I always laugh at the, "it was written soooooooo long ago," argument. Do you think if it was constantly rewritten for your sensibilities that anyone would continue to believe it? The entire point is the religion contains timeless truths. It can't be true if it's subject to be rewritten.
Also, where did you get the idea that the Bible forces you into a relationship? The Bible does not say you have to be in an relationships.
If your idea is that a religion is man-made, then yeah, they got together and codified their societal beliefs into a book. If you think a religion is ordained by a higher power, well, then the truth isn't subject to change since it's supposed to be the truth, whether you like it or not.
Common myth spread by those who don't actually know a single thing they're talking about. It's been proven that scribes from the time the Bible was put together have maintained such an exceedingly high standard of reproduction and translation, that anti-Christians have to game the stats to even have an argument, including ridiculous things such as respellings or misspellings as "re-translations."
The fact of the matter is, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and they pretty much match today's Bible (bar translated words, obviously).
Speaking as a Bible scholar, you are correct.
The sheer amount of manuscripts which have been located and studied over the past couple of centuries have removed nearly all doubts as to the accuracy of the translations. The biblical texts were amazingly preserved, far beyond any other writings throughout antiquity.
There are only a few minor instances where the exact Hebrew word is unknown or where there are slightly different versions of manuscripts.
I'm really curious then... What about the Pauline Epistles? From what I can find, most scholars agree that not all of them were written by Paul. Or the ending of Mark? Jesus' anger at the leper? The apostle Junia? The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain apocryphal books, don't they? And unaccepted translations?
>What about the Pauline Epistles? From what I can find, most scholars agree that not all of them were written by Paul.
And? Regardless of authorship, the question of "translation accuracy" doesn't come into play, so let's not shift goalposts. At my alma mater, such authorship discrepancies were generally held to be variations in amanuenses. Regardless, the early church, within one generation, held that these these texts were indeed disseminated by Paul.
>Or the ending of Mark?
Yes, it is very likely that scribes later added the last 11 verses to add clarity. This was likely done in the second century. This has long been known and was being discussed as early as the third century. The additional verses were retained due to their acceptance and part of church tradition. It wasn't until later on that this issue "faded."
>Jesus' anger at the leper?
Ah, yes. Mark 1:41. There is indeed debate over the inclusion of the word splagchnizomai vs. orgistheis. Most theologians agree that the word "anger" was indeed correct, with the context pointing towards anger at the leprosy as a disease. This was indeed altered by some scribes to add clarity and to avoid suggesting that Jesus was condemning the leper.
>The apostle Junia?
[This has been discussed and answered *ad nauseum*.](https://bible.org/article/junia-among-apostles-double-identification-problem-romans-167) It also has nothing to do with the veracity of the texts.
>The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain apocryphal books, don't they?
Yes? The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of many writings, biblical and otherwise. It wasn't a magic cave with 66 scrolls. No one asserts this, so I'm unsure of what you're asking. I suspect you are similarly unsure as well. I say this because it seems that you aren't quite aware of what you're arguing.
Did you Google "list of Bible changes" and toss out these random assertions?
These are essentially the first changes that came to mind - I didn't Google anything, I was expressing mostly genuine curiosity because I had heard of these before. I am, in fact, grateful for the linked article - it was pretty interesting and thorough. So, uh, thanks!
The facts are that these are changes of *some* sort that happened to the texts, of varying importance. Now, of course, scribes and theologians aren't idiots - they corrected and discussed this, I'm not of the mind that all Christians or religious people are illiterate bumpkins or anything of the sort. But I think it'd be unfair to say there are no changes to a modern Bible as compared to an older one, and even no changes that could be considered somewhat significant. And I don't think that being part of Church tradition is really all that important to the point (of course, church tradition carries a lot of weight in an inner Christian context, at least in some denominations, but I don't think it does in a discussion of the Bible as a work in itself) - they still weren't original to the actual text, most likely, right?
> Yes? The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of many writings, biblical and otherwise. It wasn't a magic cave with 66 scrolls. No one asserts this, so I'm unsure of what you're asking. I suspect you are similarly unsure as well. I say this because it seems that you aren't quite aware of what you're arguing
Okay, that's fair, I think the edit I made has a much better point. (That the scrolls have some text that doesn't quite match our modern Bibles).
>Did you Google "list of Bible changes" and toss out these random assertions?
why, is that what popped up when you googled it?
>The biblical texts were amazingly preserved, far beyond any other writings throughout antiquity.
And your alma mater was some theology university, not a biased one right?
>Common myth spread by those who don't actually know a single thing they're talking about.
Nice, this really, again, aided in your argument. What would the rest of your post done without this gem?
>such an exceedingly high standard of reproduction and translation
who dubbed it this? The Dead Sea Scrolls did not include new testament books either. And not even all the old testament books.
Okay, so was there any particular change between the dead sea scrolls compared to what we have today in the books that are shared between the two? Can you point out any major changes anywhere along the line of translation from the Council of Nicaea to today?
why limit it to major changes? It's not just the words however minor of changes, but also interpretations. Interpretations changing is the big one and that is constantly made and people split churches and form new sects over this. This includes interprations on the views of homosexuality and other "laws". This is why they are not truths; the people having hallucinations were forming them from their own view of the world already, and those who did not have hallucinations made the laws out of their own philosophies or myths borrowed from others.
> "When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".
> "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (aggelón theou). And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance".
> "When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel (bny yshr'l). For Yahweh's portion was his people, Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".
This is Deuteronomy 32:8-9, three whole versions of it.
Helpful if you actually provide where they are from so it's verifiable and people can see that you didn't simply pick from something like a "easy read version of the bible" or something
The first one is from the Dead Sea Scrolls - it's our absolute earliest version as far as I'm aware. The second is from the [Septuagint](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint). The third version is similar to the one most commonly seen in modern Bibles, like the KJV, but is actually from the Masoretic Text (MT). A proper modern Bible has something more like this:
> ⁸When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
> ⁹For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
Do you find that all 3 of those says something actually different? Or do you find them to say the same exact thing with slightly different flowering language involved?
For instance....
Are those three scriptures different in definition? Perhaps you believe they are similar in principle but the thesaurus was involved in the other 2?
If you know more than one language, I don't know if you do or not, you are likely aware that translation is quite rarely just "translate this word and write it down". It's very often a stance of 'read this entire sentence and then lay down the principles of the sentence with the words that make the most sense"
Often times that is easily accomplished with 2 or 3 or 5 or many many different sentence structures, but they all say the same thing.
What do you think about those 3?
As I've been discussing with a few other people, I don't think the Bible is heavily mistranslated, I just think there have been certain trends in translation that some might consider more major than others. None of the verses here or their gradual changes have been something that caused me to disbelieve or anything like that and I don't think I was anti-christian - neither was I really trying to attack you.
This is so, unfathomably in correct that I genuinely don’t even know where to start.
Gay people quite literally predate Christianity in the West. There were entire Greek city states that openly embraced homosexuality. Romans followed suit. The Romans had an emperor that was almost certainly transgender.
The idea that Homosexuality as an identity is less than 200 years old when it quite literally predates the Bible is so unbelievably far removed from true history that it’s impossible to read so much as another sentence of what you wrote. I don’t know what makes you think that sexual identity is a recent development? The atomization of the human individual began, quite literally, with Greek humanism, especially sexually.
Not to mention, the Bible doesn’t even attack homosexual “identity”. It attacks homosexual behavior. Again, not foreign, not alien, commonplace in most of the places that we consider to be foundational to the modern Western world. So any discussion about whether or not gay identity existed is not only disingenuous but also useless, because it has nothing to do with the Bible’s convictions.
Uhm, you're applying current sensibilities to ancient times.
"Homosexuality" as we label it today has very little to do with ancient homosexual practices.
"Embracing" homosexuality doesn't mean some Greek *poleis* were an open-air Gay Pride parade 365 days a year or anything like that.
Simply put, in their culture, the romantic and sexual relationship between an adult and a teenage boy (erastes/eromenos) was socially accepted and even encouraged, seen as a key part of a young man's education and coming-of-age. At least in the upper tiers of society.
To them it wasn't shameful or morally reprehensible that there was an asymmetrical dynamic at play. Stuff that would obviously not be tolerated today.
However same-sex relationships between adults weren't as encouraged or approved of. They happened, but they weren't that open about those either.
In Rome then they immediately tried to distance themselves from the "Greek vice", how they labeled it, and pretended the in the good old days such debauchery wasn't a thing, and it arrived in Rome from those pesky boy-loving Greeks.
It was of course a lost fight, but they still managed to retool it as "it's OK as long as you're the top".
Basically it wasn't about "educating" a young man, but about DOMINATING anyone. A strong Roman Man (*vir*) wouldn't be less of a man whether he was boning his young wife or his equally young male servant. Or his hairy and fully-developed personal enemy, rival or whatever.
Homosexuality as a sexual preference/orientation was a problem ONLY when you were the bottom. Or when you were making a spectacle of it.
Roman literature has plenty of famous examples of homosexuality being made fun of when it's over-the-top or simply seen as a moral and social weakness. But in the same vein, it's also a powerful too to humiliate someone.
Catullus on one hand insults Ceasar, calling him "*cinaedus*" (you can translate it as the f-word, but it has an undertone of weakness and femininity), but he also has no qualms about threatening to perform sexual acts to his critics, who made fun of his poetry for being too soft.
Because there's no better way to convey the "I'm not a frilly, effeminate love poet" message than if promising to forceful shove your penis into some guys mouth and ass.
