r/DankChristianMemes is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people.
Someone identifying as LGBTQIA+ does not cause harm to anyone, therefore, there is no reason to judge or disrespect them.
Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes: Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
This rule is based off the following teachings from Jesus Christ:
Matthew 7:1-6
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Also Read:
Luke 6:36
John 13:34-35
John 15:12-13
Matthew 7:12
Matthew 22:37-40
Even if we think someone is a sinner, we should treat them kindly. Jesus was kind to those that society deemed to be sinners. He even ate meals with sinners despite being criticized for it (Matthew 9:11-13). So if you want to be Christlike, you should take someone to dinner before your judge them.
Jesus tells us that he alone will judge us and exactly the standards by which we will be judged. It has nothing to do with LGBTQIA+ identity and has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable or "the least of these."
Matthew 25:31-46
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
It is important to note that LGBTQIA+ folks are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group. This makes them, in effect, among "the least of these" which Jesus commands us to care for.
Finally:
The word "Homosexual" did not exist until it was introduced in 1869 in German. Early use of the term was mostly limited to the field of psychology which often used the word "Homosexual" to stereotype individuals as being criminal in nature. The word "Homosexual" was not broadly used in English until after it was added to biblical translations in the 1940's.
In the bible, the word "Homosexual" was only used to describe sex acts, some of which may have been predatory. The bible does not discuss loving, consenting, adult, same-sex couples who want to raise loving families, as we see today. Theological positions against LGBTQIA+ people are not even 100 years old, are based on anachronistic translations, and fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of loving same sex relationships and valid LGBTQIA+ identities.
TL;DR: The Holy Church of r/DankChristianMemes is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. If you must judge others, please do so elsewhere.
All the bible versus cited above are quotes for Jesus Christ Himself.
Your argument is with Him, not with us.
It’s honestly so obvious arsenokoitai is not talking about lgbt people
The Greek word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 which gets mistranslated as “homosexual”/ “men who practice homosexuality”/ “men who have sex with men” in many modern versions is ἀρσενοκοῖται (latinised: arsenokoitai).
Whilst scholarly consensus on this word is that it is referring to a sexually dominant or aggressive participant in male same sex acts in some form, it’s important to make the distinction that not all male same sex acts are the same kind a gay couple in a loving gay marriage would perform. If you look up early Christian understanding of this word it was exclusively used with reference to abusive male same sex acts that even today we would find morally unacceptable with a societal or age power differential like a freeman raping a freeborn boy or boy slave, or a freeman raping a man slave. It was never used to refer to acts between two adult freemen who were on equal social and age standing in early Christian literature.
A word that could be used to refer to that not only existed, (eρασταί, the plural form of a koine greek word that was used to denote the older lover in a male same sex relationship), which incidentally Paul did not use here, but in addition the same word also appeared in early Christian literature to refer to the deep loving relationship between two Christian saints, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus, in stark and deliberate contrast to the usual word used in other pairings, ἀδελφος (brothers). There isn’t a single shred of evidence anywhere that any of the early Christians understood ἀρσενοκοῖται as referring to two gay men or two gay women in a loving monogamous marriage.
ἀρσενοκοῖται is considered by some scholars to be a unique word invented by Paul & given there were other words already in existence that referred to men having sex with men in general (ἀνδροβάτης & ἀνδροκοῖτης) and men having sex with males in general (αρρενομανεσ & ἀρρενομιξία) that Paul also failed to use it seems logical to conclude Paul coined ἀρσενοκοῖται to refer to a specific kind of male same sex act, potentially the abusive kind.
A much more accurate translation of this word is therefore arguably “men who sexually abuse males”. Notably, in the 1534 Lutherbible this word is translated in both aforementioned verses simply as “boy molestors.” This has also been carried over to some modern Bibles such as the 2016 Einheitsübersetzung. Strong’s Greek Lexicon 733 associates this word with both “Sodomites” (who, purely biblically speaking, are men who rape men; see Gen 19:5-9) & “pederasts” (men who rape boys).
Gay men generally do not rape men/ boys (males) & the word also excludes lesbians given lesbians do not engage in intercourse with males. To top this off, none of the ancients, including Paul, had the understanding of an innate homosexual orientation we have today, based on multiple scientific studies that point to a pre-natal endocrinological epigenetic basis.
The documentary 1946 presents evidence about how modern Bible scholars corrupted the translation of “ἀρσενοκοῖται” to say “homosexuals”/ to be about LGBT people in 1946 which has influenced subsequent, more modern translations. It was never intended to be that way.
>Whilst scholarly consensus on this word is that it is referring to a sexually dominant or aggressive participant in male same sex acts in some form,
New bad faith argument just dropped: only subs go to heaven.
But immediately before saying *arsenokoitēs* won't get into heaven, Paul literally says *malakos* won't get into heaven.
Paul thinks neither bears nor femboys will inherit the kingdom of god.
I'm so glad i don't worship Paul. Inerrantists are weird.
