About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
No bigotry.
Attack ideas not people.
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
No False Reporting
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
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.
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.
https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
There were two different words used for "man".
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).
Even there it uses two separate words. I thought it was a weird stretch until I actually read into it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Children and women were considered property at that time, so it makes sense to have used the words they did.
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.
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.
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.
Forgot about all the incest and genocide
Isaiah 13:16 ESV / Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
Psalm 137:9 ESV / Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
1 Samuel 15:3 ESV / Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
2 Kings 6:28-29 ESV / And the king asked her, “What is your trouble?” She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’ So we boiled my son and ate him. And on the next day I said to her, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him.’ But she has hidden her son.”
I'd say the stories of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah would qualify as genocide. In one he floods the world killing everyone, and in the other he wipes out two city-states
Say whatever you want - incest is natural.
Ya, the best part is the book doesn't really even say it. So it's extra stupid.
What are you on about exactly? The Bible clearly says men+men= unnatural. It says far more vile shit, but the original post is factual.
ROMANS 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Good, so women+women must be natural...
Feels pretty natural to me.
Some say the original words for that crap were about kids and whatnot, not so much homosexuality. The book's been rewritten and translated so much it really shouldn't be viewed as anything except an anthropological artifact.
You'd think an all powerful, knowing God would make sure his perfect book stays perfect.... 🤔
You do have to keep your eye out for versions that are translations of translations (for example, The Message version is a paraphrase, not a word-for-word or literal translation), but, from what I know, the NIV version, which seems to be the version they quoted, is pretty close to the original text.
The ESV version, which is generally considered to be closer to the original than the NIV, says basically the same thing with different phrasings:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The snake is also gay.
Or bi. It says he desired them.
Kinky.
This explains so much.
Edit: I guess I have to specify it's sarcastic.
Homosexuality is unnatural! Forcing chastity for life as a requirement for joining the clergy, however…
I am not sure if that book of fairies actually says anything against homosexuals. Not without any highly subjective interpretation, at least.
Much more crazier shit in the old testament. We had a story about a men marying sister after sister as they die chosen to be told (not a native speaker) at our wedding and the way the priest can turn this into a story about love is pricelesess. And this is just a tame story about a possible serial killer, there are better ones :)
The problem is that people who say this about homosexuality never read a book, much less the Bible, which is a bit of a pita to read
The Bible has some great stories in it though.
Like the story of King David, the dude who killed Golliath. What a real piece of shit he was.
Dude slept with Uriahs(one of his elite soldiers) wife while he was out fighting his battle for him. Then she got pregnant, David panics and begs Uriah home so he could have Uriah sleep with his wife and have no doubt about the child.
Uriah refused to return home until the battle was over. So King David, instead put him on the Frontline of battle and wrote the general to withdraw all the troops except Uriah so he would die.
So what was King David's sin? Not having multiple concurrent wives, not lies, not murder. His sin was adultery.
Yes it's an amazing book in many ways, but compare reading the book of numbers to let's say a Lee Child 'Jack Reacher' story (which is already too much for a lot of people), and I'd easily call the Bible a pita to read. There's also lots of ancient references, it's long, the narrative changes, lots of fairly cryptic stuff etc. And worst of all, much is open to interpretation, which some people who hear the odd verse take as a 'this can mean whatever I want because I haven't read any of the context or tried to understand the opinion of the author(s?)'
BTW, the book also lists the exact dimensions of Noah's ark. :)
Love this hahah
It's always bugged me that people who say that don't actually know the definition of natural.
(And for those of you who don't, it's "existent in nature", which homosexuality definitely is.)
Specifically a man taking and penetrating another man is verboten, and depending on the specific scripture, it may be in the context of ritual worship of other gods.
Also in the bible, sex is nonconsensual. Period. Women don't have will anyway. Take a woman who is betrothed and it's a crime against the husband, and adultery.
Take an unbetrothed woman and it's a crime against her father, and is not capital but a fine.
When a man dominates and penetrates a man, he is executed for injustice, but the submissive, receiving man is killed as a sacrifice to keep the land pure...which sounds like fairy magic to me. But he has committed no sin.
submissive, receiving man
Hey look this dude's never heard of a power bottom!
More that the Hebrews hadn't heard of one, but yeah.
Myself, I'm pretty sure sex is generally not a capital crime, nor something that befouls the spirit of the land.
but the submissive, receiving man is killed as a sacrifice to keep the land pure…
That I haven't heard.
Dan McClellen explains this is an elaboration based on other texts from the same society (on YouTube) noting that the passages of the bible are directed at the dominating male, although his victim (whether another man, a woman or a beast such as a donkey or sheep) is also killed even though they were not responsible for the incident.
Yeah what? Lot was raped by his daughters and he wasn't killed over it.
I didn't know Lots daughters were men.
Does.. does this mean I'm a miracle?