And people act like this is some underdeveloped world problem - but it's happening now, in the US, where we are supposedly educated. Look at Christianity and the LGBTQ community - there are libraries shutdown for containing a book with transpeople in it or childrens books where background characters have two moms or two dads. Disney boycotted for having gay characters.
All of it is based on 5 versus in the bible, which conveniently didn't even exist in the scripture prior to the 1940s. I mean, the Bibles oldest known language was Greek - there was no word for homosexual or gay in the Greek language at the time the Bible was written.
But let's pretend it was in there for a second. How many other things in the bible are much more prominent than sexuality or gender, but conveniently take a backseat because it's rampant in the Christian community. I don't see Christians out here protesting divorce or adultery like they do the gays. They sure as hell aren't trying to make divorce illegal or forcing people back to their first wife or husband.
This really isn't an intended bash on Christians, more a bash on Religion causing unnecessary pain when it's supposed to help people.
So, while the Old Testament definitely does disparage the gays even in the original Hebrew, it's still weird for Christians to adhere to that.
The entire point of Christianity is that the Old Testament rules are generally no longer in effect. Wanna eat shrimp or get a tattoo? No problem! But then when it's about gay people they're all "Leviticus this" and "Deuteronomy that".
That's because there's three classes of laws. Civil, moral, and ceremonial. Civil and ceremonial no longer apply, moral still does. What exact laws and to what capacity they should be followed varies differently from denomination to denomination as the "non-essential" beliefs vary between denominations. Fringe groups like the Amish end up really too strict, which is where the argument of legalism comes into play. Legalism is actually considered to be a sin, too.
Personally, I'm a strong believer in grace. The "love the person not the sin", but that also means I'm not going to call people out on their sins. I apply the saying to all sin, because hey, I sin too. That's between them and God; not me, them, and God. I'm not going to treat someone differently because of their sins, it'd be hypocritical to when I sin daily. It's hard to completely avoid, which is where grace comes in.
I've never heard of the period sex one, but I'm not a scholar either, so I'm not sure on that one. It can be hard to distinguish the laws from each other, and I'd recommend looking at scholarly sources for that as it's a long list and I'm not great at distinguishing all of them. Some are a bit nuanced.
In general:
Civil laws are the laws pertaining to Israel, and don't apply because we aren't living in Old Testament Israel. Those would be the governmental type laws. Those ones are the ones I'm glad aren't followed anymore, because I'm pretty sure I've done stuff on multiple occasions that would have gotten me stoned to death.
Ceremonial laws are the laws pertaining to how God was meant to be worshipped. We don't follow them because we don't need them anymore. That's the whole point of the Messiah. Somewhere in here is the food laws, so they don't apply.
Moral laws are basically everything else. Everything in the New Testament applies, as far as I'm aware.
Please keep in mind I'm not a scholar, nor do I pretend to be. I've struggled in my faith a lot, and I still have a lot to learn. I also really don't enjoy arguing religion, so if you're looking for a full argument this is the most you're getting. I made my original comment because people generally aren't aware there's different types of law, and I think it's important to be aware of that.
If you want to read the Bible, I'd recommend starting with the Gospels, then Genesis, Acts, and Galatians. Everything else from there doesn't really matter on order, in my opinion. I'm not trying to pressure you, but I wasn't sure if you were curious or not.
I'd assume this is an example of a nuance. My study Bible mentions that Leviticus 18:19 isn't echoed in the New Testament, and is likely a ceremonial law similar to the food laws mentioned in Leviticus 17. Everything else in Leviticus 18 is more than likely moral. When the Old Testament was written, laws weren't always separated by type. I'm going to be honest here and say I don't really study the Old Testament, I'm focusing on the New Testament right now.
I don't know. I can't answer that, and I'm not going to attempt to give you some long and complicated answer when I don't honestly know why God decided it was immoral. This question almost made me walk away from my faith at one point. I understand this is a difficult subject.
The Old Testament doesn't disparage gay people. Look, gender as a concept, being gay or lesbian or bisexual as a sexual choice, these weren't concepts back then that existed. The only regular homosexual activities recorded in antiquity is the practice of pederasty, which you can find in Plato's writings is a revered practice all over the ancient world. When Leviticus talks about homosexuals, it's referring to the only homosexual practice that existed in that time period: men taking on boys around the age of 12 to live with them, serve them including sexually when it is called for (and there's plenty of texts that exists from that time heavily implying basically Epstein-Island kind of activity did exist and people were aware of it), and in return they receive a mentorship. That sounds like activity anyone in the West would abhor in 2024, and the Hebrews abhorred it in antiquity, so what is it we're really arguing about?
Identifying as being gay, culturally and sexually, is not a practice that is recorded in the ancient world. Therefore, the Hebrew holy texts are not admonishing a practice that doesn't exist -- they're against the practice that does exist, one we have way too much evidence of existing.
Nah man, the original Hebrew explicitly states that you may not lay with a man as you would with a woman and that it is abominable to do so. This is the default rabbinical interpretation.