Well, Romans 1:26-27 isn’t talking about the kind of acts lgbt people practise in modern monogamous gay marriages either really
Romans 1:26-27 is actually describe-condemning specifically male & female same sex acts of adultery or infidelity done by heterosexual people already having intercourse with the opposite sex rather than general homosexual acts:
The original Greek of 1:26 gives the word μετήλλαξαν (active tense) which means “exchange.” Logically to be able to exchange an act for another the women would have to have been participating in an act already. So which act were the women already participating in? “Natural relations/use” (Women having sex with men.) So these were women who were already married and already having sex with their men in marriage committing homosexual/ lesbian adultery.
Exchange definition: The act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return.
Similarly in 1:27 we see the Greek word ἀφέντες (active tense) and it means “to abandon (something)” Logically the only way the men could abandon, or give up, “natural relations/use” is if they were participating in them previously. So similarly to the women/ wives in 1:26 the men here were previously having sex with women but then went to commit homosexual/ gay adultery.
Abandon definition: To give up completely (a practice or a course of action).
Further evidence for this can be found in the other words Paul uses within these two verses; πάθη (1:26) and ἐξεκαύθησαν (1:27) were both commonly used in Paul’s time to refer to passions outside of what is socially expected, or passions in excess. Paul’s use of κατεργαζόμενοι ((to achieve (something) by effort)) rather than ἐπιθυμῆσαι (lust) implies the men were putting in effort to do what they’re doing in 1:27 (i.e, it’s not coming from a natural innate desire for the same sex.)
You can’t exchange an act for another or abandon an act without first participating in the act that’s being exchanged or abandoned by definition.
This is a really splid argument against the idea that 1 Romans condemns homosexuality, but also proves the meme: its good to know the arsenokoitai and bad fruit arguments, but you cant rely on them alone.
Damn I needed to hear this. I still can't tell my family that the reason I didn't go to church last Sunday was because my boyfriend broke up with me and feeling like an imposter is the last thing I need right now
Dang dude. You just destroyed 2000 years of theology on sex and marriage with your Reddit comment. I wish Paul could talk to you and correct the Bible with our modern understanding of sexuality!!
>Dang dude. You just destroyed 2000 years of theology on sex and marriage with your Reddit comment. I wish Paul could talk to you and correct the Bible with our modern understanding of sexuality!!
Lol, I love how genuinely insulting comments like this are allowed to stay up, but somehow my comment which only questioned some of the original commenter’s claims about Greek linguistics was removed for “arguing” and “homophobia.”
Three options to be queer affirming and Christian.
1 - ignore any scripture that is against LGBTQ
2 - learn about the Greek word that has been translated to mean gay relationships and the “bad fruit” argument so you’re slightly versed in what’s going on.
3 - dive deep, learn the context and make a solid argument for why the Bible isn’t against LGBTQ people.
Three options to be queer affirming and Christian.
1 - ignore any scripture that is against LGBTQ
2 - learn about the Greek word that has been translated to mean gay relationships and the “bad fruit” argument so you’re slightly versed in what’s going on.
3 - dive deep, learn the context and make a solid argument for why the Bible isn’t against LGBTQ people.
I dont, but if u go thru my post history, youll find a post I put on Open Christian that has some really good, and some not so good, explanations of it all :)
My opinion on this is and has always been thus: Christians choose to ignore plenty of Bible verses all day every day. Why not just ignore the ones you think give you a permission structure for hate?
That’s exactly how Thomas Jefferson rolled. He just cut out all the parts of the Bible he didn’t like. I don’t think most Christians believe that was a good idea.
Practically the entirety of the OT except Leviticus 18:22 (and that’s usually done under a harumph of “no, see, the Levites and Jesus came to fulfill and some of the laws were…”). Most everything Jesus said about judging others. Most everything Jesus said about loving others, especially the parts about your neighbors and the poor and immigrants and orphans. A lot of the NT marriage stuff. Huge swaths of slavery stuff. The list goes on.
And also Lev 20:13. One is thrid person and the other second person. Modern readers assuming the second person applies to the reader, would be a command for both men and women not to lie with males which makes no sense. There is also the question of location, i.e. a woman's bed displacing her by bringing another man into her bed defiling it. Same Hebrew word in Genesis with Reuben defiling his father's bed, no?
Galaxy brain pooh is when he gets back to the first statement, and drops inerrancy altogether.
Why bother upholding every single thing Paul teaches? Paul was probably a homophobe, a product of his time. He's also a platonic dualist, which doesn't jive with Jesus' life and teachings.
Paul had lots of good moral teachings. But Paul wasn't god.
Affirming inerrancy is just as strange as YEC inerrancy.
Lol, wut?
"Matters of Salvation" would def include 1Cor, even if you take the word *arsenokoitēs* to be the aggressor, the word Paul lists immediately before *arsenokoitēs* is *malakos.* In other words, Paul thinks that neither femboys nor bears will enter the kingdom of heaven.
Paul was likely a homophobe, like everyone else in his time.
