957
Weed
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
957 points (99.1% liked)
Atheist Memes
5578 readers
33 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
I never heard the apprentice translation. Just that it could also be interpreted as many sleeping with "boy", implying pedophilia.
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
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.
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.
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.