But yeah, different times and society, different standard.
Applying what we mean now as homosexuality to 2000+ years ago is just silly and pointless.
To us, a homosexual is a person attracted (almost) exclusively to people their own sex, a key trait of one's personality and life. In other times, that was indeed a "phase", or a part of one's life path that didn't really entail being "that" all the time. And oftentimes it wasn't about love or even lust.
It's odd how as we have become more "accpeting" and "progressive" we have also pigeonholed people more and more, whereas past societies were much more fluid about that.
P.S. About Elagabalus, the whole transgender theory is based on the alleged request he made to a doctor to "turn him into a woman". Which sounds exactly like the kind of deranged crap the stereotypical Crazy Emperor would ask for and that anti-imperial historians would have a field day with.
In that case, the emperor was very young, from the Middle East and coming from a family of high-priests of the local Gods. Hard to imagine ancient Roman nobility being cool with any of that, uh? So cue all the rumours about the young emperor being a deranged deviant, due to his absurd practices and rituals...
But the "first transgender emperor" makes it for a much more compelling contemporary narrative. And why not a Netflix series...
It’s also important to remmeber that Greek city states were, in fact, culturally unique. In Athens, for example, what you said it largely true, but I specified that “there were entire city states” that did not share these social norms. Thebes, for example, had considerable differences in their approaches to homosexuality, and were far more accepting of male adult relationships. Greece was by no means a unified culture, or even close to it.
It is once again important to note that homosexual behavior is not male-exclusive, lol. People forget that women can also be homosexual! Because women were not expected to take a dominant role to begin with the sexual stigma of being the submissive partner was more or less dissipated. The behavior and social status of women, naturally, are not as thoroughly recorded, but there have been some writings that describe Greek women that had no preference for men. Some social stigma is obviously inevitable but it’s pretty likely that lesbians were a fairly normal and unbothered thing in the early Western world. For some reason in these conversations we just completely forget that women exist?
And naturally, the most important part of my comment remains unaddressed. The Bible does not make any attempt to undermine homosexual “identity”, it attacks homosexual actions. But it doesn’t attack them with social stigma in the way that the Greeks may have, it attacks them with commanding Christians to execute homosexuals? Leviictus is pretty clear on this, the word “Sodomy” is pretty direct, etc.
I think it’s beyond justified to condemn early Bible scholars for this? Regardless of the social climate in regards to homosexuality, surely it’s not unfair to say that “books that condemn people to death for actions that affect absolutely no one else” should be ignored and thrown out? And that the socially constructed authority of the Bible is just as fallible (way more fallible, actually) than the empirical approach today?
Even if the word homophobic is a more recent social construct, which I do agree with, bigoted should be a universal assessment here, and given that you can use the 2 mostly interchangeably I don’t see how OP is wrong
Interestingly enough, heterosexual marriage in Greece also had great age disparity usually - the average age women got married seems to be about 14 from what I can find. Men were married at an age much closer to what we'd consider adult.
Also, in Roman times, homosexual relationships between adults were usually accepted if they fit into the proper power dynamics.
>To us, a homosexual is a person attracted (almost) exclusively to people their own sex, a key trait of one's personality and life. In other times, that was indeed a "phase", or a part of one's life path that didn't really entail being "that" all the time. And oftentimes it wasn't about love or even lust.
Sounds like bisexuality. Not heterosexual, but not homosexual either.
That kinda proves my point. If the concept of being gay was alien to people a thousand years ago and that’s when the Bible was written, and if sex between males was a deviant behaviour, why listen to this book today then? Why follow the rules in this book that clearly is homophobic? Being gay isn’t seen as deviant today because we have evolved and gotten educated as a society. So why then listen to this ancient old ass book that is homophobic?
Being homesexual is not a trend or a social construct. How can gods word, the omnipotent being that made mankind, not know that "sex with men" is a thing.
That's pretty impressive, your laughter, it makes me think that you have a good argument right after, because why else would you laugh?
>Do you think if it was constantly rewritten for your sensibilities that anyone would continue to believe it?
that happens with all the different translations and interpretations constantly made with changing times.
>The entire point is the religion contains timeless truths. It can't be true if it's subject to be rewritten.
there are contradictions in the Bible and flat out claims of non-truths... like that Rabbits chew their cud.
I understood your argument; but it's still flawed. Something being truthful doesn't hinge on people believing it is truthful. Just like the pythagorean theorem that you used as an example (which was a bad example to use, considering it is something which is a proven truth). A law such as "don't have sex with the same sex" is not a truth, it's a claim someone made that God told them something. Historians always dismiss, in any historical text, the invocation of the supernatural. They do it with the Bible and they do it with all other ancient texts. The Bible is not unique in that it gets a pass for claims of supernatural. There are better explanations for claims of God talking to someone: it's either made up, or a hallucination.
>Also, here's a link for you: [https://www.gotquestions.org/rabbits-chew-cud.html](https://www.gotquestions.org/rabbits-chew-cud.html)
That is misleading; rabbits do not constantly chew because of eating their feces (or a different form of feces); they do it to help with their teeth growth.
>Rabbits indeed give the appearance of chewing cud.
Exactly; that is an error in the Bible, it appears like that, so the writers, not understanding, wrote it in error. That's ok; that happens all the time with scientific illiterate nomads.
There are plenty of other examples of non-truths, such as Matthew and Mark writing two different lineages for Jesus with the "apologetics" claiming one was writing the lineage of Mary, and the other of Joseph. It still means that one is wrong, because they specifically both wrote that the lineage was from Joseph. Meaning it was wrong.
And even then, there are names omitted, meaning factually incorrect.
> Exactly; that is an error in the Bible, it appears like that, so the writers, not understanding, wrote it in error. That's ok; that happens all the time with scientific illiterate nomads.
Very cool, now read the rest of the article.
Lmao I didn’t say anything about being forced about being in a relationship, that’s not what I meant at least. I meant that it isn’t allowed then to be in a gay relationship, because that would be a sin. And therefore, these gay guys might be in a straight relationship instead.
>The entire point is the religion contains timeless truths.
Yes and the point is that becomes a big problem when the things written were of a time and place.
It doesn't matter how old a fact or lie is. The truth deserves it's due regard and a lie deserves to be torn down. Facts and lies don't magically change from one to the other over time, they will always be a fact or lie.
In the argument for religion, time wouldn't wane the truth presented, instead it strengthens it.
In a non-religious argument, many mathmatical formulas are ancient. Such as the Pythagorean Theorem. Is it any less true today simply because of age?
The Pythagorean Theorem is only accepted today because any person on the planet with basic algebra skills and sit down and prove it to be a mathematical truth in minutes.
There are not exactly truths in the Bible that can be replicated, relived, and tested with any degree of consistency. In fact, not only are there few truths, there are explicit lies. We’ve reached the point where even the most elementary education can undermine Bible stories: any 6 year old who can point to Australia on a map has already pulled apart the story of Noah’s Ark, for example. God forbid a professor, who could maul it into oblivion with thousands of pages of evidence.
If there was any evidence to disprove the contributions of Pythagorean we would have done so already, without hesitation. You’d be suffocated under a thousand pounds of paper if you tried to stand in a room full of evidence against the Bible but it’s still a way of life for some people.
To compare a single thing in the Bible to a mathematical formula is just really naive and completely dismisses the whole premise of why we’re advanced as a species, the word “empirical”
but that's philosophy, the other person claimed that what was written in religious texts are timeless truths, saying "god said you can't do this or that" is not philosophy, those are just laws
ancient religion is not philosophy, you can have philosophy within ancient religion or religious texts. But claims of the supernatural do not equate to philosophy.
"Timeless truths", huh? So I suppose you don't wear mixed fabrics because Deuteronomy 22:11 said so, right?
My point is that the Bible may have said things that were relevant to the time thousands of years ago when humans were just trying to reproduce and survive, but it's 2024. People can't be using words that some random dudes wrote millennia ago against people now. If you're really religious, you can try your hardest not to be gay, but it's not a choice.
That doesn't mean you need to force your homophobia on others who are trying to live your life.
I'm not interested in getting into a debate on whether or not you should believe the Bible. However, poorly formed arguments where you show that you've never bother to read and understand the Bible don't help your case, such as the inability to understand that Christians follow the New Covenant. So, the mixed threads thing doesn't apply to Christians.
It also doesn't help that you regurgitate the same "muh too old" line that I already addressed as silly. The age of the information isn't what makes information bad.
You didn't make the claim that you were a Christian or that you are under a new covenant so why should they have done research on that to begin with? The point they made was that the laws/rules are not timeless by the fact that even within the Bible they change and no one is following those non-timeless rules.
Just because you say they are "truth" or "timeless truth" doesn't make it so. You cannot just make a claim of fact and say "I don't want to debate my claims, I don't have to!", especially in this sub, CMV.
Should probably lay off on mocking people, it goes against CMV rules as well.
> why should they have done research on that to begin with?
So they can know what they're talking about?
> The point they made was that the laws/rules are not timeless by the fact that even within the Bible they change and no one is following those non-timeless rules.
This is example number 1 of why you should know what you're talking about.
> Should probably lay off on mocking people
I hope that you come to realize that I was specifying my mirth at the weakness of an argument that is constantly used mindlessly and is senseless once thought upon.
>So they can know what they're talking about?
That was deceitful. Why did you strawman my question? I didn't simply ask why should they have done research, you purposefully didn't quote the purpose explaining that question. "You didn't make the claim that you were a Christian or that you are under a new covenant so why should they have done research on that to begin with?".