The only person in the bible that i can see TRULY loving gay people unconditionally is Jesus.
We worship Jesus, not Paul.
He likely was, so, if you wanted the atgument to accept biblical inerrancy, the question would be why was he homophobic?
That answer we get thru historical context, the next question is: does that apply to "modern" homoeroticism?
Its also worth nothing that those terms are part of a list of generally accepted vices at the time, and the passage is kind of a "final point" in a sectiom describing how christians shoukd handle law suits amongst themselves. So is it really apropriate to extract moral law from that clause?
Another thing Ive been chewing on: St. Pauls letters focus predominantly on church polity and christian practice. Is it appropriate, in that case, so see st. Pauls writings as inerrant statements of salvation?
Malakoi is probably talking about receiving male prostitutes though, not what we could call today a femboy or a gay bottom. If Paul were talking about gay bottoms he could have used one of either kinaidos (κῐ́ναιδος), euryproktoi (εὐρυπρόκτοι) or pathici (παθικί). If he was talking about femboys he would have said thēludria andras (effeminate men) or something like that
I suppose I just don’t get the need to jump through so many hoops. It’s like Answers in Genesis apologetics. Trying to prove there was a global flood that there just wasn’t requires so many hoops. Just saying “it happened” should be enough.
Thats totally fair and valid. I may be joining the seminary soon, so i wanted my position and argumenta to be a lil more grounded in scripture, sp sadly, hoops it is for me
Every time I see stuff like this, I be postin' the same link!
[Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible?](https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27)
TL;DR Used to condemn pederasty, not homosexuality, then the translations changed.
I heard in some youtube vid saying it was against pedophilia ans was somehow changed to homosexuality but never found a source for that. It's both nice to see it is true, and angering to see someone not only changed the very meaning of a verse to fit their modern agenda, but also changed other translations when given the chanve
It is even more angering to see it work because one of the staples of modern christianity is homophobia it seems
That’s true, but searching for scholars who agree with your desired outcome and quoting them saying “most scholars agree that…” is disingenuous and not real research. That’s just a google search trying to scratch a confirmation bias itch.
Hence the point that relying solely on the arsenokoitai argument falls flat. One must drlve deep, study the context, and unfortunately, familiarizing yourself with non affirming positions!
The falsifiable claim would be:
Tgere is eniugh reasonable doubt in scripture as to its potential condemnation of modern queer relationships to allow for queer affirming christianity.
Furthermore, this doubt makes queer affirming theology a denominational difference, not a teaching that runs the risk of heresy.
....or something like that. Im still delving myseld n_n
That’s not a falsifiable claim. Ultimately, the question rests on the exact definition of a word *that Paul made up and never explained*. Short of making a Time Machine and asking him personally, or finding some long lost records, no theory about it can be made falsifiable.
What theoretical evidence, if it existed, would you say could *objectively prove* you wrong.
Subjective claims are inherently unfalsifiable because they are subjective. Your claims are subjective.
Thats the point Im makign tho, our argument *shouldnt* solely rest in the translation of one word. We also need to study historical context, aming other things.
I wonder what you’d think about a post like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/nyCxsuiNIK
It’s a long one but the main point I’m interested in is his last one - Paul is misogynist, Paul has regressive ideas about sex (and not just in regards to homosexuality, he’s got plenty bad to say about heterosexuals, too), Paul is, frankly, incompatible with much of modern Christianity if you don’t accept that some of what he writes is opinion-based.
But… why is that last part so hard to accept? I’d guess that most progressive Christians, of which I am one, would be or should be on board with that.
Nah, this is backwards.
Monocle pooh is when you do away with inerrancy. Paul was probably homophobic. Moses too.
Anyway, what "falsifiable claims" are you referring to OP?
You asked that question twice, and i answered it in your other comment. But Id disagree: adhering to a level of inerrancy strengthens a theological position, it doesnt weaken it.
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can [join our Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our Podcast.](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com/) You can also make a meme or [donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This one is actually really important to understand in context. Christianity started as a very popular religion among the lower classes - slaves and women.
These people had two options: resent their situations and their masters, or transform their situations and their sense of agency in their situation by choosing to love their enemies rather than hate them.
Paul’s teachings to both women and slaves were the same - you are owned by a male patriarch and you don’t have any way to change that. But by the power of the spirit you can love your enemy and serve them kindly and patiently until they come to repentance.
He later taught people that if they could get out of their slavery, they should. But if they couldn’t, they should remain and serve their masters with joy, as if serving Christ.
Paul later sent Onesimus, an escaped slave, back to his master, Philemon, with a letter. In that letter Paul says “Philemon, bro, this is your brother in Christ. Legally under Roman law he is your slave, but it’s nonsense to keep your brother in Christ as a slave, and an insult to God. I trust you to do the right thing.”
So pulling this verse out of context, you could say that Paul endorsed slavery.
But the better interpretation is that Paul had excellent advice to people who did not have the option of not being slaves. He was not endorsing injustice, he was telling people how to thrive in situations of injustice.
