• Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    The original translation of “men are prohibited to lay down with man” is more akin to “men are prohibited from laying down with boys”

    So the only real verse in the Bible that mentions homosexuality is actually telling people to not be pedos

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      No.

      First off there are two passages in the O.T. that directly prescribe the death penalty for male homosexuality, not one like you said.

      Second neither one of which contain the Hebrew word for “boy”. Both use the words to describe a man.

      Third even if they somehow meant to write boy but didn’t in context it would still work out to mean man.

      Fourth the rest of the bible is completely consistent on this which is almost shocking given that it is consistent on so little. From Leviticus all the way to Paul, we got about a thousand years of different writers all saying the same thing on this one issue.

      Fifth even texts that didn’t make it it in the Bible (at least directly) like Enoth still go after it.

      Sixth the oldest commentaries all agree what the rules were about this.

      The abhramic faiths are on the text level homophobic. No amount of apologetics, or crappy translations, or recontextual work will change what they contain. When people or religions tell you what they are about believe them. And stop following these shit tier religions.

    • PhilMcGraw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      What is your source for this? Sounds like something my religious grandma drops to justify all of the bad in that book.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I am betting the are misremembering a thing that was making the rounds claiming that Paul meant in one of his letters Romans chapter 1.

        It isn’t correct because

        A. He had a perfectly good Greek word for being a pedo and didn’t use it

        B. The passage is clear that it was consensual act he was condemning

        C. Who cares? We have two other letters (one granted is a forgery) where it is condemned

        Why can’t people just accept that these people were homophobic? They were. If you are from an Abrahamic faith your skydaddy is a homophobic piece of shit and so we’re the people who claim to speak for him. Stop praying to it.