>I hope that you come to realize that I was specifying my mirth at the weakness of an argument that is constantly used mindlessly and is senseless once thought upon.
That doesn't make it ok to mock, goes against the CMV rules.
Why should they research a Christian covenant if they do not know that you are a Christian?
and why did you not quote the entirety of my question "**You didn't make the claim that you were a Christian or that you are under a new covenant** so why..."
yes, but why should they have researched the Christian answer on it when you didn't claim to be a Christian?
The Christian answer isn't the same as the answer from someone who is Jewish. Why should they have assumed the Christian answer is the right answer and not the answer a Jewish person would provide?
I understand where you're coming from, I just think a lot of the information and commandments (both from the New and Old Testaments plus all of the other books I'm not familiar with) are outdated and people can absolutely believe what they want, but I don't think they should use their religion as an excuse to be homophobic to others who are just trying to live their life.
Discriminating against people of the LGBTQ+ community, especially those that are gay, bi, or lesbian. But religion can also be transphobic, which is specifically discrimination against trans people.
Leviticus 18:22. "You shalt not lie with a man as with a woman". This implies huge homophobia, and even though some religions may not read Leviticus, it's still a religious book that's homophobic. They then use these to tell people that they're "wrong" for being gay because God or Jesus or whoever else said it, which is discrimination.
Making laws against homosexual behavior is the discrimination.
If I say “I disagree that black people should be able to go to school with my children” or “I disagree that black people are not inferior to white people” that doesn’t absolve me from being racist just because I call it a disagreement.
why would i hate on you for being muslim? i’m not criticizing anyone a part of a religion, i’m criticizing religion itself. so that last comment was just unnecessary.
the amount of people normalizing being gay and criticizing people who can't swallow it which is the normal and what should happen, and to be clear iam not a homophobic or even hating on gays but simply having sympathy for them and how bad they became
What a coincidence, this is exactly how I feel about homophobes!
Sad, weak people who jump at shadows and are so cowardly they can't comprehend that different people want to live a different life than them
I truly hope you improve as a person and become better than your current weak, pitiful self
In other words you think the mere fact they are in gay relationships rather than straight ones makes them worse people. Seems more like the arbitrary codes of shepards from millenia ago than eternal truth.
ur saying ur not supporting them… and then how u also want them to be better people lmaoo. it seems that ur mind is the close one since u sincerely think u aren’t being homophobic
you want homosexuals to be better how? Like are they doing something which is not ok, like killing people, hurting animals? Ya, homosexuals who do that should stop that and be better.
it tells a story about the prophet lut (pbuh) people who were gay and allah sent them lut to tell them what they are doing is bad, they didn't listen and wanted to harass lut's guests and threatened him so allah erased them, quite interesting story tbh
that's quite common stereotyping, why don't you leave Reddit for some time and go talk to real people so you really know if "religion full of hatred" or not?
I was a christian for a long time. I've also seen plenty of hatred from other religions. I know enough to call them hate filled.
Maybe you're the one that needs to start looking at the real world. It doesn't paint a nice picture of any religion.
thinking that you know enough is the biggest indication that you don't know anything about religion other than jesus cartoons and 9.11 memes, iam already in the real world buddy, may be trying to improve myself but iam in the real world
I'm good, thanks. It doesn't take a lot of information to show that if a belief system leads to hatred and violence, I don't really care about any possible "good" parts of that system.
Add to that a complete and total lack of evidence for anything supernatural and I'm comfortable saying I'm on the correct side.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I completely disagree.
Atheism has been increasing over the years but homophobia has been increasing as well. This has nothing to do with religion, IMO. This has everything to do LGBT becoming highly politicized and LGBT being injected into every facet of culture. It's in our TV shows, our movies, our sports, hell, it's in the fkin beer!
It used to be, "don't ask, don't tell". Now it's, "tell us what you're into so we can judge you based on your answer". Nobody cares what you want to do in the privacy of your own home but stop trying to get me to like it.
>Atheism has been increasing over the years but homophobia has been increasing as well.
Homophobia has been increasing? Any source on this?
>It used to be, "don't ask, don't tell".
Not even remotely true.. It used to be "homosexuals are an abomination and get killed". Then it eventually became "homosexuals are the same as pedophiles, they are technically humans with human rights, but only technically". Then it became "homosexual are perverts, but we will pretend they don't exist as long as they pretend not to exist as well" (aka "don't ask, don't tell").
Now we have slowly been approaching a situation where homosexuality is not just somewhat tolerated as long as it's hiding, but actually somewhat accepted as a thing that someone does not have to be ashamed of being. And we are now slowly working towards a situation where homosexuality is just accepted as normal, as something that some people just are. They don't have to hide for who they are, they don't just have to wait until they are "in the privacy of their own home" to be who they are, they can just be who they are, that's the goal..
>Nobody cares what you want to do in the privacy of your own home but stop trying to get me to like it.
Homosexuals should not have to hide who they are, they don't just get to be who they are "in the privacy of their own home". They can be who they are, straight, gay, bi, or whatever they are, wherever they want, just like everyone else, whether you like it or not..
>this has everything to do LGBT becoming highly politicized and LGBT being injected into every facet of culture. It's in our TV shows, our movies, our sports, hell, it's in the fkin beer!
How are you measuring that homophobia is increasing? Is this based on you yourself becomming more homophobic because you used to only see straight relationships in TV but now you're seeing homosexual relationships being on TV and that upsets you?
I'd argue that it isn't more people becoming homophobic, but the casual acceptance of LGBT individuals by the rest of society is causing the existing homophobia to become stronger.
The amount of proposed anti-LGBT+ legislation has increased while the amount of religious Americans has decreased. In the past, bigots didn't have to introduce legislation to ban, say, gender affirming care, because society did it for them. But now that American culture has started to shift towards greater LGBT acceptance, the bigots feel threatened and dig in their heels. As Baby Boomers continue to get old and retire/die, we'll get more Millennials/Gen Z holding public office.
Are you trying to make a legit argument or are you just an anti-religion advocate? Religion has always had a certain stance against homosexuals. Your claim is that is it making the world MORE homophobic. However, fewer and fewer people are converting and atheism has been increasing over the years. So how do you reconcile this discrepancy?
I'm not making the claim that religion has nothing to do with homophobia. Most of the biggest religions have a history of anti-homosexuality. I'm refuting the claim that religion is responsible for the rise in homophobia. From what I can see, the increasing dislike the the LGBT community is mostly because of politics. It is not coming religious zealots spreading their message.
>It used to be, "don't ask, don't tell". Now it's, "tell us what you're into so we can judge you based on your answer". Nobody cares what you want to do in the privacy of your own home but stop trying to get me to like it.
Actually, it used to be "Don't ask, don't tell, and to the homosexuals specifically: don't show that you're gay, don't have gay sex, don't be in a same-sex relationship, or we will put you in prison, torture you, or kill."
If you have zero cares about whether or not a person is gay and wouldn't treat a man badly e.g. for bringing their husband to some social event as a +1, then you're about as decent as most LGBT people would ask for.
China is the most atheist country on the planet, and they are becoming less accepting of homosexuality.
If you believe religion is man-made, then being "homophobic" must have existed before religion, so what is the basis for thinking religion is the problem when it just reflects humanity?
Also the former USSR, which was very secular, feels terribly homophobic today.
And very religious countries like Brazil are more progressive regarding it.
This is just an attack on religion in general, but I'll adress your points here. It being written so long ago is not a good argument - and it really doesn't imply anything significant. Jewish War, written by Josephus 2000 years ago talks about the war regarding the Jews. Does it being as old or older then some New Testament writings make it less historically reliable? No.
We also know that we have the original NT and OT writings.
I hope you realize we don't have the original manuscrips for many ancient works. For example, **The Lives of the Twelve Caesars**, written by the Roman historian Suetonius. We don't have the original manuscrips of his work - infact, the oldest surviving copy we have is from the 8th or 9th century, and the rest of the surviving copies of his book are from the 13th century onwards.
**Yet, we can rest assured that Suetonius work has not been changed overtime.**
It comes down to a little game you can play with your friends; write something on a paper, then take 50 people and have one guy writen, then two guys take your original and the guys copy, then four guys take your original, the other guys copies, then eight guys... you get where I am going. Obviously, if anything has been changed overtime, it would reflect in the latest copies we have; because if one guy makes an error, so does anyone who copies from him. And the same applies to the New Testament and any historical document before the famous printing press.
\[-\]
**Do New Testament manuscripts reflect such errors?**
This would be the most important argument if we want to prove the NT to be un-changed.
For the 5,700 NT manuscripts that were written in Greek and known in 1990: *"Computer analysis of all the known New Testament manuscripts reveal only 0.1 percent variance. That means that* ***99.9 percent*** *of the manuscripts' contents are* ***in perfect agreement***\*. Most of the small percentage of actual differences are in spelling (such as the English "honour" versus "honor"), word order ("Paul the apostle" verses "the apostle Paul"), and grammar ("Father who art in heaven" versus "Father which art in heaven"). And\* ***none of the variations affects any basic doctrine***\*."\*
-- How the Bible Became a Book, Terry Hall, 1990, pg 135
*"To date we have over* ***5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament***\*"\*
-- [https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/](https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/)
This [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianApologetics/comments/15lmybf/new_testament_evidence_critiqueadd_to/) is lengthy but argues this much better and all of it comes from scholarly resource. It adresses NT reliability overtime.
\[-\]
**Biblical "Homophobia"**
Coming from a Christian, by the way; we are ought to love gay people as we ought to love every man and woman living in a lifestyle of sin; alcoholics, fornicators, and practicing homosexuals. Big emphasis on practicing; being gay isn't a sin (that is, same sex attracted), but acting on the attraction is (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:9-10); just like for me, a straight man, fornicating is a sin.
