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

Atheist Memes

5534 readers
76 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] StarManta 42 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Carvex 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Technically not Christianity, but part of the Torah

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mojojojo1993 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Forgot about all the incest and genocide

Edit

Actually wasn't it infanticide

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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.”

[–] AngryCommieKender 2 points 1 year ago

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

[–] AeonFelis 1 points 1 year ago

Say whatever you want - incest is natural.

[–] Astroturfed 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ya, the best part is the book doesn't really even say it. So it's extra stupid.

[–] madcaesar 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] over_clox 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good, so women+women must be natural...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Feels pretty natural to me.

[–] MotoAsh 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] madcaesar 6 points 1 year ago

You'd think an all powerful, knowing God would make sure his perfect book stays perfect.... 🤔

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Ceedoestrees 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] afraid_of_zombies 1 points 1 year ago

Or bi. It says he desired them.

Kinky.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ekZepp 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I am not sure if that book of fairies actually says anything against homosexuals. Not without any highly subjective interpretation, at least.

[–] Syrc 5 points 1 year ago

Homosexuality is unnatural! Forcing chastity for life as a requirement for joining the clergy, however…

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

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 :)

[–] FlashMobOfOne 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.)

[–] Captain_Waffles 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yep, like arsenic is natural, doesn't mean it's good for us.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

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?)'

[–] squigglypineappledinosaur 3 points 1 year ago

Love this hahah

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

submissive, receiving man

Hey look this dude's never heard of a power bottom!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

but the submissive, receiving man is killed as a sacrifice to keep the land pure…

That I haven't heard.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah what? Lot was raped by his daughters and he wasn't killed over it.

[–] kmkz_ninja 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't know Lots daughters were men.

[–] Kase 1 points 1 year ago

Does.. does this mean I'm a miracle?

load more comments
view more: next ›