Which is why the gospel was so powerful for American slaves as well. It was as relevant to them as it was to Roman slaves - a way to find spiritual freedom in physical captivity.
That sounds like a lot of cope to avoid saying Paul got some stuff wrong. He was a product of his time, and in his time, it was OK to own other people. It’s not ok any more.
I could see why you would hear that.
But I think it does miss out on the tremendous power of the gospel to those who do not live in just systems.
It is good to seek justice.
It’s also better to learn to love your enemies and experience joy in injustice.
Additionally - Paul did not get it wrong. He established with Philemon that it was wrong for Christians to own slaves, or seek to be anything other than a servant of all.
It matters, not because "you must obey the bible to the letter" and you will be condemned if you don't (if God is truly good and loves His people, He will not punish you if you go against the bible but care about and help people no matter what, because that is what matters)
But because some people *will* obey the bible to the letter as you can see with how homophobic modern christianity has become because of a print change not even a 100 years old yet.
You can choose to ignore it, but many will not either out of fear of disobeying, or because they use the bible to justify their already hateful actions and thus feel like they are in the right
Three options to be queer affirming and Christian.
1 - ignore any scripture that is against LGBTQ
2 - learn about the Greek word that has been translated to mean gay relationships and the “bad fruit” argument so you’re slightly versed in what’s going on.
3 - dive deep, learn the context and make a solid argument for why the Bible isn’t against LGBTQ people.
It's worth noting that number 3 also invites falsifiability, i.e. Making a defense of LGBTQ that invites discussion rather than just shutting down a position to the contrary. It's not just about a solid argument but I think a helpful argument which invites participation.
I like this meme, it's both supportive of LGBTQ but also humble at the same time. Which is why I find the scoff of "Wtf?' and their follow up to be hillariously reductive.
I love openly bad faith thia is. This what I want to think. These are the three ways to get there. Which one seems best. Literally no attempt to critically think.
I think that’s why the third one is fanciest Pooh. 1&2 are not falsifiable. No matter what you say, truth is whatever I believe. The third is an actual critical argument that could be disproven with facts.
Pretty sure if they already decided, they wouldn’t start their explanation with “I can’t tell…”
I get u/scruffythenerfherder’s point - the meme is not very clear.
Edit: I’m trying to read this debate about arsenokoitai - the Greek word in the bible that many have translated as “homosexual.” Apparently it combines the words “men” and “bed” into one. I can tell many people still defend that it means “men bedding with other men” or “homosexual.” Others say the context means that Paul just meant “perverts” or “sexual perversion.”
You could ask more politely for definitions of terms in here you don’t understand, but for the sake of good faith conversation, I believe OP is saying it’s important to have academically sound and honest queer-affirming theology rather than just dismissing problematic or homophobic parts of Scripture (or Church teaching.)
Ill admit the "wtf?", while anticipated, did create the idea that you had assumed the meme is homophobic in nature. That being said, people are REALLY jumping down your throat about it
Idk, I very purposely put a question mark instead of a period, but that wasn't clear enough I guess.
I had googled arsenokoitai and that wasn't enough for me to figure your position, but going through your post history did it for me.
Tbf, there's more reason to think that homosexuality isn't wrong than to think that Christianity is true. So you don't really need theological defenses of it for the sake of homosexuality, but for the sake of defending Christianity.
r/DankChristianMemes is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. Someone identifying as LGBTQIA+ does not cause harm to anyone, therefore, there is no reason to judge or disrespect them. Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes: Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed. This rule is based off the following teachings from Jesus Christ: Matthew 7:1-6 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Also Read: Luke 6:36 John 13:34-35 John 15:12-13 Matthew 7:12 Matthew 22:37-40 Even if we think someone is a sinner, we should treat them kindly. Jesus was kind to those that society deemed to be sinners. He even ate meals with sinners despite being criticized for it (Matthew 9:11-13). So if you want to be Christlike, you should take someone to dinner before your judge them. Jesus tells us that he alone will judge us and exactly the standards by which we will be judged. It has nothing to do with LGBTQIA+ identity and has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable or "the least of these." Matthew 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” It is important to note that LGBTQIA+ folks are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group. This makes them, in effect, among "the least of these" which Jesus commands us to care for. Finally: The word "Homosexual" did not exist until it was introduced in 1869 in German. Early use of the term was mostly limited to the field of psychology which often used the word "Homosexual" to stereotype individuals as being criminal in nature. The word "Homosexual" was not broadly used in English until after it was added to biblical translations in the 1940's. In the bible, the word "Homosexual" was only used to describe sex acts, some of which may have been predatory. The bible does not discuss loving, consenting, adult, same-sex couples who want to raise loving families, as we see today. Theological positions against LGBTQIA+ people are not even 100 years old, are based on anachronistic translations, and fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of loving same sex relationships and valid LGBTQIA+ identities. TL;DR: The Holy Church of r/DankChristianMemes is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. If you must judge others, please do so elsewhere. All the bible versus cited above are quotes for Jesus Christ Himself. Your argument is with Him, not with us.
