Justice: Yeah, the interpretations get ridiculous.
What I don't understand is why it's an issue just to have free rights for all. You don't need a single justification to act like a decent human being or giving basic equal rights. There's no legitimate reason not to. At all.
It's fear, really. Fear of an angry God, fear of demonized bogeymen that will turn your strapping young lads into stereotypical prancing poofters (how many gay people do you know that are that fey now? Outside of, say, a gay-pride festival, where the camp is expected?), fear of not having grandchildren, fear of getting ostracized yourself if you like someone that's the "wrong" sex...it goes on and on.
Fear like that takes a while to go away. Even with the civil rights movement, you still see nutters saying nasty things about black people every so often; likewise, it'll take a while for the bigots to die off or go back into the woodwork and leave the LGBT community alone.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"It would do that if these reinterpretations didn't so often sound like grasping at straws. Yes, the passage could theoretically refer to pederasty or raping prisoners of war or whatever, but that's certainly not the most obvious reading and there's no reason to suppose it's the most likely one, either. The apparent need to render it acceptable to modern liberal values sends the message that it most likely doesn't support those values, which sounds like you think the bigots might have a point but that you are in denial about it."
Problem is, we'd be accepting the most obvious ENGLISH interpretation and the possible biases of the people who wrote the translation of the time. Considering the cultural basis for why something was wrote is pretty import in any situation
And I think your last sentence is a bit of an unfair declaration. Arguing the intended meaning of something doesn't necessarily mean you'd accept the teaching just if you turn out to be wrong.
"The well.com link was kinda interesting but I don't really see how substituting homophobia for misogyny and prescribed heteronormative gender roles is an improvement. And I don't see what's so wrong with just accepting that it's an old book from an old culture which, whether for reasons of hygiene or safety concerns or bigotry or some other reason, held some ideological views that may not be deemed appropriate in this day and age. In other parts of the Bible you see misogyny and slavery being accepted. I don't recall seeing that used as an argument to support those practices, because we know that misogyny and slavery are wrong."
Many people do, and that is also a point. We can accept the Bible and other holy books have things that aren't really relevant to modern living, however, that doesn't mean we have to give up on discussing if something had a different meaning then what we usually accept today.
Bible translations have often changed to something they view as more accurate to the original meaning as new evidence surfaces.
In this case, we're discussing the same thing, except it has some real world impact.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"It's not like it's an either/or thing where you have to agree with every single problematic ancient custom or reject the faith entirely. It's an old book from a totally different culture with different values and ideals. Doesn't mean there's nothing good in it, but attempting to whitewash the bad is unconvincing and comes off as kind of intellectually dishonest."
Agreed, and many parts of the Bible are ignored as being a bit behind the times. But I honestly take a little offence to the suggesting this is "whitewashing". Regardless of people's motives, finding evidence to support a view and present that evidence as a counterpoint to something would be called good debating anywhere else.
I'm not disagreeing that some of the anti-anti-homosexual Bible redirect is on some rather shaky grounds, but establishing a historic back-drop complete with pulling in multiple contemporary sources to support a view is a really impressive counterpoint.
I don't think that deciding there are parts of the Bible that just don't work in a modern context means we need to also dismiss legitimate attempts to shed new light on parts, even if the motivation for such isn't a purely scholarly one.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^^Mostly discussing what the Bible may or may not say on the topic of homosexuality. I forget why this even came up, but I do love my Religious debates. Especially when we actually have links and stuff to present various arguments and can discuss parts of the religions themselves, and not divulge into attempting to attack the entire religion.
>Problem is, we'd be accepting the most obvious ENGLISH interpretation and the possible biases of the people who wrote the translation of the time. Considering the cultural basis for why something was wrote is pretty import in any situation
That is true and a good point, but from what I've seen the most anyone's been able to demonstrate is that homosexuality wasn't viewed the same way back then and that it's possible, but still a stretch, to read the passages as not advocating the murder of people for not conforming to a heteronormative ideal.
>And I think your last sentence is a bit of an unfair declaration. Arguing the intended meaning of something doesn't necessarily mean you'd accept the teaching just if you turn out to be wrong.
Sorry. I see how it came across that way, but that honestly wasn't what I was trying to say. I meant only that it sounds unconvincing, not to accuse you of actually being in denial.
>But I honestly take a little offence to the suggesting this is "whitewashing". Regardless of people's motives, finding evidence to support a view and present that evidence as a counterpoint to something would be called good debating anywhere else.
You're right, and sorry. I retract the "whitewashing" remark; that wasn't fair or accurate.