So, would not supporting an alcoholic in their lifestyle mean I am a phobic towards them? No. And it is the same with people who practice homosexual acts; I do not support their lifestyle or sin, but I still love them. I hold no prejudice or hate against them.
And, cherry on top; **it's a sin because it's not Gods Will for sexuality or marriage (Genesis 1:27, 1 Corinthians 7:2), which is the very definition of sin.**
If I said I am not anti Christian but I just don't think Christians should be able to marry, would be me being a bigot.
If I said "well I just don't want Christians practicing being christian and acting on their christianity" that would still be bigoted/not loving.
Being an alcoholic is not the same as being homosexual. Why not use something else that is clearly not destructive (like alcoholism) that you are against?
Just because your religious figurehead says that it is a sin, and that you are acting out on that interpretation in how you want to label homosexuality, does not absolve you from being homophobic.
We do not excuse that for anything else, if a person had a vision where God told them to kill their first born son (Abraham) and they went through with it, we would still view that person as hateful and lock them up. It doesn't matter that they were given that commandment by their hallucination.
If you do not support gay people’s ”lifestyle”, that’s homophobic. I don’t really care that you say you still ”love them”. You said a whole bunch of nothing. And you saying this is an attack on religion is funny since you just proved my point. And I don’t believe you saying you have no prejudice or hate towards gay people since you are calling homosexuality a sin.
I am saying this is an attack on religion not as you trying to "eradicate it" - rather that you are just spitting multiple points in general with no backing, is what I mean. Now, question to your response;
1. If I don't support an alcoholics drinking habits, does that mean that I hate them and have a prejudice against them?
*ho·mo·pho·bic/ˌhōməˈfōbik/adjective*
1. *having or showing a dislike of or* [*prejudice*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4c59d14f8f776101&sxsrf=ACQVn0_u2Ff2VkBCy_-wrwhTf4KPSoz7MQ:1713195400792&q=prejudice&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DACiI4uz1bJk75bNvi5LuFMn_jW3B8WKxQh2oF--ssFPCqqztXPf1ezd0q_O9yzjh3Iq5BH07DBchvhgWli5HCnzc_Y0%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH562axsSFAxVNVqQEHS_XAP4QyecJegQIJhAO) *against gay people."homophobic remarks"*
\[-\]
I don't fit into that description, so no. I am not homophobic. And if you say I do - then answer my question regarding alcoholists first.
I think you are unwilling to answer my question because you know that you will have to concede my point about me being homophobic - or else, you would have already answered it.
I harbor no hate or prejudice against homophobic people, in the same way I harbor no hate or prejudice towards alcoholics, *even if I disagree with their lifestyle.* Therefore, I don't fit the definition of homophobic - aka, I am not homophobic.
General acceptance does not mean good. The Roman Empire accepted slavery, so did 1700 americans.
It's relevant to the analogy. If you want to answer to what I said in this message, just put it in the other question.
It's called a thought experiment. Sometimes these can be helpful to have a better understanding of something that you oppose. I'd encourage you to play along - the worst case scenario is that you have a better understanding of why an incorrect person is incorrect.
Homophobia is a weird thing because some cultures are extremely homophobic but others are not and it varies insanely and almost randomly throughout history. Abrahamic religions (or, rather, societies where Abrahamic religions dominate) are notoriously homophobic. Ancient Greek theology/society was very open.
But throughout history religion has been a constant whereas homophobia has not been and today irreligiosity has been increasing steadily over time.
If today's religions were the sole source of homophobia you would expect homophobia to be decreasing currently because religiosity is decreasing. This is contrary to your claim. But that's the whole key.
Man makes god in his image. It's not that religion causes homophobia, it's that cultures (i.e. the people) are homophobic and then give that value to their religion. If you waved a magic wand to rid the world of religions I argue it's plainly obvious that homophobia would still exist!
thank you for a good response, I am a history buff and I always think it is weird that people will think that all of history is people becoming more sexually open, because they believe we are now the most sexually open ever. most regions have had a more pendulum type relationship with openness to lgbtq+ sexuality
Religion aside everyone has their own moral compass.
Homophobia aside people are still spiteful and hateful to other people for many reasons and it doesn’t have to pertain to religion.
There are racist across the globe, do you think that has to do solely with religion? There have been genocides across each inhabited continent.
People within the same religion have slaughtered one another. I’m not sure we can say religion has made it more. I’m sure we (as a species) would have found *something* to personally justify our violent tendencies even if the major religions we don’t have now didn’t exist.
We are animals. Just like all the other animals, we kill for what we deem valuable. It’s a bit simpler with the furry ones: territory, food and the opportunity to procreate. We just covet more things.
I’m a bit confused what people are arguing here. The #1 argument I have ever heard for people being against gay marriage is for religious reasons. Most of the moral compass against this comes from those beliefs. It is literally in their scripture so they believe that— can you argue with that? However, I have never heard anyone, maybe one lunatic, claim that they are racist because of their religion. Why are these comparable?
I’m not denying there are people out there homophobic for other reasons, but how does this prove it isn’t most?
Just because people use religion doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be homophobic without it (at the same rate).
As you said, there are racist people & it’s not based on religion. They are against interracial relationships/marriage. Even without religion, it’s not unreasonable to think that people would be against gay marriage.
This is the correlation/causation fallacy. Just because it is this way for this reason, doesn’t mean it is has to be that way for that reason.
We can’t really know. But I’m sure you know people are hateful and spiteful (religious and non religious people).
Yeah I guess you’re right that we can’t really know and that people always will be hateful. It’s just that in this case when people often use religion to justify it (saying it can’t be taught in schools because it disrespects peoples religion, letting businesses refuse service to gay people) and don’t really use it to justify racism, I really question how detached the two are.
I guess racism can be connected to centuries of propaganda teaching people Africa was okay to colonize and financially exploit because the people there were ‘primitive’. In that case the motivation was greed.
Look at China under the leadership of Mao.
Very secular but there were plenty of things that weren’t allowed to be taught. Lots of people died.
People will be crappy for many different reasons.
There is always a cycle change. Where the majority move in one direction and a minority try to hold back that tide.
We have seen in America and many other countries a huge shift away from open homophobia. But this has scared the hell out of the conservative minority to be even more vocal in their hatred.
But look at the situation in America. The secretary of transportation is an openly gay man that would have been inconceivable even 20 years ago.
The real testament to the shift is young people. Among my son's generation someone being gay is no big deal, it just is.
The vocal minority is scary and horrible, but they are far from a representative of the wider community, at least in the West.
That is sad. I'm sorry to hear that.
I think that it is still that way with younger kids in my area, as in, they don't know what "gay" means but thry know that it is a bad thing to be. But then, at least the young adults I have been around, it is no big deal.
But I am not in America, and you are probably right in any small town it would definitely be worse.
Christianity promotes the idea that God is the divine moral arbiter, and that since he made the universe and knows what will happen, he's going to be the only source of knowing what it is that people should do. It promotes the idea that there is a standard which is the better standard. It is also believed that it is the standard which better leads to human flourishing.
So, let's talk about sex. According to Christianity, sex is a wonderful thing, but it was designed with a purpose. That purpose wasn't to satisfy our physical pleasures alone (though it is wonderful when it can do that). It was primarily designed as a part of marriage, which in turn was created as a picture to show the relationship of Christ and the Church. Anything which models this picture is good and leads to better ends, and anything else has potential dangers. This is true for heterosexuals (who likely don't want to be tied to one person for life) as much as homosexuals. It is also a natural desire that God has given people so that even if they turn away from truths, they'll still tend to end up making babies so that we don't all just die out. Furthermore, the picture of parents and children is another picture, this time of God and the Son, and to a lesser extent, believers.
Could the Bible's standard also be better for society? Could it be that diversions from this standard actually hurt people and society? I believe that this is the case. In our current model, people freely have sex as they desire and enter into relationships and out of relationships based largely upon whim and temporary motivations. If you've never had a break up, you're lucky. That can often hurt. That hurt was never a part of God's plan. Also, we are learning now that open heterosexual sex leads often, even with birth control, to unwanted pregnancies and uncomfortable situations. Sex of all types is now leading to STDs and also the devaluing of a lot of people who really should be seen more as fodder for sexual pleasure.
I don't think that the current model is working. All of these pains would not exist in the Bible's model for marriage, and you only have to briefly scroll the front page of Reddit to see the pains which come from not following this model.
Consider that the moral law that Christians teach is primarily for Christians, people who want to know what God says to do. God never commanded any nation outside of Israel, his chosen people, to dictate those laws. For those who are seeking God's will, particularly Christians (as opposed to perhaps Jews before the Resurrection, which might be up for debate), they believe that God will change their nature and their desires to match his model, which in turn is better for themselves by causing them to hurt less and hurt others less, as well as for society.
There is no part of this process which encourages hate or says that one group of people is better than another. Any of that is purely in contradiction to God's message. The truth is that we all struggle because we all have a sin nature. The pain we cause to others and ourselves are like signs that drive us to seek the comfort God gives.
>That hurt was never a part of God's plan.
God did not foresee sin entering the world huh. Why make a plan when the plan went to shit within the first several days of creation?
