• MystikIncarnate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    With all their… ahem … Creative interpretations of their God book, I don’t see any flaws in this logic.

    They’ll obviously disagree, since “gays are evil” or something. IDK, I never read their propaganda… But since they’re “bad” for whatever reason, then there’s no way anything in their book could ever support gay activities. Thus, they’ll disagree.

    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the Christian god book well enough to comment if there are any other mentions, besides this one, of gays, or gay activities? I see this one quoted a lot, but almost never anything more.

    • Dearth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fun story, in older translations of the bible, this verse is "a man who sleeps with his apprentice must be stoned. "

      But king James’ advisors didn’t want their proclivities deemed immoral by the religious text they were translating for the masses.

      I don’t believe the are any other mentions of homosexuality in any other book of the modern English language Christian bible. AFAIK there aren’t any mentions in the Talmud- which the old testament is roughly based on.

      • Kage520@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I never heard the apprentice translation. Just that it could also be interpreted as many sleeping with “boy”, implying pedophilia.

        • Dearth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s less “child/boy” and more “person I’m responsible for”

          The OG writers of the bible didn’t want people abusing their positions of power. Some modern bible scholars would like to reinforce that it’s “boy” not “ward” in older translations. The cynic in me believes they intentionally focus on that translation because they want to sleep with their parishioners

      • MystikIncarnate
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t know enough of the text to know these things, so I appreciate it.

        I’m also not going to bother learning it any more than I already do, since it would have no impact on my life, either knowing or not knowing it.

        Considering that, I’m glad I can ask the question and get a good response about it. Thanks.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      1 Corinthians 6:9–10

      9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous1 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,2 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

      That said, there is some debate as to what the meaning of this passage actually is.

      • Kage520@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        My response to this kind of stuff is, that’s one guy’s opinion with the current morality of the time. The morality of another time didn’t allow tattoos or mixed fiber clothing. Not sure about the clothing thing, but tattoos probably caused infection and were a bad idea. Similar to how eating pork was probably undercooked and a bad idea.

        Homosexual intercourse is a higher risk for std transmission, so another “bad idea”, especially back then. But we have some preventions for that now, so it’s a bit safer. Perhaps it’s time for morality to move forward to accommodate newer safety.