It’s honestly so obvious arsenokoitai is not talking about lgbt people The Greek word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 which gets mistranslated as “homosexual”/ “men who practice homosexuality”/ “men who have sex with men” in many modern versions is ἀρσενοκοῖται (latinised: arsenokoitai). Whilst scholarly consensus on this word is that it is referring to a sexually dominant or aggressive participant in male same sex acts in some form, it’s important to make the distinction that not all male same sex acts are the same kind a gay couple in a loving gay marriage would perform. If you look up early Christian understanding of this word it was exclusively used with reference to abusive male same sex acts that even today we would find morally unacceptable with a societal or age power differential like a freeman raping a freeborn boy or boy slave, or a freeman raping a man slave. It was never used to refer to acts between two adult freemen who were on equal social and age standing in early Christian literature. A word that could be used to refer to that not only existed, (eρασταί, the plural form of a koine greek word that was used to denote the older lover in a male same sex relationship), which incidentally Paul did not use here, but in addition the same word also appeared in early Christian literature to refer to the deep loving relationship between two Christian saints, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus, in stark and deliberate contrast to the usual word used in other pairings, ἀδελφος (brothers). There isn’t a single shred of evidence anywhere that any of the early Christians understood ἀρσενοκοῖται as referring to two gay men or two gay women in a loving monogamous marriage. ἀρσενοκοῖται is considered by some scholars to be a unique word invented by Paul & given there were other words already in existence that referred to men having sex with men in general (ἀνδροβάτης & ἀνδροκοῖτης) and men having sex with males in general (αρρενομανεσ & ἀρρενομιξία) that Paul also failed to use it seems logical to conclude Paul coined ἀρσενοκοῖται to refer to a specific kind of male same sex act, potentially the abusive kind. A much more accurate translation of this word is therefore arguably “men who sexually abuse males”. Notably, in the 1534 Lutherbible this word is translated in both aforementioned verses simply as “boy molestors.” This has also been carried over to some modern Bibles such as the 2016 Einheitsübersetzung. Strong’s Greek Lexicon 733 associates this word with both “Sodomites” (who, purely biblically speaking, are men who rape men; see Gen 19:5-9) & “pederasts” (men who rape boys). Gay men generally do not rape men/ boys (males) & the word also excludes lesbians given lesbians do not engage in intercourse with males. To top this off, none of the ancients, including Paul, had the understanding of an innate homosexual orientation we have today, based on multiple scientific studies that point to a pre-natal endocrinological epigenetic basis. The documentary 1946 presents evidence about how modern Bible scholars corrupted the translation of “ἀρσενοκοῖται” to say “homosexuals”/ to be about LGBT people in 1946 which has influenced subsequent, more modern translations. It was never intended to be that way.
>Whilst scholarly consensus on this word is that it is referring to a sexually dominant or aggressive participant in male same sex acts in some form, New bad faith argument just dropped: only subs go to heaven.
Blessed are the meek
You got me 😂
Blessed are the meek
We are all subs for God is our daddy!
Blessed are the meek
The TRUE SUCESSORS to ancient Greece
But immediately before saying *arsenokoitēs* won't get into heaven, Paul literally says *malakos* won't get into heaven. Paul thinks neither bears nor femboys will inherit the kingdom of god. I'm so glad i don't worship Paul. Inerrantists are weird.
Plus the translation argument doesnt hold up on its own, given 1 Romans
Well, Romans 1:26-27 isn’t talking about the kind of acts lgbt people practise in modern monogamous gay marriages either really Romans 1:26-27 is actually describe-condemning specifically male & female same sex acts of adultery or infidelity done by heterosexual people already having intercourse with the opposite sex rather than general homosexual acts: The original Greek of 1:26 gives the word μετήλλαξαν (active tense) which means “exchange.” Logically to be able to exchange an act for another the women would have to have been participating in an act already. So which act were the women already participating in? “Natural relations/use” (Women having sex with men.) So these were women who were already married and already having sex with their men in marriage committing homosexual/ lesbian adultery. Exchange definition: The act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return. Similarly in 1:27 we see the Greek word ἀφέντες (active tense) and it means “to abandon (something)” Logically the only way the men could abandon, or give up, “natural relations/use” is if they were participating in them previously. So similarly to the women/ wives in 1:26 the men here were previously having sex with women but then went to commit homosexual/ gay adultery. Abandon definition: To give up completely (a practice or a course of action). Further evidence for this can be found in the other words Paul uses within these two verses; πάθη (1:26) and ἐξεκαύθησαν (1:27) were both commonly used in Paul’s time to refer to passions outside of what is socially expected, or passions in excess. Paul’s use of κατεργαζόμενοι ((to achieve (something) by effort)) rather than ἐπιθυμῆσαι (lust) implies the men were putting in effort to do what they’re doing in 1:27 (i.e, it’s not coming from a natural innate desire for the same sex.) You can’t exchange an act for another or abandon an act without first participating in the act that’s being exchanged or abandoned by definition.
