I'm not a biblical scholar or anything but I remember there being a "thou shalt not kill" passage somewhere in there? Idk man, my gut tells me that's somewhat more important than judging who a person has a consensual relationship with.
It’s actually “thou shalt not murder.” Killing is fine. The old and new testaments call for killing in several places. The distinction between a “kill” and a “murder” is wether it is “justified.” The primary justification in Christianity to murder vs killing is wether it is what God would think of it. The primary tool for interpretation that in Christianity is the Bible.
I’m not defending this or any other hardline “extreme” religious act or interpretation. I just wanted to make the distinction clear should you or any reading the argument ever have need to debate someone with a modicum of religious knowledge who could then easily refute the argument on those grounds and use it to turn the argument and state that you are unfit to debate the issue as you do not posses sufficient knowledge of the subject matter. *not saying you don’t- saying they could argue it and I’d like to give you a drum footing should you ever need it.
it also says "Thou shalt not make graven images of heavenly beings", ie, make statues of angels and such. this was on the tablets, and look at the instructions for making the arc of the covenant, "the lid shall have two cherubs touching wing tips", cherubs, angels. So the tablet that says don't make angels, goes into the box that you have to make angels on the lid.
Yes. And no. The ESV- basically an updated RSV, and like translation give the command as (paraphrasing here) creatures in heaven or beasts of the earth. However- other translations do not specify WHAT may not be an idol- they simply state that one will not make an idol of ANYTHING- an idol being inferred (or expressed depending on version) as something other than god that one worships or holds closer to them than god.
It’s quite a bag of worms when one gets into biblical semantics- there’s generally 3-4 languages minimum between a modern reader and the source, and many centuries of cultural, philosophical, and linguistic and other developments.
When translating ANY work- there are issues. Localizations, incompatibilities. Humor is a good example. The jokes and humorous sayings of one country are often not universal- the parts of a show or movie audiences place to place may laugh or cry at. Something simple like falling on a banana peel has somewhat universal translation to anyone familiar with a banana- but the more nuanced the joke- the more it relies on language and culture- the harder the translation becomes. How would you translate an episode of the Simpsons to a rural Chinese farmer? Take the “Micheal Jackson” spoof episode? The humor relies on the recognition of the figure and key aspects of their celebrity. You could try to substitute a Chinese celebrity or folk hero- but it’s not 1:1.
Likewise- many works of popular culture from Asia borrow or even copy an old fairy tale- “Journey to the West” and characters- a tale known and passed down for ages- but when western audiences see these- they often miss all the references and the impact of those on someone familiar with the work.
As an example from the Bible- Shepards are used a lot. “The lord is my Shepard..” many central characters are Shepards- and to a modern reader there is an imagery there. A humble leader, usually a loaner or hermit, so on and so forth. But that isn’t the image a Shepard had at that time and place at all. There was nothing “quaint” about it. Again- not a 1:1 translation- but it’s kinda like how modern stories and games so often use an “ex cop/soldier” as a lead. It implies things to the audience and sets context. That context is lost over thousands of years.
To put concepts in perspective- the number “0” didn’t exist when the “Old Testament” was written. That is how much our concepts and perceptions have changed. The dudes writing that book couldn’t have understood “0” as a number.
What I find VERY interesting- is there are several linguists who study religious texts. Some have very interesting theories on interpretation of the bible and what is or isn’t “wrong.” Even IF we assume the early western translations of the Bible were “perfect,” they aren’t any more because of the changes to language and perception.
A good example of this is of course “pedophile” and similar words in recent English. Looking at words like this- sodomy, and so on- well- in the 20th and 21st century there are still people who think of the term “pedophile” as interchangeable with “homosexual.” In most any academic or educated circle- and certainly in linguistics- those words have distinct meanings. As a matter of fact- most people say “pedophile” to refer to anyone attracted to any person under 18- when in fact in the English language- a pedophile only refers to those with a specific age range of children, other ranges have their own “phillia” definitions that aren’t really used by non academics or clinical folks.