I do nevertheless feel that an egregious amount of effort seems to be expended on the close examination and speculative reinterpretation of the passages in the Bible that certainly appear to forcefully condemn homosexuality, effeminacy and/or homosexual intercourse. >-murders the next poster, stuffs the body in a full toilet-
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
" That is true and a good point, but from what I've seen the most anyone's been able to demonstrate is that homosexuality wasn't viewed the same way back then and that it's possible, but still a stretch, to read the passages as not advocating the murder of people for not conforming to a heteronormative ideal."
I thought the article I just posted did a pretty good job of showing a high probability that the passage as many interpret now, is flawed.
I'll grant that many, MANY attempts do seem like "grasping at straws", as you put it. On that note:
"I do nevertheless feel that an egregious amount of effort seems to be expended on the close examination and speculative reinterpretation of the passages in the Bible that certainly appear to forcefully condemn homosexuality, effeminacy and/or homosexual intercourse."
Well, it's certainly important to Christian homosexuals to feel they aren't living in sin. And also important to advocates of Homosexual rights to undermine their opponents.
However, I agree that many of the arguments come off as little more than suggesting we reread the passage, but tilt our heads slightly while doing it...
Honestly, this is the only article that I felt did a really good job of providing antiquate historical context in such a way that it could completely challenge the verse, which puts it up above the many, many articles that just examine the vocabulary used.
*returns to the thread as a rainbow drinker and chainsaws DW in half*
>I thought the article I just posted did a pretty good job of showing a high probability that the passage as many interpret now, is flawed.
It does, it makes a very good case. What it doesn't do, and doesn't really attempt to do, is demonstrate or even suggest that the passages in question or the culture that produced them were not violently heteronormative and condemning of certain forms of sexual expression - only that they probably weren't strictly speaking "anti-homosexual" as we would understand the term nowadays.
For that matter, it's kind of scary to me to think that people might take from that the message that it's OK to prescribe gender roles and dictate other people's sex lives providing you do so in a way that isn't exactly anti-homosexuality per se.
>Well, it's certainly important to Christian homosexuals to feel they aren't living in sin.
Of course, but I would assume no more so than it is for Christian feminists to feel that they aren't living in sin, or for most modern Christians to feel that slavery may be rightly condemned. >And also important to advocates of Homosexual rights to undermine their opponents.
Sure. I just feel that there are probably more effective ways of doing that.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"For that matter, it's kind of scary to me to think that people might take from that the message that it's OK to prescribe gender roles and dictate other people's sex lives providing you do so in a way that isn't exactly anti-homosexuality per se."
Well, that might be a bit of a stretch from that one verse, even if the article suggests that might have been going on at the time.
It seemed to me the article was suggesting it might be attacking man on man rape. I admit that the way it suggested to deal with this would be considered pretty damn draconian by modern standards. So even if this was an acceptable translation, the passage likely WOULD fall under the sort of "fair for it's time" at best category, and not the sort of thing we'd look towards to put into practice nowadays.
"Of course, but I would assume no more so than it is for Christian feminists to feel that they aren't living in sin, or for most modern Christians to feel that slavery may be rightly condemned.'
Well, I never suggested this was a thing. But it's not like people don't also accept a great deal of the Bible's teachings, but think Paul isn't exactly one to look towards for modern structure of secular or religious behavior.
That is to say, though I think it's good to really examine these passages as apposed to simply taking them at face value. I'm not suggesting we'll find the book reads like some perfect code of modern moral behavior if we do.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"Sure. I just feel that there are probably more effective ways of doing that."
Hmmm...maybe, but suggesting to an ultra-conservative Christian that they disregard that part of the Bible because society has moved on is probably more likely to further convince themselves that they're part of some righteous cause against wickedness.
I think beating them at their own game would be pretty effective.
"Like setting their opponents on fire."
Ahhhh, the ancient Chinese way of dealing with problems...
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I've never gotten the "if it's pretty, fuck it" mentality. I would've thought, in any circumstance, that someone not having lady parts (among other things) would be a pretty major stopping point for most straight men.
>Well, that might be a bit of a stretch from that one verse, even if the article suggests that might have been going on at the time.
In order for the reading of the passage as condemning man-on-man rape to be valid, one has to accept that, at least to the author of said passage, gender roles are to be prescribed on the basis (at least in part) of sexual preferences.
Furthermore, there are other obvious problems with such a reading; the "as with woman" suggests that, whatever is being condemned, it's something that you would do with a woman, so if the answer is in fact "rape", well. Likewise, it does nothing to prohibit raping a eunuch/homosexual male, either. If the intent really was to condemn rape, it would have been a lot easier (and less confusing) to simply say "thou shalt not commit rape" or "thou shalt not engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other party." Rape is rape, regardless of the victim's gender or sexual preferences. "But he had an erection" is not an excuse.
