this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
1181 points (96.1% liked)

Atheist Memes

5534 readers
84 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

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] surewhynotlem 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] cogman 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).

[–] [email protected] 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 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen 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 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.

[–] [email protected] 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 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 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.

[–] afraid_of_zombies -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] surewhynotlem 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting. Why aren't Jewish people against LGBTQ then? I thought this explained it.

[–] afraid_of_zombies -2 points 1 year ago

My very limited understanding of that religion is that they consider their rules to apply to their ethnic group and no one else.