And therein lies another problem. Not only are we translating “dead” languages from ancient cultures we have only scant record of to interpret how they communicated or thought or lived- but... our translations rely on whatever we have lying around to define words. If a person hundreds or thousands of years from now recovered a dictionary- they’d see “pedophile” to mean a precise age range- but if they are translating a news story from 2019 about a pedophile- the news is probably just talking about a child molester.
And a problem again. Not all pedophiles are child molesters and vice versa- by the strict definitions. And so- if someone were to translate pedophile to child molester... the meaning changes and wether that translation is closer or farther from the truth of what was originally meant... is a crap shoot. Worse yet- if this future society doesn’t have a concept for child molester- or maybe molestation is a foreign concept- or maybe they don’t consider the same things molestation or they define a child as anyone under the age of 10 who hasn’t killed a nuclear zombie yet- whatever- then they’d have to do their best to just pick a word they have that comes closest to what they think the intent of the original is.
It’s complex stuff. The linguists have interesting takes and information- but as discussed above- it’s not all linguistics even though that’s an important angle. That’s where religious scholars and theologians come in- their expertise isn’t the language or necessarily the history- but like legal scholars they usually carry the passed down “oral teachings” of the generation before, who did the same and so on- making their interpretations the closest source we have to what someone centuries or more closer to the source- thought on the meaning of the thing. But there are of course politics and schisms and all manner of things making these less than perfect sources- and while valuable- oral histories tend to be inherently flawed.
So at the end of the day- nitpicking details of ancient religions is subjective. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, and so on- all have congregations that can claim roots in far antiquity, and each has numerous factions of the same belief which are both ancient and in disagreement over the particular details of the whole thing. That’s not to say the details have no value or aren’t interesting- but it is to say that I think a book about a guy who knew people were trashy, betrayed by his best bro- but lived everyone so much as to die to save them... I don’t think the details can spell anything other than to try and be positive and remember that everyone is flawed- most folks are just trying to do right- but even non religious folks don’t always know what right is.
I think people get lost in the details. Religious folks do, and so do folks who take a stance against them- get so caught up in details as to forget the point of the whole thing is pretty much what any “good person” is supposed to try and do- to be good the best they can figure out how. The religious folks get hung up on who is allowed into heaven or this or that and forget to be good to each other- and the non religious folks get caught up on how the supposed plot hike in chapter 33 must make the whole thing an exercise in futility.
Thank you for the clarification, I did not know that there was such a stark contrast between kill and murder. I am very aware of the linguistic issues with old religious texts. In my experience though anyone willing to take an extreme ("fundamentalist") stance or even go as far as to support violence towards other people and use the Bible as a justification for it is probably not aware of these nuances, so in all honesty sometimes I just like to poke fun at people like that. It definitely is more complicated than what my original comment said and there are more cans of worms here than in a fishing supplies store so I won't get into all of that, but as always I appreciate your nuanced view, you can explain things more eloquently than I ever could.
As a Christian myself I’m curious as to why other “Christians” are so inherently evil. It’s like most of them go out of their way to be the worst humans they can be. Jesus preached love and kindness, and here we are, chastising men and women for following their hearts
Luger that is precisely why I'm no longer religious. Jesus comes and tells everyone the old testament is irrelevant now, live by this code instead and everyone ignores that and treats the old testament like its the only book that matters. Christians gossiping and working against their fellow man, believing themselves elite while jesus says we're all equal, and holding onto money and resources they don't need instead of helping others, it's unchristian.
If the god they believe in really does exist I don't think anyone should be praising him.
She's quoting Leviticus. Old Testament, old Law stuff. Jesus doesn't want anyone stoned. Homosexuality is still a sin, the stoning getting cancelled doesn't make it not so.