>That is to say, though I think it's good to really examine these passages as apposed to simply taking them at face value. I'm not suggesting we'll find the book reads like some perfect code of modern moral behavior if we do.
Fair enough, I certainly don't disagree with this in principle.
>Hmmm...maybe, but suggesting to an ultra-conservative Christian that they disregard that part of the Bible because society has moved on is probably more likely to further convince themselves that they're part of some righteous cause against wickedness.
It hasn't been my impression that ultra-conservative Christians are willing to listen to or seriously engage with any counter-arguments to their anti-gay marriage agendas. If they were, we wouldn't see the shitty arguments Deathonabun poked fun at being trotted out with such regularity.
Attacking (or disputing, or acting as a pro-gay apologist for) the Biblical source of the anti-gay arguments also seems pointless to me because the Bible is for the most part just being used as an excuse to promote homophobic values. I mean to say, I guess there probably are fundamentalists out there who attempt to follow every law found in the Bible, including no mixed fabrics and so on, but they aren't the majority, not by a long shot. The real problem is bigotry, not religion.
>I've never gotten the "if it's pretty, fuck it" mentality. I would've thought, in any circumstance, that someone not having lady parts (among other things) would be a pretty major stopping point for most straight men.
I don't really see why this would be an issue. It's not like "straight men" implies only liking vaginal.
That said, it's a Courage Wolf, not exactly serious dating advice.
Really? It makes a lot of sense to me (in theory - though "if it's pretty" seems like an oversimplification), but in my experience people do seem to care a lot about the physical sex of people they find attractive, at least in terms of people I know IRL.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
" In order for the reading of the passage as condemning man-on-man rape to be valid, one has to accept that, at least to the author of said passage, gender roles are to be prescribed on the basis (at least in part) of sexual preferences."
Eunichs where treated differently then, regardless, and sexism was certainly a thing in the Bible. If the passage only condemns some from of sex that doesn't conform to our modern interpretations of homosexuality, then the Bible doesn't have any blanket anti-gay sentiment.
No one's arguing against the idea that there are still verses that pretty much have no bearing on modern society. Regardless that this SHOULD fall into that category, people are treating it like it doesn't. If they can be shown to have a flawed view of the verse, then the verse becomes either a verse condemning (with a draconian punishment) something society doesn't like anyway, or a nonsense verse. Either way, it wouldn't be incredibly relevant to modern living.
"Furthermore, there are other obvious problems with such a reading; the "as with woman" suggests that, whatever is being condemned, it's something that you would do with a woman, so if the answer is in fact "rape", well."
That's sort of assuming the context can be reached via just part of the verse and the rest gets to remain unaltered, when the article pointed out the way the entire verse is written is what makes it suspect.
Likewise, it does nothing to prohibit raping a eunuch/homosexual male, either. If the intent really was to condemn rape, it would have been a lot easier (and less confusing) to simply say "thou shalt not commit rape" or "thou shalt not engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other party." Rape is rape, regardless of the victim's gender or sexual preferences. "But he had an erection" is not an excuse."
A lot of this is based on the idea that the Hebrews had vocabulary and a mentality that allowed for such phrases. So saying "it would have said X", doesn't really work because quite often their wasn't a word or even a concept for "X".
And...it's just a single verse. It wouldn't do those things regardless. We have the REST of the book to sort out those issues.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"
Attacking (or disputing, or acting as a pro-gay apologist for) the Biblical source of the anti-gay arguments also seems pointless to me because the Bible is for the most part just being used as an excuse to promote homophobic values. I mean to say, I guess there probably are fundamentalists out there who attempt to follow every law found in the Bible, including no mixed fabrics and so on, but they aren't the majority, not by a long shot. The real problem is bigotry, not religion."
Oh, I'm not blaming religion. Especially since "religion" requires people to do something with it. But I think discovering a credible counter point to the interpretation of a passage is a better long term strategy then just disregarding certain verses as "fair for their time" (not that we shouldn't do the later, I just think one strategy is better than the other).
Many sects and Churches may likely NEVER allow a woman to become a priest, pastor, what-have-you, because of what's written in the Bible. Now (hypothetically, and yes, this is pretty far fetched) if it turns out Paul meant he does not permit young girls to teach men, the churches would do away with that rule (argue with me about the implications of my "hypothetical" Paul verse, and I will cut you).Otherwise, many groups will probably say "their hands are tied" in the absence of any alternative viewpoints.