Okay, and no one else has studied it further than you, ever, in history, from when you were a child reading it?
I did not claim the text does not state you may not lay with a man as you would a woman. I claimed that the gay gender choice did not exist when this book was written as it was not a concept humans had, according to the historical evidence we posses. The only practice that existed in this time that corresponds to "man laying with a man as you would a woman" is pederasty, something that was thought of as a good thing that many, many of the "pagan" regions practiced. Go read Plato's Timaeus you're in for a big surprise.
Bro thinks gay people didn't exist in biblical times 💀
Yeah bro, I'm sure the only thing that passage could possibly refer to is pedaresty, and that's why widely accepted rabbinical interpretations of the text explicitly condemn homosexuality. But keep telling me what my own culture believes, and talking down to me like I'm some Reddit atheist or a child.
I don't give a fuck what Plato said, there is no primary historical evidence to suggest he had ever been in a position to study the Torah. The Egyptian Jewish diaspora hadn't translated it into Greek before the time of Alexander the Great, for one thing.
Religion causing unnecessary pain when it's supposed to help people.
When was it ever supposed to help people? It was supposed to control people, and it works so well that people who died 1000 years ago are still dictating the lives of people in 2024.
Reminder that Gabriel Fernandez from Lancaster, CA was murdered by his mom and step father due to extreme neglect and abuse because they thought he was gay. He was 5 or 6 years old.
Hello, that’s a beautiful take on this issue I’ve been following your profile for a while now and i have seen you always give great takes, they are interesting and educative, Would like to hear more.
I'm sorry, but no. The Bible consists of several books in 2 parts: the old and the new testament. The old testament is written in Hebrew, the new mostly, if not entirely, in Greek. There have been added no verses, at least not in the way you suggest.
That there was no word for homosexual does not mean that there were no homosexuals. An older term is sodomite, which refers to Sodom, of Gomorra. Removal of the penis was one of the historical punishments.
It also strikes me as an American and not an inherently christian issue. Yes, conservative Christians will speak out their opinions about gay marriage, but by far not to the extent of the ones in the US. For us, the ones you mention are, overall, non issues for us.
The Netherlands has a tradition of toleration, even though the debate can be spicy.
I'm sorry, but no. The Bible consists of several books in 2 parts: the old and the new testament. The old testament is written in Hebrew, the new mostly, if not entirely, in Greek. There have been added no verses, at least not in the way you suggest.
That there was no word for homosexual does not mean that there were no homosexuals. An older term is sodomite, which refers to Sodom, of Gomorra. Removal of the penis was one of the historical punishments.
It also strikes me as an American and not an inherently christian issue. Yes, conservative Christians will speak out their opinions about gay marriage, but by far not to the extent of the ones in the US. For us, the ones you mention are, overall, non issues for us.
The Netherlands has a tradition of toleration, even though the debate can be spicy.
I can understand people shunning others because of ideology, religious beliefs, politics, even if I don't agree with their point of view. But I cannot when it comes to brutalizing / abandonning a child / leaving them to starve. It is such a basic instinct, to care for a little child, it goes beyond any political or religious belief. Abandonning a child is abandonning what makes us human.
All of it is based on 5 versus in the bible, which conveniently didn't even exist in the scripture prior to the 1940s. I mean, the Bibles oldest known language was Greek - there was no word for homosexual or gay in the Greek language at the time the Bible was written.
I have to dispute this. The bible is pretty clear about one specific act that is an abomination and detestable to God. I'm interested in what verses you believe were introduced to the bible in the 1940s.
They sure as hell aren't trying to make divorce illegal or forcing people back to their first wife or husband.
There are legitimate reasons for divorce, even in the Bible.
But let's pretend it was in there for a second. How many other things in the bible are much more prominent than sexuality
This is true. It's important to make a distinction between Christians, followers of Christ, and fans of Christ. Lots of people are fans of Christ, but don't really get the message.
I don't see Christians out here protesting divorce or adultery like they do the gays.
136
u/Meems04 5d ago
And people act like this is some underdeveloped world problem - but it's happening now, in the US, where we are supposedly educated. Look at Christianity and the LGBTQ community - there are libraries shutdown for containing a book with transpeople in it or childrens books where background characters have two moms or two dads. Disney boycotted for having gay characters.
All of it is based on 5 versus in the bible, which conveniently didn't even exist in the scripture prior to the 1940s. I mean, the Bibles oldest known language was Greek - there was no word for homosexual or gay in the Greek language at the time the Bible was written.
But let's pretend it was in there for a second. How many other things in the bible are much more prominent than sexuality or gender, but conveniently take a backseat because it's rampant in the Christian community. I don't see Christians out here protesting divorce or adultery like they do the gays. They sure as hell aren't trying to make divorce illegal or forcing people back to their first wife or husband.
This really isn't an intended bash on Christians, more a bash on Religion causing unnecessary pain when it's supposed to help people.