I’m not going to DV you. I’m certainly not going to upvote either as we have a fundamental disagreement on the subject of homosexuality and sin. That said- I do appreciate that you made the comment about old vs new testaments. This is a common flaw in many arguments about Christian religion by those who aren’t knowledgeable on the subject. Very much the same as the arm chair scholars of the world who comment on a religion like Islam without more than a Wikipedia skims worth of knowledge of the actual faith or its sects.
So yes. At least one part of your statement can be agreed on- Christianity holds that the “Old Testament” is not invalidated by the New Testament- but that parts of the Old Testament are supeceeded by the New Testament where a contradiction exists.
Of course... the interpretation of homosexuality as a sin is also not well supported in religious study- it is more a belief from the church as dogma that not only lacks support beyond a couple contentious and specific cases where it is mentioned- but is subject to ongoing debate regarding context and translation. For example- the widely held scholarly view is that Sodom was destroyed for Inhospitality- the sexual acts mentioned or alluded to (such as wanting sex with men) aren’t weighted heavily or even mentioned as a cause- and the story fits with the Book of judges accounts of the Levite Concubine which is also a hospitality based tale.
The three words in Greek read as “homosexual” are also disputed as “pedophile” or “prostitution.” Other instances attributed to homosexuality can and often are interpreted as shame not for the act of heterosexual relations- but for the cause of these relations as they are out of wedlock and in other ways contrary to the ideas of pair bonding within the society.
Ultimately it is not relevant if homosexuality is or is not a sin. Ones personal beliefs in the matter do not change the fact that we all associate with “sinners” according to the Bible. The very point of the crucifixion of the New Testament was the absolution of sin to any and all who accepted the savior and repented genuinely before their deaths. One could say there is a responsibility to either try to set a sinner towards “right” or to not associate with sinners- but that itself is a complex and debated argument full of nuance. So ultimately- the New Testament says that we will all sin- and all we know are sinners. So it makes no difference not should it factor in to any treatment given to our fellow man- the supreme message of the New Testament being in essence: “be nice to everyone even when they aren’t nice to you. Let god handle god’s business.”
Nicely put. While I do believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, I think that modern society blows it hugely out of proportion. Everybody sins every day, that's why we need Jesus. My two best friends are gay, and they know how I feel about it, but it doesn't matter because I love them and value their friendship (and just because their brand of sin is different than mine doesn't mean that I am in any way better than them).
I can respect that. I disagree- and it comes to perception- viewing homosexuality as something a person is or is not- like being tall or short- it isn’t something to be changed, and viewing the status as a sinner as a type of shame- the implication is that a person should be repentant- sorry for who they are. So I respect that you don’t allow such views to cause hate in your heart- I respect your eloquence and manners as well.
I disagree on the principal however, but people are allowed to disagree so long as we don’t stop each other from minding our business, and you seem of the right mind for that.
Reply
deleted
· 3 years ago
Jesus may have said to love one another but that doesn’t mean we can do what we want and he will tolerate it. Jesus also came to warn us of sin. Believing that Jesus Only promotes peace and love and ignoring that he warned of final judgement and repentance would be VERY wrong. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong and that God doesn’t change his mind. Believe me I want to accept being gay as okay (personally I don’t see anything wrong with it) but I also have to trust that what God says is true. The Bible says that in the final days there will be lots of deception and I believe that this is one of those deceptions.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. In the New Testament Paul uses the word "arsenokoitai". That word is an unusual word. It’s a new word; we don’t know of any other instances of the word until Paul coins the word in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. It’s a compound word: “arsen” means man and “koite” or “koitas” or “koitai”—depending on a verb or a noun—means bed. It’s men who bed with other men.
