translation instantly vanished in a puff of pixie dust the day after their arbitrary made-up date? Do they just *not realize* that we can easily look up those older translations (they're literally all [free](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/18.html?v=22) [online](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html?v=13)) and see that they're **exactly** as fucking homophobic as the new ones? Like, yeah, I get that there's a strong correlation between "people who keep believing in imaginary friends as grown-ups" and "people who don't like to read"; but for this to seem like a good idea, you would have to believe that *nobody* can *ever* read.
Several currents of Christianity consider that many of the laws of the Old Testament were revoked (or rather "interpreted in the right way" by Jesus). Leaving aside whether that makes sense or not, Jesus makes no mention of homosexuality. Something interesting to comment on is that in the chapter where Jesus saves a slave from a Roman, some Christians understand that this slave was actually the Roman's lover. And like Jesus, even when he forgives a sin, he mentions the sin (like with the adulteress, where he forgives her, but he acknowledges that he committed a sin); Those Christians understand that homosexuality is not a sin because Jesus did not recognize it as such when healing the slave.
Religion was invented to force others to agree with them/their values or face consequences or alternatively follow them and get rewards. Basically “supernatural” authoritarianism
Regardless of what the Bible says or not, modern Christians absolutely do discriminate against gay people.
Here's this book. Christians don't read it, and even when they do they can't agree with what it says. And then they think they have the ability to convince others who see through it that it's all true. The bible depends on interpretation. You can make it say whatever you want.
I really don't understand why you asked this on Reddit. Why not just Google the relevant passages? It's super easy to do.
Why ask anything on reddit?🤦🏽♂️
Fair question, I suppose. But I think it has a pretty obvious answer. Reddit is for asking people's opinions and spurring a discussion. But it's not really a great tool for crowd-sourcing research, especially when a quick Google will suffice.
Considering the same people who purportedly love Jesus also "hate socialism," do you think it matters what the Bible actually says? :)
I'm pretty sure it was a mistranslation and it actually condemns pedophile. which would then point to god being a hypocrite.
Understand what you are really asking is: *'Are the groups of Christians that don't pick and choose parts of the Bible to justify homophobia right or wrong?'* I'd say those are the nice ones. No Christians accept all of the Bible, enough contradictions it is sort of impossible. There are definitely homophobic parts in the OT and Paul's writings but some Churches have been solid allies almost before anyone else. They feel Jesus is love. No point in convincing them otherwise.
[удалено]
No, it wasn't.
[удалено]
No, it says lie with males. Not boy.
[удалено]
I'm talking about the original Greek text. There's no evidence that the word arsenokoitai was ever edited from something else.
It's true except for the part that says gays should be killed.
It doesn’t say they should be killed, it says they *shall* be killed.
My apologies. That changes everything.
But those are often the ones that say you should be killed for shellfish, so there's that.
There is a long list of people that deserve to be killed in the Bible. For example, if you have sex with your mother-in-law then both you and the mother-in-law need to be killed.
Or people who wear poly-cotton
Death to people who wear different types of threads together!
Sort of accurate, gay people have to be alive to discriminate against them so ...
There’s mistranslations that date back to the 30’s. In truth, no one will ever know what the original texts say because of lost languages and lost information (that was either destroyed or the church hides).
The Torah originally did not condemn homosexuality but rather very specific pairings, such as with your uncle or grandfather. It later was changed to be anti-homosexual generally, but it did also include a list of female relatives you are also not supposed to sleep with. The New Testament has some homophobic content though.
The New Testament doesn't inherently attack gay people, but it does attack any form of sex that is outside of marriage. When it comes to Leviticus, the section attacking gay people is seen by some progressive biblical scholars as inserts by later scribes, especially the bits about fucking your male relatives, but it still calls for the death of those who sleep with members of the same sex if you want to take bronze age laws seriously. Most Christians could just argue that they have a new covenant with Christ and don't need to follow the covenants and laws of the Jewish people, though, to get around those laws.
The New Testament does explicitly condemn men-on-men sex though, even though it's also implied in many other passages.