>Eunichs where treated differently then, regardless, and sexism was certainly a thing in the Bible. If the passage only condemns some from of sex that doesn't conform to our modern interpretations of homosexuality, then the Bible doesn't have any blanket anti-gay sentiment.
Fair point. I guess that is an improvement.
Though where the notion that the Bible contains such a sentiment came from in the first place is a mystery to me when we're after all talking about, at most, maybe 7 or 8 questionable verses out of 31102 total.
>If they can be shown to have a flawed view of the verse, then the verse becomes either a verse condemning (with a draconian punishment) something society doesn't like anyway, or a nonsense verse.
Potentially, but not necessarily. It's not difficult to read it as, for example, prohibiting bisexual men from sleeping with other men, which is neither nonsense nor agreeable.
>A lot of this is based on the idea that the Hebrews had vocabulary and a mentality that allowed for such phrases. So saying "it would have said X", doesn't really work because quite often their wasn't a word or even a concept for "X".
I'm not saying that it "would" have said "x", so much as that if they actually meant "x" they could have said "x". But this is getting into really nitpicky territory so I'll drop it.
>Many sects and Churches may likely NEVER allow a woman to become a priest, pastor, what-have-you, because of what's written in the Bible. Now (hypothetically, and yes, this is pretty far fetched) if it turns out Paul meant he does not permit young girls to teach men, the churches would do away with that rule
OK. I do see your point.
I haven't seen anything like the same amount of effort put into attempting to reread the apparently sexist writings of Paul in a more politically correct light, though, probably because, as you say, such reinterpretations would just be deemed far-fetched. Where we don't agree is that you evidently see these rereadings of the seemingly homophobic passages of the Bible as being less far-fetched, which for the most part I don't think they are - and when they are, they're not substantial improvements.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
" Though where the notion that the Bible contains such a sentiment came from in the first place is a mystery to me when we're after all talking about, at most, maybe 7 or 8 questionable verses out of 31102 total."
Well, as it's sort of been pointed out. Three of those verses seem pretty strait-forward on the matter (given the accepted ENGLISH translation, also two of those verses are the same word for word, I think). The other 4-5 are basically stretches to say that they're anti-gay.
"I haven't seen anything like the same amount of effort put into attempting to reread the apparently sexist writings of Paul in a more politically correct light, though, probably because, as you say, such reinterpretations would just be deemed far-fetched. "
Well, considering the amount of attention these passages get compared to others (like the Paul verses that many people don't really like). I wouldn't say it outlandish to suggest that our modern translations or popular understandings of these verses is wrong or at least somewhat flawed. One of the things a few arguments have going for them is the conservatives haven't really cooked up a great counter argument.
The pederasty argument raises an issue regarding the vocab used. Basically the verse says "A Man should not lie with a male" in Hebrew. The rest of the argument is contingent on "male" meaning something other than "adult male". Which might seem like a stretch, except that other verses used man...woman, as apposed to man...man. This, I'd say, at least sheds some serious doubt on the popular interpretation. Even if the translation seems clear in English, it shows the source material is not so clear cut.
I also thought the "as a woman" part was oddly specific, but some arguments take note of this, some don't.
I still feel the "homosexuals weren't men back then" argument has some merit as there is historical evidence suggesting as much. Obviously, that's not a pleasant thought...but neither is slavery, child labor, or a myriad of other things that happened in history that we don't practice today.
Comments
Was she ever able to walk again?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Problem is, we'd be accepting the most obvious ENGLISH interpretation and the possible biases of the people who wrote the translation of the time. Considering the cultural basis for why something was wrote is pretty import in any situation
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Or gentleladies?
Or gentleanythings?
I dunno.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I love my BFF's strange sense of humor.
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
That is true and a good point, but from what I've seen the most anyone's been able to demonstrate is that homosexuality wasn't viewed the same way back then and that it's possible, but still a stretch, to read the passages as not advocating the murder of people for not conforming to a heteronormative ideal.
>And I think your last sentence is a bit of an unfair declaration. Arguing the intended meaning of something doesn't necessarily mean you'd accept the teaching just if you turn out to be wrong.
Sorry. I see how it came across that way, but that honestly wasn't what I was trying to say. I meant only that it sounds unconvincing, not to accuse you of actually being in denial.
>But I honestly take a little offence to the suggesting this is "whitewashing". Regardless of people's motives, finding evidence to support a view and present that evidence as a counterpoint to something would be called good debating anywhere else.
You're right, and sorry. I retract the "whitewashing" remark; that wasn't fair or accurate.
I do nevertheless feel that an egregious amount of effort seems to be expended on the close examination and speculative reinterpretation of the passages in the Bible that certainly appear to forcefully condemn homosexuality, effeminacy and/or homosexual intercourse.