1
deleted
· 3 years ago
The interpretation of the word arsenokoitai through the ages is shaded by the beliefs and culture of those interpreting it. This was not the common word in the greek world used to describe male to male relations. It is a word crafted by Paul. Arseno means with a man and koitai is the root of our word coitus which is male-female sexual intercourse. Literally the phrase means men having sexual intercourse with another man. Nowhere does it carry a conotation that it is man-boy relations or any other form of pedophilia. What Paul did do with this word is craft a phrase that perfectly reflects the Levitical rule that a man shall not lay with a man as with another woman. When you apply deconstruction theology to the phrase it is obvious that it means homosexual and nothing else.
Pretty well stated case. Obviously a level of intellect behind it. My disagreements or interpretation asides for now as I’ve written enough elsewhere here- I have a question. You have very precisely outlined where the mention of such relations is forbidden, and have made a linguistic case as to how the precision of the words is such that CLEARLY, DEFINITIVELY, PRECISELY- the reference is specific to men having sex with men. Not boys, not animals (that IS covered elsewhere in the Bible-) but- MEN. So then... that doesn’t say homosexuality is wrong does it? It says being gay is wrong. This precise interpretation on linguistic merit would make it clear that by being so precise it was the intention to leave out ambiguity- and women are not mentioned here within. Women having sex with women- that is not mentioned as a sin.
The translation you present, the supporting passage, and your argument all line up to create a case that YOU are mistranslating. A “homosexual” is someone who has sex with the same sex. This is not what Paul says. This is not what is said elsewhere. GAY men have sex with other men. By your analysis the correct conclusion is that, as many suspected over the ages- there are certainly lesbians in heaven. Lesbians do not sleep with men at all- a prerequisite for the sins you mention.
Likewise- there is no prohibition within those or any other passages specific to masturbation or lustful thoughts of men for men. There are many passages and interpretations against masturbation and lustful thoughts in general- but... this would make those who partake in man on man fantasy no more or less a sinner than anyone who has heterosexual fantasies. So here we really don’t need to differentiate in sexuality- the naughty day dreamer is equal in the eyes of god to the gay man- but perhaps not so heinous as the adulterer. Although there is debate wether the 10 commandments are or are not more “weighty” than any other sin.
▼
·
Edited 3 years ago
deleted
· 3 years ago
Actually biblically speaking all sins ARE equal, the naughty daydreamer is equal in the eyes of God to the gay man. Just because God doesn’t specifically say something is a sin doesn’t make it not a sin. It’s obvious that raping a child is a sin, sex trafficking is a sin, masturbation is a sin but the Bible doesn’t say anything about it specifically, it just falls under the general category of “sexually immoral”. Also the Bible does mention lesbians specifically:
Romans 1:26-27 New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.
The sin mentioned there is lust. The way that is written is ambiguous. We know they committed “unnatural acts” but it is not specified if their same sex lust is unnatural- or if the unnatural acts were committed during the natural course of homosexual intercourse. For example: tribbing (women rubbing their genitals together) we could, for this discussion, say is “natural” as it can happen in nature. But if they used strap ins or double ended sex toys- those lesbians perhaps are being “unnatural” the author is surprisingly vague on the issue. But perhaps the meaning there is that homosexual sex is cool- just no party poppers and dildos.
Regardless it is academic. As I said- and as you agree- the primary views of the major religions are either that all sins are equal, or that based on context in the religious texts that some are worse- and either way- homosexuality is no worse than jay walking (Romans 13:1:5 and many others in Romans), Peter 2:13-17 and so forth. So we must logically treat homosexuals in our lives as we treat jay walkers. Give these sins equal attentions and treat those who commit them as we would the other.
If the god they believe in really does exist I don't think anyone should be praising him.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. In the New Testament Paul uses the word "arsenokoitai". That word is an unusual word. It’s a new word; we don’t know of any other instances of the word until Paul coins the word in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. It’s a compound word: “arsen” means man and “koite” or “koitas” or “koitai”—depending on a verb or a noun—means bed. It’s men who bed with other men.
Romans 1:26-27 New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.