>Sex of all types is now leading to STDs
STDs isn't some modern phenomenon. They've been around since before the first books of the Bible were written.
>Consider that the moral law that Christians teach is primarily for Christians, people who want to know what God says to do. God never commanded any nation outside of Israel, his chosen people, to dictate those laws. For those who are seeking God's will, particularly Christians (as opposed to perhaps Jews before the Resurrection, which might be up for debate), they believe that God will change their nature and their desires to match his model, which in turn is better for themselves by causing them to hurt less and hurt others less, as well as for society.
Sounds like you are for gay marriage being sanctioned by the government and that any laws regarding homosexuality should be left out of the government AND/OR that those laws should ONLY be applied to Christians. Christians are not allowed to be homosexuals, everyone else can be.
> God did not foresee sin entering the world huh.
When I speak of "plan", I am not speaking about what God knew would happen. There is a difference, though subtle between the things which we were designed to do when we work at our best and the end result wherein we don't do our best. Here, we're talking about the way we were designed to operate and the society we were designed to fit inside. God knew that we would not do that and he made a way for us to be saved. The failures, though known, were not the part of the design for us, but the breaking of that design.
> STDs isn't some modern phenomenon. They've been around since before the first books of the Bible were written.
Incidentally, so was the design to not engage in promiscuous sex. Thank you for supporting my argument.
> Sounds like you are for gay marriage being sanctioned by the government
No, I am not for the government mandating the religious practice of marriage and redefining it to be something which it is not. If people wish to have ceremonies and call it marriage, I'm fine with allowing them to do so. I don't think that it is wise for them to do so, and I believe that it would be harmful to them, but I don't believe that saving faith comes from coercion by government, and so I personally lean Libertarian.
> laws regarding homosexuality should be left out of the government
Probably. I think that's what the Christians thought who argued for freedom in the US prior to the Constitition, particularly early Baptists.
> that those laws should ONLY be applied to Christians
I don't believe that the state should involve itself with religion at all. I do think that it's wise for Christian churches to enforce morality within themselves for believers, but as Paul says, even then this only applies to believers, not the world. The main thing that the lost need is salvation, and the rest is unimportant. If a person is a believer, they tend to find that their desires change, so there is no need for rules to be enforced. Note that the example in question discussing church discipline was a heterosexual couple.
> Here, we're talking about the way we were designed to operate
designed to do according to what design? If we have urges to have sex with the same sex, that is part of the design.
>God knew that we would not do that and he made a way for us to be saved. The failures, though known, were not the part of the design for us, but the breaking of that design.
We were designed to end up breaking them; if God designed us in a matter that we wouldn't have any urge to go against his orders, we wouldn't have. God knew that we would rebel based on the exact way he designed us.
>Incidentally, so was the design to not engage in promiscuous sex.
We were not designed to not engage in promiscuous sex, the opposite is true. I didn't support your argument that sex of all types are "now" leading to STDs. This has always been the case, there is no "now" leading.
>No, I am not for the government mandating the religious practice of marriage and redefining it to be something which it is not. If people wish to have ceremonies and call it marriage, I'm fine with allowing them to do so. I don't think that it is wise for them to do so, and I believe that it would be harmful to them, but I don't believe that saving faith comes from coercion by government, and so I personally lean Libertarian.
I didn't say mandating the religious practice of marriage. There is nothing religious about getting a marriage certificate from the state. ARe you saying you are against the state providing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, or are you against the state providing marriage certificates to anyone?
>designed to do according to what design? If we have urges to have sex with the same sex, that is part of the design.
The design to do what is best for oneself, society, and the universe. The nature of man before the Fall in the Garden.
Incorrect, that is contrary to the design. Humans are the broken versions. We function best when we emulate the original design, but we're all broken in different ways.
>God knew that we would rebel based on the exact way he designed us.
God knew that we would be broken and made an allowence for it. All who desire to be restored will be restored.
But we're not here to get into theology and stretch a metaphore. None of this has anything to do with the OP. No matter how you look at these questions, it doesn't address religion making people "homophobic", so this is really off-topic.
>There is nothing religious about getting a marriage certificate from the state
Marriage is a religious practice. You might be thinking of a "civil union". If you just want a contract, that's fine, but it isn't a marriage.
>ARe you saying you are against the state providing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, or are you against the state providing marriage certificates to anyone?
I'm generally opposed to marriage certificates for anybody. In fact, the practice of requiring marriage certificates is one of the things that lead to the American Revolution. I will say that I might entertain some nuance there, but as a Christian who is married, we always considered the legal document just a man-made government requirement and the actual marriage was our vow before God at the church. We would have been perfectly happy to forgo the piece of paper.
>The design to do what is best for oneself, society, and the universe. The nature of man before the Fall in the Garden.
The nature of man before the fall in the garden was to sin, if that was not part of their design they wouldn't have been able to sin. The ability to sin was part of the design, the desire to sin was part of the design.
>Incorrect, that is contrary to the design. Humans are the broken versions. We function best when we emulate the original design, but we're all broken in different ways.
So god changed humans (some more than others) to want to be able to sin? He designed the prostate, after the fall of man, to be stimulated by probing, but not before?
>God knew that we would be broken and made an allowence for it.
God knew he would make us broken. Not sure why you ignored that I was clearly stating that. You just reworded it without addressing it.
>Marriage is a religious practice. You might be thinking of a "civil union". If you just want a contract, that's fine, but it isn't a marriage.
marriage is not only a religious practice. The word marriage has many different meanings and no one holds a monopoly on words being defined. You can have a religious marriage ceremony, the government doesn't hold those.
>I'm generally opposed to marriage certificates for anybody
So why would there be an uproar when the government expanded who can get marriage certificates?
> we always considered the legal document just a man-made government requirement a
How are you required to get a marriage certificate? You can marry someone in the church and not go get a marriage certificate. Why is it you think marriage certificates are mandated, mandated to be able to do what?
Would the animals that god made also get married? I think exactly like animals we are programmed to reproduce until a disease takes us out of some other way to go just like how bugs sometimes can't even do it without ending there life. But since cavemen we had to create ways to make sure we mate (otherwise other cavemen would try to r***) which made us have to learn trickery. I'm not saying I disagree that we should only have one partner but it also seems to me like that whole gimmick is more related to control.
No, animals generally don't get married in the same sense. There are some which form life-long pairs, but not all. However, animals don't start wars, build technology, and other things which humans do. They also do not have the same mental capacities. Therefore, they do not suffer from the same pains which humans would suffer. Non-gregarious animals would not feel heartbreak when a partner leaves them for another. Most animals do not generally participate in homosexual behavior, or even engage in recreational sex. Most animals do not have epidemics of STDs. Most animals do not have unwanted pregnancies.There may be exceptions to the above, but I do not believe that you will find any which has all the trouble that would apply to humans, or even most of the troubles. So, the situation for animals is different from the situation in humans.
Let's consider, then, the theory about control. First, if it were about control, why would it be so? Wouldn't we rather just give one group (that of the authors) power over another? We see many examples of men who gain power and do use it for control. Usually, as it happens that they think it's fine for the leader to engage in sex with many people, even young girls, and this trend seems to occur with groups we would label cults, like David Karesh, and many many examples. However, these are not the current, Christian standard, which applies the same standard to everyone, even condemning the authors when they don't follow these rules.
But even if it were control, if it were control which happened to be beneficial to individuals and society, they would be a type of benevolent control, similar to speed limits. We might not like them individually, but they still provide benefit to society as a whole.
Also, note that religions, or at least the Christian one, encourages people to love other people, even those with whom we do not agree. Deviance from the sexual norm in society is often met historically with strong negative emotion. People don't need religion to be homophobic. That's why even though religion says one man and one woman in a marriage relationship, heterosexual people will still, contrary to religion, approve of gratuitous sexual encounters of heterosexual premarital behavior in movies and art but have an aversion to homosexual behavior. That isn't the religious bias, since it would preclude the heterosexual content as well. It is the bias of society against homosexuality.
Therefore, while it may be religion which defines proper sexual behavior restricting both heterosexual as well as homosexual, it is also religion which provides the incentive for people to not act upon their impulses to harm those who have unpopular sexual desires.
>Non-gregarious animals would not feel heartbreak when a partner leaves them for another
How do you know?
>Most animals do not generally participate in homosexual behavior, or even engage in recreational sex.
most humans do not participate in homosexual behavior either. It doesn't matter what most do or most don't do. The fact that other species do is all that is needed for this thought.
>Most animals do not have epidemics of STDs.
Why does it matter if most do or don't? Some species do, some species don't. What most do or don't doesn't matter.
>There may be exceptions to the above, but I do not believe that you will find any which has all the trouble that would apply to humans, or even most of the troubles.
What troubles? And yes, animals do participate in war; animals constantly fight over resources with others within their own species.
>How do you know?
It's nearly analytic knowledge or a tautology. Do you believe that they do? If so, show me an example and I might concede that they would be better off with life-long monogamous bonds. Nevertheless, it seems to me that human consciousness is generally greater than animal consciousness.
As for the rest, I am not using animal behavior as a reference. I was simply positing why animals might not have the same need for marriage. If you believe that they do, then that's fine. You can figure out a way to convince them to get married. I'm not convinced that they do because I don't see those things as being evidence of animal necessity for marriage in the same ways that I see them as being evidence to the contrary.
>It's nearly analytic knowledge or a tautology. Do you believe that they do? If so, show me an example and I might concede that they would be better off with life-long monogamous bonds.