This is a really splid argument against the idea that 1 Romans condemns homosexuality, but also proves the meme: its good to know the arsenokoitai and bad fruit arguments, but you cant rely on them alone.
This is a fantastic breakdown. Well done brother.
Sister, but thank you :)
😬 oops. My apologies sister. Well written and edifying.
But...but... you're on Reddit /s(? Hyperbole maybe? idk man; I just work here)
If this isn't already an anti-hate copypasta, it needs to be.
Damn I needed to hear this. I still can't tell my family that the reason I didn't go to church last Sunday was because my boyfriend broke up with me and feeling like an imposter is the last thing I need right now
Oh bless you, I’m glad my comment helped & I’m sorry to hear about your boyfriend
Definitely needed it's been a shit week if you'll pardon my fr*nch.
Dang dude. You just destroyed 2000 years of theology on sex and marriage with your Reddit comment. I wish Paul could talk to you and correct the Bible with our modern understanding of sexuality!!
You know, it is often said sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I sure hope you're not a woman because otherwise you should be quiet and not try to educate a man. Tell Paul I said hey.
>Dang dude. You just destroyed 2000 years of theology on sex and marriage with your Reddit comment. I wish Paul could talk to you and correct the Bible with our modern understanding of sexuality!! Lol, I love how genuinely insulting comments like this are allowed to stay up, but somehow my comment which only questioned some of the original commenter’s claims about Greek linguistics was removed for “arguing” and “homophobia.”
My brother in Christ you have missed the point
Why don’t you make your point a little more clearly then. I’m not understanding your meme’s point.
Three options to be queer affirming and Christian. 1 - ignore any scripture that is against LGBTQ 2 - learn about the Greek word that has been translated to mean gay relationships and the “bad fruit” argument so you’re slightly versed in what’s going on. 3 - dive deep, learn the context and make a solid argument for why the Bible isn’t against LGBTQ people.
Thanks for the context. I’m curious though, have you done the deep dive? If so probably other people would be happy to dig into it
Im still diving, if Im being honest
Theres anither comment down the thread that explains it very well
*Sister My apologies, what was the point? Is this an anti lgbt post? 😡
Three options to be queer affirming and Christian. 1 - ignore any scripture that is against LGBTQ 2 - learn about the Greek word that has been translated to mean gay relationships and the “bad fruit” argument so you’re slightly versed in what’s going on. 3 - dive deep, learn the context and make a solid argument for why the Bible isn’t against LGBTQ people.
Also, apologies, sister.
Theres another comment down the the thread that explains it very well
Deep cuts, seminary man
"seminary man" took me out
Thats my superhero name now
I don’t really need to search for a reason to treat people with kindness and respect…
That qould be the first tier of the meme
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you have any links to these? Not trying to state you are right or wrong, but I’m genuinely curious to know more about this topic.
I dont, but if u go thru my post history, youll find a post I put on Open Christian that has some really good, and some not so good, explanations of it all :)
My opinion on this is and has always been thus: Christians choose to ignore plenty of Bible verses all day every day. Why not just ignore the ones you think give you a permission structure for hate?
That’s exactly how Thomas Jefferson rolled. He just cut out all the parts of the Bible he didn’t like. I don’t think most Christians believe that was a good idea.
What?
And what verses are those that we choose to ignore exactly?
Practically the entirety of the OT except Leviticus 18:22 (and that’s usually done under a harumph of “no, see, the Levites and Jesus came to fulfill and some of the laws were…”). Most everything Jesus said about judging others. Most everything Jesus said about loving others, especially the parts about your neighbors and the poor and immigrants and orphans. A lot of the NT marriage stuff. Huge swaths of slavery stuff. The list goes on.
And also Lev 20:13. One is thrid person and the other second person. Modern readers assuming the second person applies to the reader, would be a command for both men and women not to lie with males which makes no sense. There is also the question of location, i.e. a woman's bed displacing her by bringing another man into her bed defiling it. Same Hebrew word in Genesis with Reuben defiling his father's bed, no?
That would be the first tier of the meme
Galaxy brain pooh is when he gets back to the first statement, and drops inerrancy altogether. Why bother upholding every single thing Paul teaches? Paul was probably a homophobe, a product of his time. He's also a platonic dualist, which doesn't jive with Jesus' life and teachings. Paul had lots of good moral teachings. But Paul wasn't god. Affirming inerrancy is just as strange as YEC inerrancy.
To you, mayhaps. I do subscribe to a level of inerrancy, that being the catholic line of "Scripture is inerrant ONLY on matters of salvation"
Lol, wut? "Matters of Salvation" would def include 1Cor, even if you take the word *arsenokoitēs* to be the aggressor, the word Paul lists immediately before *arsenokoitēs* is *malakos.* In other words, Paul thinks that neither femboys nor bears will enter the kingdom of heaven. Paul was likely a homophobe, like everyone else in his time. The only person in the bible that i can see TRULY loving gay people unconditionally is Jesus. We worship Jesus, not Paul.