>-murders the next poster, stuffs the body in a full toilet-
Ah, nuts.
*DEAD*
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
*Has nothing to add to this current conversation*
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
>I thought the article I just posted did a pretty good job of showing a high probability that the passage as many interpret now, is flawed.
It does, it makes a very good case. What it doesn't do, and doesn't really attempt to do, is demonstrate or even suggest that the passages in question or the culture that produced them were not violently heteronormative and condemning of certain forms of sexual expression - only that they probably weren't strictly speaking "anti-homosexual" as we would understand the term nowadays.
For that matter, it's kind of scary to me to think that people might take from that the message that it's OK to prescribe gender roles and dictate other people's sex lives providing you do so in a way that isn't exactly anti-homosexuality per se.
>Well, it's certainly important to Christian homosexuals to feel they aren't living in sin.
Of course, but I would assume no more so than it is for Christian feminists to feel that they aren't living in sin, or for most modern Christians to feel that slavery may be rightly condemned.
>And also important to advocates of Homosexual rights to undermine their opponents.
Sure. I just feel that there are probably more effective ways of doing that.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Speaking of zombies, I should go to bed.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
In order for the reading of the passage as condemning man-on-man rape to be valid, one has to accept that, at least to the author of said passage, gender roles are to be prescribed on the basis (at least in part) of sexual preferences.
Furthermore, there are other obvious problems with such a reading; the "as with woman" suggests that, whatever is being condemned, it's something that you would do with a woman, so if the answer is in fact "rape", well. Likewise, it does nothing to prohibit raping a eunuch/homosexual male, either. If the intent really was to condemn rape, it would have been a lot easier (and less confusing) to simply say "thou shalt not commit rape" or "thou shalt not engage in sexual intercourse without the consent of the other party." Rape is rape, regardless of the victim's gender or sexual preferences. "But he had an erection" is not an excuse.
>That is to say, though I think it's good to really examine these passages as apposed to simply taking them at face value. I'm not suggesting we'll find the book reads like some perfect code of modern moral behavior if we do.
Fair enough, I certainly don't disagree with this in principle.
>Hmmm...maybe, but suggesting to an ultra-conservative Christian that they disregard that part of the Bible because society has moved on is probably more likely to further convince themselves that they're part of some righteous cause against wickedness.
It hasn't been my impression that ultra-conservative Christians are willing to listen to or seriously engage with any counter-arguments to their anti-gay marriage agendas. If they were, we wouldn't see the shitty arguments Deathonabun poked fun at being trotted out with such regularity.
Attacking (or disputing, or acting as a pro-gay apologist for) the Biblical source of the anti-gay arguments also seems pointless to me because the Bible is for the most part just being used as an excuse to promote homophobic values. I mean to say, I guess there probably are fundamentalists out there who attempt to follow every law found in the Bible, including no mixed fabrics and so on, but they aren't the majority, not by a long shot. The real problem is bigotry, not religion.
I don't really see why this would be an issue. It's not like "straight men" implies only liking vaginal.
That said, it's a Courage Wolf, not exactly serious dating advice.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Fair point. I guess that is an improvement.
Though where the notion that the Bible contains such a sentiment came from in the first place is a mystery to me when we're after all talking about, at most, maybe 7 or 8 questionable verses out of 31102 total.
>If they can be shown to have a flawed view of the verse, then the verse becomes either a verse condemning (with a draconian punishment) something society doesn't like anyway, or a nonsense verse.
Potentially, but not necessarily. It's not difficult to read it as, for example, prohibiting bisexual men from sleeping with other men, which is neither nonsense nor agreeable.
>A lot of this is based on the idea that the Hebrews had vocabulary and a mentality that allowed for such phrases. So saying "it would have said X", doesn't really work because quite often their wasn't a word or even a concept for "X".
I'm not saying that it "would" have said "x", so much as that if they actually meant "x" they could have said "x". But this is getting into really nitpicky territory so I'll drop it.
>Many sects and Churches may likely NEVER allow a woman to become a priest, pastor, what-have-you, because of what's written in the Bible. Now (hypothetically, and yes, this is pretty far fetched) if it turns out Paul meant he does not permit young girls to teach men, the churches would do away with that rule
OK. I do see your point.
I haven't seen anything like the same amount of effort put into attempting to reread the apparently sexist writings of Paul in a more politically correct light, though, probably because, as you say, such reinterpretations would just be deemed far-fetched. Where we don't agree is that you evidently see these rereadings of the seemingly homophobic passages of the Bible as being less far-fetched, which for the most part I don't think they are - and when they are, they're not substantial improvements.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis