Why is worshipping God more important then accepting LGBTQ+ people to you?

Started by Patient_Leech2 pages

Let's just put this bullshit to rest...

"The word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to mean “homosexual” until 1946."

...

You have been part of a research team that is seeking to understand how the decision was made to put the word homosexual in the bible. Is that true?

Ed: Yes. It first showed up in the RSV translation. So before figuring out why they decided to use that word in the RSV translation (which is outlined in my upcoming book with Kathy Baldock, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay) I wanted to see how other cultures and translations treated the same verses when they were translated during the Reformation 500 years ago. So I started collecting old Bibles in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish… you name it. Now I’ve got most European major languages that I’ve collected over time. Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. So the interesting thing is, I asked if they ever changed the word arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. So my friend found it and told me, “The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s. Also because the Germans were the ones who created the word homosexual in 1862, they had all the history, research, and understanding to change it if they saw fit; however, they did not change it until 1983. If anyone was going to put the word homosexual in the Bible, the Germans should have been the first to do it!

Read more: Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?

It makes sense. The Greeks and Romans wouldn't have shunned homosexuality, because to my understanding they were very open with sexuality. Makes a whole lot more sense that they would shun ped0files.

Ancient Romans didn't really recognize homosexuality like we do today, sex was more about being the perpetrator (superior) or the penetrated (inferior). The former is what every male Roman citizen should be, seen as a form dominance and social status. Male Romans, even married ones, could have as much sex with other males and no one would bat and eyelash, so long as they never got fcked themselves. This didn't stop many of them from getting fcked, they just kept it behind closed doors.

But it makes sense that more modern Christians changed the word in the bible to be against homosexuality instead of pedophilia, considering how many of them are child molesters or child molester apologists.

Only issue with that interpretation is the Bible clearly has no issue sleeping with young girls

Numbers 31: 17-18

"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

^ So why would Women, young girls and Men be okay, but not young boys?

(Just guessing here, but...)

Because girls generally hit puberty at an earlier age than boys? Plus girls have a vagina and boys don't.

Also there's still plenty of barbaric and awful shit in the Bible: advocating for slavery, mass murder (the very snippet you used), etc.

Imagine posting a verse with God ordering mass murder and that not even being the problematic thing. 🙄

These are all good examples of why the Bible shouldn't be anyone's source of morality.

Because God, the ultimate and supreme transcendental good, is more important than people's perverse fetishes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Because God, the ultimate and supreme transcendental good, is more important than people's perverse fetishes.

Delusional extremist alert

Good Christians clearly following Jesus' teachings of not accepting people. It's right there in the book of Paul.

Don't you ever get tired of your own voice?? Gawd so exhausting

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Because girls generally hit puberty at an earlier age than boys? Plus girls have a vagina and boys don't.

Hmm I guess could also be a survival thing, where young boys of the enemy should be killed, but your own young boys should be protected (or at least left alone) as they are your future soldiers.