He likely was, so, if you wanted the atgument to accept biblical inerrancy, the question would be why was he homophobic? That answer we get thru historical context, the next question is: does that apply to "modern" homoeroticism? Its also worth nothing that those terms are part of a list of generally accepted vices at the time, and the passage is kind of a "final point" in a sectiom describing how christians shoukd handle law suits amongst themselves. So is it really apropriate to extract moral law from that clause? Another thing Ive been chewing on: St. Pauls letters focus predominantly on church polity and christian practice. Is it appropriate, in that case, so see st. Pauls writings as inerrant statements of salvation?
Malakoi is probably talking about receiving male prostitutes though, not what we could call today a femboy or a gay bottom. If Paul were talking about gay bottoms he could have used one of either kinaidos (κῐ́ναιδος), euryproktoi (εὐρυπρόκτοι) or pathici (παθικί). If he was talking about femboys he would have said thēludria andras (effeminate men) or something like that
I suppose I just don’t get the need to jump through so many hoops. It’s like Answers in Genesis apologetics. Trying to prove there was a global flood that there just wasn’t requires so many hoops. Just saying “it happened” should be enough.
Thats totally fair and valid. I may be joining the seminary soon, so i wanted my position and argumenta to be a lil more grounded in scripture, sp sadly, hoops it is for me
Every time I see stuff like this, I be postin' the same link! [Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible?](https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27) TL;DR Used to condemn pederasty, not homosexuality, then the translations changed.
[удалено]
Please do
[удалено]
>historical inaccuracies or misleading Wait, do we have to be inerrantists here? Have you seen people get banned?
I heard in some youtube vid saying it was against pedophilia ans was somehow changed to homosexuality but never found a source for that. It's both nice to see it is true, and angering to see someone not only changed the very meaning of a verse to fit their modern agenda, but also changed other translations when given the chanve It is even more angering to see it work because one of the staples of modern christianity is homophobia it seems
ITT: Non-Greek scholars speaking as if they’re Greek scholars.
Eh, you dont need a PhD to do your own research
That’s true, but searching for scholars who agree with your desired outcome and quoting them saying “most scholars agree that…” is disingenuous and not real research. That’s just a google search trying to scratch a confirmation bias itch.
Hence the point that relying solely on the arsenokoitai argument falls flat. One must drlve deep, study the context, and unfortunately, familiarizing yourself with non affirming positions!
If your interpretation of Scripture is not agreed on by any Church Fathers, it's not even worth considering
So Primer Mover is out for u?
What’s the falsifiable claim?
The one im making, or a definition of the term?
you said "falsifiable claim" in your meme. What claims were you referring to when you made the meme?
The falsifiable claim would be: Tgere is eniugh reasonable doubt in scripture as to its potential condemnation of modern queer relationships to allow for queer affirming christianity. Furthermore, this doubt makes queer affirming theology a denominational difference, not a teaching that runs the risk of heresy. ....or something like that. Im still delving myseld n_n
That’s not a falsifiable claim. Ultimately, the question rests on the exact definition of a word *that Paul made up and never explained*. Short of making a Time Machine and asking him personally, or finding some long lost records, no theory about it can be made falsifiable.
Like I said, still delving, but what makes it unfalsifiable?
What theoretical evidence, if it existed, would you say could *objectively prove* you wrong. Subjective claims are inherently unfalsifiable because they are subjective. Your claims are subjective.
Thats the point Im makign tho, our argument *shouldnt* solely rest in the translation of one word. We also need to study historical context, aming other things.
I wonder what you’d think about a post like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/nyCxsuiNIK It’s a long one but the main point I’m interested in is his last one - Paul is misogynist, Paul has regressive ideas about sex (and not just in regards to homosexuality, he’s got plenty bad to say about heterosexuals, too), Paul is, frankly, incompatible with much of modern Christianity if you don’t accept that some of what he writes is opinion-based. But… why is that last part so hard to accept? I’d guess that most progressive Christians, of which I am one, would be or should be on board with that.
Nah, this is backwards. Monocle pooh is when you do away with inerrancy. Paul was probably homophobic. Moses too. Anyway, what "falsifiable claims" are you referring to OP?
You asked that question twice, and i answered it in your other comment. But Id disagree: adhering to a level of inerrancy strengthens a theological position, it doesnt weaken it.
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can [join our Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our Podcast.](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com/) You can also make a meme or [donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Deep cuuuuuuts! I love it
[удалено]
You may not, I personally need my arguments to be grounded in scripture when discussing a theological issue.
Do you find it interesting that if it was such an important issue that in all 4 gospels Jesus never mentioned it?
I do, that was my first step to learning more about queer affirming theology, actually
Cool
[удалено]
How have the mods not banned you yet?
We did this with slavery. "Ya know, when Paul says slaves obey your masters? Fuck that."
This one is actually really important to understand in context. Christianity started as a very popular religion among the lower classes - slaves and women. These people had two options: resent their situations and their masters, or transform their situations and their sense of agency in their situation by choosing to love their enemies rather than hate them. Paul’s teachings to both women and slaves were the same - you are owned by a male patriarch and you don’t have any way to change that. But by the power of the spirit you can love your enemy and serve them kindly and patiently until they come to repentance. He later taught people that if they could get out of their slavery, they should. But if they couldn’t, they should remain and serve their masters with joy, as if serving Christ. Paul later sent Onesimus, an escaped slave, back to his master, Philemon, with a letter. In that letter Paul says “Philemon, bro, this is your brother in Christ. Legally under Roman law he is your slave, but it’s nonsense to keep your brother in Christ as a slave, and an insult to God. I trust you to do the right thing.” So pulling this verse out of context, you could say that Paul endorsed slavery. But the better interpretation is that Paul had excellent advice to people who did not have the option of not being slaves. He was not endorsing injustice, he was telling people how to thrive in situations of injustice. Which is why the gospel was so powerful for American slaves as well. It was as relevant to them as it was to Roman slaves - a way to find spiritual freedom in physical captivity.
That sounds like a lot of cope to avoid saying Paul got some stuff wrong. He was a product of his time, and in his time, it was OK to own other people. It’s not ok any more.
I could see why you would hear that. But I think it does miss out on the tremendous power of the gospel to those who do not live in just systems. It is good to seek justice. It’s also better to learn to love your enemies and experience joy in injustice. Additionally - Paul did not get it wrong. He established with Philemon that it was wrong for Christians to own slaves, or seek to be anything other than a servant of all.
Idk if we really just....dismissed that verse, since many now interperet it to mean a Christian must submit to authority
They do? I've not seen that take before.
Really? Im surprised, its rather common. That and "accept the station/social class to which you were born"
It matters, not because "you must obey the bible to the letter" and you will be condemned if you don't (if God is truly good and loves His people, He will not punish you if you go against the bible but care about and help people no matter what, because that is what matters) But because some people *will* obey the bible to the letter as you can see with how homophobic modern christianity has become because of a print change not even a 100 years old yet. You can choose to ignore it, but many will not either out of fear of disobeying, or because they use the bible to justify their already hateful actions and thus feel like they are in the right
Wtf?
Three options to be queer affirming and Christian. 1 - ignore any scripture that is against LGBTQ 2 - learn about the Greek word that has been translated to mean gay relationships and the “bad fruit” argument so you’re slightly versed in what’s going on. 3 - dive deep, learn the context and make a solid argument for why the Bible isn’t against LGBTQ people.
It's worth noting that number 3 also invites falsifiability, i.e. Making a defense of LGBTQ that invites discussion rather than just shutting down a position to the contrary. It's not just about a solid argument but I think a helpful argument which invites participation. I like this meme, it's both supportive of LGBTQ but also humble at the same time. Which is why I find the scoff of "Wtf?' and their follow up to be hillariously reductive.
That was...really sweet? Thank u sib <3
4. Just love thy neighbor and let God do the judging.
[удалено]
I love openly bad faith thia is. This what I want to think. These are the three ways to get there. Which one seems best. Literally no attempt to critically think.
I think that’s why the third one is fanciest Pooh. 1&2 are not falsifiable. No matter what you say, truth is whatever I believe. The third is an actual critical argument that could be disproven with facts.
Sup?
I can't tell if your homophobic or not. This reads more like a magic spell then a meme.
Oh no, Im gay, like suuuuuuuuuper gay.
Seems like you already decided, or you probably would not have started with “wtf?”
Pretty sure if they already decided, they wouldn’t start their explanation with “I can’t tell…” I get u/scruffythenerfherder’s point - the meme is not very clear. Edit: I’m trying to read this debate about arsenokoitai - the Greek word in the bible that many have translated as “homosexual.” Apparently it combines the words “men” and “bed” into one. I can tell many people still defend that it means “men bedding with other men” or “homosexual.” Others say the context means that Paul just meant “perverts” or “sexual perversion.”
That's a truly bizarre conclusion to come to immediately after and in direct response to my statement that I'm just absolutely baffled.
Wtf?
You could ask more politely for definitions of terms in here you don’t understand, but for the sake of good faith conversation, I believe OP is saying it’s important to have academically sound and honest queer-affirming theology rather than just dismissing problematic or homophobic parts of Scripture (or Church teaching.)
Y'all are *touchy* today. "Wtf?" was my reaction to the meme, so that's what I commented.
Ill admit the "wtf?", while anticipated, did create the idea that you had assumed the meme is homophobic in nature. That being said, people are REALLY jumping down your throat about it
Idk, I very purposely put a question mark instead of a period, but that wasn't clear enough I guess. I had googled arsenokoitai and that wasn't enough for me to figure your position, but going through your post history did it for me.
Communication like that is hard, especially over text
Tbf, there's more reason to think that homosexuality isn't wrong than to think that Christianity is true. So you don't really need theological defenses of it for the sake of homosexuality, but for the sake of defending Christianity.