this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
1173 points (96.0% liked)

Atheist Memes

5568 readers
31 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] StarManta@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The Bible doesn’t say that about homosexuality, that’s an invention of modern Christianity. It says it’s an abomination.

Although, I’ve heard (I haven’t looked much into it) that the translation often cited for homosexuality being an abomination actually refers specifically to homosexual child rape, not homosexuality itself.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Idk it sounds like it would be a huge translation error if it was so

Leviticus 20:13

13 If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] cogman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a case of modern morals trying to square a round hole.

Here's what the new American Bible standard says (which is considered the most accurate English translation by Bible scholars)

If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their [j]own deaths upon themselves

That's it, not man and child but man and male. As in, lumping in homosexuality with pedophilia (that old chestnut).

[–] xintrik@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even there it uses two separate words. I thought it was a weird stretch until I actually read into it.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Right, but the two words used are "man and male" not "man and child". That's a more broad statement, not a more narrow one. As in it's lumping in pedophilia with homosexuality. You'll also notice the punishment isn't for the "man" to be put to death, it is for BOTH to be put to death. So even if we take the argument "by male it means male child" you have to square away that it immediately calls for you to put that child to death. You'll also take note that this says nothing about "man and girl". If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?

Well, that's clear from other bible verses, because you pay 50 shekels of silver and get yourself a new child bride in that case. (Deut 22:28-29)

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.

The bible very clearly knows what girls are yet has no real punishment for raping them.

[–] xintrik@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?

I think the verse in Deut you quoted explains it nicely. A female was just another man's property and as long as they aren't married "rape" was just claiming them. If the women was married both were put to death.

In the end I don't put much stock in this just being a mistranslation as the precedent seems to be homosexuality was sinful, but the argument did have a little more logic behind it than I thought it would when I first read the headline.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To my understanding this difference between man/male just equals homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia. If it were to protect kids from pedos, it surely would use a word describing children, not male.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

At the time it was written, both women and girls were property. They were not something to be protected, except that if they were damaged the owner was to be compensated.

[–] Captain_Waffles@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Children and women were considered property at that time, so it makes sense to have used the words they did.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the verse is against pedophilia ("man shall not lie with boy"), why does it say both the rapist and the victim needs to be killed?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Good question. Because they think gays are irreparably trainted and should die?

You're trying to apply modern sensiblities and logic to a "how to survive in the middle east as a goat herding tribe" manual. It's not always going to make sense.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Except they had a Hebrew word for boy which the author choose not to use. Making the verse general. The author intended to say any adult man who has sex with any male of any age.

It would be like me saying "do not use your stuff to steal property". Property includes stuff.

[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where's the one about it being ok to fuck children?Because the people who wrote that have been fucking little boys and girls for two thousand years.

I couldn't care less about what they think we should all be doing.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To be fair, we didn't become conscious of uiquity of fucking children (and that it might be causing irreparable harm) until the late 20th century. Before the 1990s in the US, it was a social convention to let each household raise kids without checks, so if you hear violence from your next-door neighbor's house, you leave it be.

The term incest technically covered any familial sex, but in the 1970s when discussed was about daddy (oft inebriated) having his way with his daughters. It was assumed child sexual assault typically was of this kind (and everyone's doing that) so it was disregarded. (other pairings were going on, but we made Alabama jokes about it. Or Mississippi jokes.)

Then it came up in some public cases that not dads and not dangerous strangers, but other familiar adults (teachers, caretakers, ministers, etc.) were getting handsy with the kids. When it was investigated it was found to be so ubiquitous that there were concerns full prosecution of all the child molesters would drastically reduce the workforce, and cause an economic crash.

This was the backdrop for the 1970s-1980s Satanic Panic, because we just couldn't process that everyone was diddling kids (1in 3 women and 1 in 5-9 of men in my generation were sexually assaulted as kids, and it's intergenerational ) so the whole story that satanists were ritualy sex-abusing kids became popular, inspired by The Exorcist and the Hollywood Satan-movie knock-off craze.

For more fun and existential horror, check out the Behind The Bastards pod two-parter on The Satanic Panic.

[–] bigwag1@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technically not Christianity, but part of the Torah

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Really doesn't matter in Christian thought. Paul looked at all the laws of Moses, kept a few of them, and tweaked a few other ones. Which includes homosexuality. Which he attacks twice.

[–] Thymos@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Either way, it doesn't really matter. Focusing on what the scripture says only legitimizes the hatred religious people choose to display. Someone's either homophobic or they're not, and excusing themselves with religious arguments is just weak. Let's not encourage it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Bullshit. The 1619 King James Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is wrong, ironic because James was gay.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

I am sure you heard it but I doubt you can find.many people who know Biblical Hebrew and Konio Greek who agree with that.