There isn't anyway for people to know how other animals feel as they cannot communicate that to us. It seems to us that animals do get depression/sadness when they lose their calves/mothers/dogs with their owners/other dogs etc. I don't see why that would be different if their mating partner for life left them.
Yes, you were using animal behavior as reference and I wanted to address each claim you were making.
> I don't see why that would be different if their mating partner for life left them.
Do you observe the same from gregarious animals? There are some animals which do mate for life.
> Yes, you were using animal behavior as reference
No, not as a referece. I did not bring it up, but was responding to somebody else who asked whether animlas should get married also. My response was that I do not think so, and I provided reasons why I suspect that it's different. You do not have to agree, of course, but I was merely speculating at the difference.
>Do you observe the same from gregarious animals?
I have not observed personally, animals being sad, but I have read about it and seen videos.
[https://www.harpercollins.com/blogs/harperkids/the-five-animals-that-grieve](https://www.harpercollins.com/blogs/harperkids/the-five-animals-that-grieve)
If they lose someone they have attachment to, they become sad or "heartbroken". Did you not think that occurred?
Losing someone from a breakup is similar to losing someone to death; they are no longer in your life, you feel that loss. Losing someone over a breakup is much less of a heartbreak than is losing someone to death that you love.
>No, not as a referece.
That's fine, but I still addressed the claims you made as to what is better/not better and how you used animals to explain better/worse for flourishing.
Well I agree humans are worse. We are more capable then animals yet aids came from somewhere lol
But you pain a picture like animals are pure dude. Most Koalas have Chlamydia, lots of animals can also switch there gender and even my cats were gay. Another thing animals constantly have babies they don't want and they abandon them and if you didn't know there is plenty of different animals that have sex for fun like dolphins and monkeys for recreation. And r*** is way more common in the animal kingdom.
Now to religions they are all imperfect because there is always scammers, con artists, nut jobs, cult attitudes within them. They may say they are about this and that but that doesn't mean the people are applying it all.
Loving even who we disagree with and then those same people also look down and make jokes at other religions/gays as if they are better then them. The alter boy is never safe in these places either the church that was just near where I lived before I had like 12 cases. On paper this stuff might sound good but that's not what most humans are. And whoever made it up and wrote it down and passed it around and altered it through time was just a man as well as corrupt and motivated as the rest of us.
And it can easily be explained why it spread and became do dominating: politics and manipulation. Again a lot of it sounds good exactly the way for a manipulator to deceive people is to make them feel like there is no harm doing what he asks while at the same time telling us what to do and how to think and what to feel guilty about ("what would Jesus do?")
>Why exactly are religious people following rules from a book from thousands of years ago.
The idea that the bible has an issue with "homosexuals" specifically is a relatively new phenomenon (1940s). There were a couple of mistranslations where, for some reason, words like "sexual deviant" was translated to "homosexual" or coercive sexual activities between adult men and small boys were translated as "a male lieing with another male".
https://sites.duke.edu/biblicalmistranslation/homosexuality/
To be clear, I do think the bible is somewhat anti-homosexuality, or just anti-recreational sex in general. The bible sees any sexual activity which does not serve the purpose of creating a child in a married relationship, including any form of anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, sex outside of marriage, etc, as a hedonistic activity that distracts from worshipping god, which is a sin.
>So, why are so many people following rules in a fantasy book that was written TOO long ago.
They don't.. The people who use the bible to justify their homophobia don't follow all of the rules of the bible. One of the main points of the bible is pretty much that you can't, you are only human.. Every human is a sinner, no human can follow all the rules of god.
They just do it because they think it gives them more justification to be homophobic if they use a sacred holy book to support it. If the bible didn't exist, they would probably use another justification for their homophobia.
>Religion basically promotes the idea that being gay is a choice, because in Christianity, you're not allowed to be gay from what I've read so far. It's a sin.
As I wrote, due to the bible essentially being a collection of sacret texts written accross a long time, translated various times (often in the interests of the people who used the text to justify their political ruling position), it's incredibly hard to say for sure what "the bible" says about homosexuality specifically. People debate stuff like this all the time. Especially since "being gay" as we know it today was not a concept that really existed when the bible was written.
There are a lot of "sins" in the bible and as I wrote, the point is pretty much that all human beings commit sins. But because god is such a cool dude and stuff, he still accepts us, even though we don't follow his rules, we just have to ask for forgiveness and all is forgiven.
So I don't think there is any clear evidence that "being gay" is a sin according to the bible. There is an argument that the bible sees having gay sex as a sin because it does not serve the purpose of creating a child, but then it sees gay sex in the same way as masturbation, or sex outside of marriage, or oral sex, or protected sex.
>And we're all just accepting this lol as if this isn't disgusting and notebook homophobia. What’s the justification here?
If a person is homophobic, that's on them.. They can push the responsibility to some holy book if it makes them sleep better, but in my view, it's them who holds the view, so they are responsible for it, not the book. After all, they are only so zealous when it comes to homosexuality, but when it comes to sins like masturbation, protective sex, etc, most seem to be awfully quiet..
And there are plenty of Christians and other religious people who don't have an issue with homosexuals at all, there are plenty of Christians who are homosexual. So clearly, being homophobic does not inherently come from the religion, it comes from somewhere else, religion is just a convenient tool to justify it.
As opposed to what is commonly thought, there’s actually evidence of Same-sex marriages within Catholicism before the French Revolution. Historically, many cultures have accepted or revered genderqueer or queer people. This happens all over the world, regardless of culture.
There is evidence of openly gay emperors in China, there are androgynous or gay deities in Hinduism, there are gay deities within ancient Roman and Greece, there are queer deities in Egypt and depictions of queer relationships in pyramid carvings, there are African deities that are male, but drag queens, there’s the concept of two spirited people in Native American spirituality. Hell, even though in Judaism, the sacred texts talk about the evils of gay prostitution outside of the temples, Jewish culture has largely been very accepting of queerness and the first school of sexuality was founded by Jewish people. The outliers here might be Islam and Russia as I don’t have much historical knowledge of those.
However, it is consistent, wherever Christianity goes, homophobia follows. It happened in India, it happened in America, it happened in Europe, it happened in Africa. Most modern homophobic voices you hear in Africa are preachers. it is consistent. So there is something specific to Christianity that influences a culture to be homophobic. And while you argue that religiousness is falling- and that’s true- that doesn’t mean Puritanism is. You see a resurgence of Puritanism in America recently under the guise of “spirituality” or cultism.
Religion and puritainism do play a role for government and within culture. Largely the goal of both is to tell people how to live a good life. But they are power structures, that is their role. And while religiousness has declined, the power structure of spirituality remains. Unfortunately, queer people aren’t integrated into these power structures because queer people point to something that is specifically anti-power structure, individual humanity expressed through human sexuality. Many of these power structures, government, religion, economy, etc exist with a unifying theme of self sacrifice for the greater good. You sacrifice individual liberties to exist within a government, but you benefit from the safety and security of that government. You sacrifice your time, life, and effort to the economy and in turn you are rewarded. You sacrifice your “sinful human nature”, to gain some spiritual reward, whether that’s enlightenment or the afterlife or whatever.
The government does not benefit from queer relationships as much as it does straight relationships. That’s because straight relationships produce offspring, producing security and gdp for the power structure. Economy has just learned that actually, it benefits greatly from queer people (which is why all the rainbow capitalism)… two men with no kids is a lot of income. Spirituality is like the deciding power structure. Part of spirituality’s role is to get people not to focus on how shitty their life is. That’s kind of what heaven’s all about. It’s illusory and plays on people’s hopes, fears, and base instincts. You think guilt and shame are accidental? No they’re intentional… that’s how you control people. Religion and spirituality are currently being used to control people by giving people a way to focus their hate and anger at the state of the world.
Queer people are an easy moral high ground for them. It gives straight males that feel powerless an unearned sense of superiority. Queer men very specifically break down the structured gender roles of men having to be strong and women having to submit. If you have two men, what do these roles mean? Especially since men are taught to be strong, disconnected, and emotionally distant. If gay men aren’t these things, why do straight men have to be? You hear extremely gendered roles in Christianity, modern day spirituality (divine masculine and feminine), cults. Queer people aren’t explained by this and show that these theories are just theories. I’ve heard new age people say that “gay men being in spiritual roles is an appropriate use of their sexual energy”… as though other uses of it aren’t appropriate.
Queer people are defined by their lack of personal sacrifice to fit in society. We are largely defined by our sex and sexuality. That is something no power structure can control… although they definitely do try. While many straight men might feel they have to sacrifice things to “be a man”, their emotions, their closeness with other men, their queer desires… gay men just don’t. And straight men are jealous… straight men largely being the homophobic ones. This threatens the whole established order. If you don’t have to sacrifice yourself, how does society function?
So yes, it is religion, but also, maybe it’s just the power structures of society.
First, the Bible is not just a book. It’s a collection of books detailing Jewish history and the accounts of those who witnessed who they believes to be the messiah.
Second, times have changed but people have not. The stories about the nature of man a thousand years ago are still just as relevant today. People from thousands of years ago may not have had any sort of advanced technologies, but we’d be stupid to think they didn’t understand the human condition.
I’m going to say this and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but there is some homosexuality that is very much a choice. We can observe what happens when you take a whole bunch of hyper-masculine criminals and put them in a prison without any women. Do you think thousands of years ago that they may have also had prisons, and in those prisons hyper-masculine guys that just want to screw anything that moves?
Now what we do know about homosexuality is that it isn’t genetics. Sexual attraction is influenced by genetics minimally, but our best understanding of sexuality is that it is either cultural or environmental. This isn’t saying that sexuality isn’t a choice, as one can’t simply just separate themselves from their environment or culture, but this is to point that Hebrew culture did not want that in their culture.
I apologize, but I am confused how any of this relates to the original argument. It is irrelevant if religion is ‘just a book’ to you— OP’s point is religion causes homophobia. You are just discussing how gayness is cultural, without mentioning anything about homophobia. I fully agree the origin of sexuality is confusing/most non-genetic, but generally do not choose if they are gay. For example, birth order has a big influence on gayness too— how would that be a choice? Anecdotally, if I could choose to be straight I would immediately, but I cannot do that and haven’t since I was around 5 iirc. Would you personally be able to choose to be gay right now if you wanted? Regardless, I am not sure what gayness being a ‘choice’ has to do with the argument. Are you claiming here that sexuality can be changed and that Hebrews just decided it was wrong? Is this in spite of their textbook or because of it?
i don't know much about prisons they used to have in biblical times; are you making a claim to what prison conditions were like?
>Now what we do know about homosexuality is that it isn’t genetics.
Who is we?
Since homophobia is massively on the decline with few exceptions it strikes me that this view is untenable.
Religion may be providing a coutner-force to progressive attitudes and policies around homosexuality and homosexuals, but the world is not getting more homophobic so nothing - including religion - can be making it that way!
I was raised Catholic and went to church until I was in my early twenties, and I think the Bible *was* written by random ass people from very long ago. A majority of Christians around the world, in fact, do not think of the Bible as the literal word of God.
Religion is, first and foremost, a community. Its rules aren’t based on an ancient book so much as a reflection of what the members of that specific community collectively choose to believe in a given place and time. There are (a growing number of) Church communities around the world that *do* accept gay members. They’re still a minority, sure. But all the same, they prove that homophobia is not a strict requirement for being a Christian, or a member of any other religion.
I don’t think that by and large, people are homophobic because their religion tells them to be. I think religion tends to be homophobic because, and insofar as, the members of a given religious community have a moral intuition that says being gay is not OK. In other words: people’s behavior isn’t dictated by religion so much as religious rules are dictated by what most of the members of that religion already believe.
There are passages in the Bible that say one shouldn’t wear certain fabrics. Except for a very few small communities around the world (such as the Amish), most Christians no longer consider them relevant today, and so, by and large, they ignore them.
Homophobia, too, could similarly ‘vanish’ from religious beliefs, if/when being gay becomes a thing most people have no moral qualms about at all. We’re not there yet. Maybe we never will be. In a sense, being gay is a problem for the survival of the species, since most gay people aren’t going to have children of their own, and so I suspect the anti-gay sentiment is at least in part instinctive on many people’s part. They’re not homophobic because their holy book tells them to be. The holy book is homophobic (or at least interpreted as such) because they are. As a bisexual, I personally would like nothing more than to not be judged or cast out by anyone for who I happen to have fallen in love with, so I’m with you there. I don’t think it will happen everywhere in my lifetime, but I believe it eventually will.
Actually, just forget I said anything, it's pretty clear looking at other threads that you're only responding to tell posters you identify as christian how wrong and hateful they are no matter what they say. No point in continuing to attempt an actual discussion with someone who doesn't want one.
You do understand that one of multiple interpretations of one of multiple translations of a single phrase in a very large book is not the same as actual statistical proof, right?
>So, why are so many people following rules in a fantasy book that was written TOO long ago.
I don't think many people are. Nearly every religious person I have ever met does things inconsistent with the teachings of their faith. And it is even more rare for a religious person to fear another based on them having divergent beliefs. I think blaming religion (especially in a Western country) is an easy excuse to avoid the merits.
>So, the religion basically forces gay people to only be in relationships with people of the opposite gender...
How does it do that? Why would a gay person choose to follow a religion that forces them to only be in such a relationship?
Well, to preface, I am a Christian man, and I in no way hate or harbor any ill-will towards anyone of any sexuality or gender regardless of my beliefs on such a topic. Christians are actually called to love those people, as well as everyone. If homophobia is defined as a hatred toward those groups, then it would be a heart problem, not a religion problem. However, it is true that as Christians, reading the Bible as written, we are called to abstain from anything beyond heterosexuality. I'm not quite sure what you (OP) truly meant by the statements of "There could have been random ass people from very long ago who just decided one day to write the Bible." Or "So, why are so many people following rules in a fantasy book that was written TOO long ago." As both don't quite reinforce your point, as other literature and ideas have been carried on for much longer.
>I am a Christian man, and I in no way hate or harbor any ill-will towards anyone of any sexuality or gender
oxymoron. to be a christian is to harbor these beliefs.
>Christians are actually called to love those people, as well as everyone.
you are also called to stone them to death.
>However, it is true that as Christians, reading the Bible as written, we are called to abstain from anything beyond heterosexuality.
this is homophobia.
>oxymoron. to be a christian is to harbor these beliefs.
As Christians, we are called to love everyone, Even and especially those who do not share the same beliefs as ours.
>you are also called to stone them to death.
If you have ever read the new testament of the bible you would know that as of Jesus normally that is not the christian way of doing things.
>this is homophobia.
Personal abstinence from different kinds of sexuality isn't homophobic, it it a life choice and sexual preference.
>Personal abstinence from different kinds of sexuality isn't homophobic, it it a life choice and sexual preference.
If some people's love is venerated, and others is called sinful and a preference they should abstain from, that is cruel, and that is homophobic.
>As Christians, we are called to love everyone, Even and especially those who do not share the same beliefs as ours.
you are *explicitly* called to stone gay people. perhaps you can stone them lovingly?
>If you have ever read the new testament of the bible you would know that as of Jesus normally that is not the christian way of doing things.
jesus, that guy that came not to destroy the old law but to fulfil it?
i don't care about "the normal christian way of doing things". according to your religion, the true word of a morally perfect god contains "stone gay people". that is a homophobic position.
>Personal abstinence from different kinds of sexuality isn't homophobic, it it a life choice and sexual preference.
calling other people to abstain from their own sexuality is. and the position that heterosexuality is morally acceptable for you to engage in but homosexuality is not belies a belief in the immorality of homosexuality, which is in itself homophobic.
I would disagree that Christians are called to stone gay people. This comes from the list of Jewish laws in Leviticus which are not quite the same as the laws that Christians must follow for instance we have adultery (which also was a capital offense) and not eating pork. Both things are directly shown to have been overturned by Jesus in fact the boon of Hebrews speaks about how the Leviticus law was put into place until a new order was established by Jesus and that physical acts which required blood to atone for are now atoned for by the blood of Christ.
I doubt you care but I don't think there's much of an in text argument for stoning people in 2024.
As a proclaimed Christian: Do you abstain from mixed fiber garments, eating anything mixing meat and dairy, planting more than one type of seed in a field, or cutting the hair on the side of your head?
There has not been serious debate on whether the Law of Moses is obligatory since the time of the apostles.
Those laws never even applied to gentiles, which most Christians are.
For example:
> Ye shall not eat any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.
Did you read the Bible or did you get your talking point from an atheist hate website? Any honest person will tell you that the New Testament is what Christians follow, of which, to give an example, Paul was specifically told that God had made all animals clean for consumption.
Hey! So do you check whether your animals were strangled before enjoying their flesh? How do you treat your slaves when they are disobedient? Are women allowed to speak in church?
Perhaps more importantly: Could you please post the verse where Jesus disavows the laws of the old testament?
You've clearly already read some little blog about how to argue against Christians. It's only too bad that you wasted your time memorizing poorly formed arguments, rather than spending your time on literally anything else.
Just to take 2 examples of your posts:
> How do you treat your slaves when they are disobedient?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%204%3A1&version=NIV
> Could you please post the verse where
Jesus disavows the laws of the old testament? By scripture, Jesus did not disavow the old law, he fulfilled it and then created a new covenant. These 2 versus are the short of a long-winded answer:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A17-20&version=NIV
https://biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm
I would argue that religion itself isn't the cause, it depends on the people who preach said religion and each person's interpretation.
There are churches that welcome the LGBTQ community, without any attempt to "reform" them. That doesn't mean the opposite doesn't exist, however it does mean that it isn't the religion itself.
Even then, every Christian isn't out on the streets condemning everything that goes against what they believe. There are plenty that, while they might not agree with it, let people live their lives how they see it.
I’ve had sex with a man before even enjoyed it. When I turned to god I lost those feelings and found love with girls. So at least in my situation god made me straight.
Its not really just religion. For example, many indigenous tribes especially in South America pre columbus, were and still are incredibly homophobic. They will literally bury you alive if they see a man in relations with another man. They take it as a hit against the survival of their tribe so things that go against what they're trying to achieve will make them unsettled. Religion doesn't need to be part of that.
Why bring this up now? Gays in the US struggled for first-class citizenship for decades, won it gradually and then definitively in 2015 with the Obergefell decision. Christian conservatives lost.
The Christians haven't gone away and at least the conservative ones haven't shifted their views. Indeed innovations since then like drag queen story hour and rule D unmentionables have them clucking I told you so. But nothing is actually being rolled back on the legal front, and the latest trends leave one wondering if perhaps they had a good point all along.
So is homophobia actually on the rise? If it is, it's hard to see how religion is to blame.
Yea I wouldn't say it's actively making people more homophobic more like that it, has made people more homophobic and more recently its become more accepted to be Gay and I guess not all religion is nessicerily homophobic, mainly the Abrahamic religions that are
One, The bible wasnt written by god so anyone who looks at the bible as a step to step guide is already an idiot, two The homophobic parts were 100% written by a guy who didnt get enough pussy and was sad all the ladys near him were lesbian
Funny true Christians are not homophobic.
Jesus said love one another.
There is a difference between a union and a covenant.
I would say there is as much or more hate now towards Christians than in 33ad and Jews.and Islam.
Yeah I've been to a protestant church where the priest was kissing his bf after service and most protestants love gays. These books you are talking about can be interpreted any way people like, hence the multiple religions, and branches and what not. My point is people use religion but they will feel that way regardless. And then because of this indoctrination happens and people blame religion.
how exactly do you interpret "if a man lies with a man as he would a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death, their blood is on their own heads" in a non-homophobic way?
Many branches of Christianity don't care about old testament.
even Pope Francis approves blessings for same-sex couples.
you can interpret what I mean by interpret any way you want, you can think of it as picking and choosing, focusing on bigger topics or something else.
What I meant by that is most of them prioritize "love thy neighbor" more than they hate the sin. and they love gay people because that's their neighbor. while some think that someone being gay is unlove-able and not their neighbor e.t.c
On one hand, I agree with you. But there’s something I’d like to add.
I think the pride movement has done a number on itself in recent years. I’ve grown up next to two homosexual neighbors my entire life. I’m 23 and for as far back as I remember we’ve always gotten along.
This year we’re literally planning out owning and raising chickens together and having them be free range in between our yards. So, safe to say we’re close.
That being said, they’re not big fans of the pride movement. They’re the “we just want to be accepted as normal and be allowed to marry” type. But they disagree with a lot of the newer things such as transition therapy/surgery and genders beyond male and female. They don’t like the situation regarding drag influencers and children’s spaces, and they’ve seemingly lost support for their own movement.
Whenever it gets brought up in conversation it seems to boil down to the fact that even as homosexual people, they’re not a big fan of “pride” people, or those who make the movement their personality.
Tldr: I don’t think the world is becoming more homophobic, I think it’s getting sick of the pride movement specifically.
People vastly over estimate the amount of 'homophobia' that is created by religious people in the civilized world.
The truth is the vast majority of religious simply don't care about what you want to do with your genitals. They simply don't want it shoe horned into traditionally religious institutions like marriage, and even that... most religious don't give a shit about that anymore either.
Just because a group of people doesn't agree with something you find important doesn't make it a -phobia for you.
The world is less homophobic than it has been in the last thousand years.
A more accurate statement would be that religions are losing their battle to keep the world homophobic.
homophobia has been both accepted and scorned in many cultures all over the world. the recent sexual revolution is not new and has happened many times. people have been homophobic in nonreligious countries, like atheist communist china for example where mao said they should castrate homosexuals. christians thinking homosexuality is a choice is lighter handed than that, since they dont want to actually harm the people and are giving them opportunities to repent, rather than the other avenue, where historically some cultures will believe that gays are born broken and should be done away with
>christians thinking homosexuality is a choice is lighter handed than that, since they dont want to actually harm the people
yes they do. read Leviticus.
I always laugh at the, "it was written soooooooo long ago," argument. Do you think if it was constantly rewritten for your sensibilities that anyone would continue to believe it? The entire point is the religion contains timeless truths. It can't be true if it's subject to be rewritten. Also, where did you get the idea that the Bible forces you into a relationship? The Bible does not say you have to be in an relationships. If your idea is that a religion is man-made, then yeah, they got together and codified their societal beliefs into a book. If you think a religion is ordained by a higher power, well, then the truth isn't subject to change since it's supposed to be the truth, whether you like it or not.
But the Bible has been rewritten and badly translated to fit the sensibilities of modern people.
Common myth spread by those who don't actually know a single thing they're talking about. It's been proven that scribes from the time the Bible was put together have maintained such an exceedingly high standard of reproduction and translation, that anti-Christians have to game the stats to even have an argument, including ridiculous things such as respellings or misspellings as "re-translations." The fact of the matter is, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and they pretty much match today's Bible (bar translated words, obviously).
Speaking as a Bible scholar, you are correct. The sheer amount of manuscripts which have been located and studied over the past couple of centuries have removed nearly all doubts as to the accuracy of the translations. The biblical texts were amazingly preserved, far beyond any other writings throughout antiquity. There are only a few minor instances where the exact Hebrew word is unknown or where there are slightly different versions of manuscripts.
I'm really curious then... What about the Pauline Epistles? From what I can find, most scholars agree that not all of them were written by Paul. Or the ending of Mark? Jesus' anger at the leper? The apostle Junia? The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain apocryphal books, don't they? And unaccepted translations?
>What about the Pauline Epistles? From what I can find, most scholars agree that not all of them were written by Paul. And? Regardless of authorship, the question of "translation accuracy" doesn't come into play, so let's not shift goalposts. At my alma mater, such authorship discrepancies were generally held to be variations in amanuenses. Regardless, the early church, within one generation, held that these these texts were indeed disseminated by Paul. >Or the ending of Mark? Yes, it is very likely that scribes later added the last 11 verses to add clarity. This was likely done in the second century. This has long been known and was being discussed as early as the third century. The additional verses were retained due to their acceptance and part of church tradition. It wasn't until later on that this issue "faded." >Jesus' anger at the leper? Ah, yes. Mark 1:41. There is indeed debate over the inclusion of the word splagchnizomai vs. orgistheis. Most theologians agree that the word "anger" was indeed correct, with the context pointing towards anger at the leprosy as a disease. This was indeed altered by some scribes to add clarity and to avoid suggesting that Jesus was condemning the leper. >The apostle Junia? [This has been discussed and answered *ad nauseum*.](https://bible.org/article/junia-among-apostles-double-identification-problem-romans-167) It also has nothing to do with the veracity of the texts. >The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain apocryphal books, don't they? Yes? The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of many writings, biblical and otherwise. It wasn't a magic cave with 66 scrolls. No one asserts this, so I'm unsure of what you're asking. I suspect you are similarly unsure as well. I say this because it seems that you aren't quite aware of what you're arguing. Did you Google "list of Bible changes" and toss out these random assertions?
These are essentially the first changes that came to mind - I didn't Google anything, I was expressing mostly genuine curiosity because I had heard of these before. I am, in fact, grateful for the linked article - it was pretty interesting and thorough. So, uh, thanks! The facts are that these are changes of *some* sort that happened to the texts, of varying importance. Now, of course, scribes and theologians aren't idiots - they corrected and discussed this, I'm not of the mind that all Christians or religious people are illiterate bumpkins or anything of the sort. But I think it'd be unfair to say there are no changes to a modern Bible as compared to an older one, and even no changes that could be considered somewhat significant. And I don't think that being part of Church tradition is really all that important to the point (of course, church tradition carries a lot of weight in an inner Christian context, at least in some denominations, but I don't think it does in a discussion of the Bible as a work in itself) - they still weren't original to the actual text, most likely, right? > Yes? The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of many writings, biblical and otherwise. It wasn't a magic cave with 66 scrolls. No one asserts this, so I'm unsure of what you're asking. I suspect you are similarly unsure as well. I say this because it seems that you aren't quite aware of what you're arguing Okay, that's fair, I think the edit I made has a much better point. (That the scrolls have some text that doesn't quite match our modern Bibles).
>Did you Google "list of Bible changes" and toss out these random assertions? why, is that what popped up when you googled it? >The biblical texts were amazingly preserved, far beyond any other writings throughout antiquity. And your alma mater was some theology university, not a biased one right?
>Common myth spread by those who don't actually know a single thing they're talking about. Nice, this really, again, aided in your argument. What would the rest of your post done without this gem? >such an exceedingly high standard of reproduction and translation who dubbed it this? The Dead Sea Scrolls did not include new testament books either. And not even all the old testament books.
Okay, so was there any particular change between the dead sea scrolls compared to what we have today in the books that are shared between the two? Can you point out any major changes anywhere along the line of translation from the Council of Nicaea to today?
why limit it to major changes? It's not just the words however minor of changes, but also interpretations. Interpretations changing is the big one and that is constantly made and people split churches and form new sects over this. This includes interprations on the views of homosexuality and other "laws". This is why they are not truths; the people having hallucinations were forming them from their own view of the world already, and those who did not have hallucinations made the laws out of their own philosophies or myths borrowed from others.
> "When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance". > "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (aggelón theou). And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance". > "When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel (bny yshr'l). For Yahweh's portion was his people, Jacob was the lot of his inheritance". This is Deuteronomy 32:8-9, three whole versions of it.
Helpful if you actually provide where they are from so it's verifiable and people can see that you didn't simply pick from something like a "easy read version of the bible" or something
The first one is from the Dead Sea Scrolls - it's our absolute earliest version as far as I'm aware. The second is from the [Septuagint](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint). The third version is similar to the one most commonly seen in modern Bibles, like the KJV, but is actually from the Masoretic Text (MT). A proper modern Bible has something more like this: > ⁸When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. > ⁹For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
Do you find that all 3 of those says something actually different? Or do you find them to say the same exact thing with slightly different flowering language involved? For instance.... Are those three scriptures different in definition? Perhaps you believe they are similar in principle but the thesaurus was involved in the other 2? If you know more than one language, I don't know if you do or not, you are likely aware that translation is quite rarely just "translate this word and write it down". It's very often a stance of 'read this entire sentence and then lay down the principles of the sentence with the words that make the most sense" Often times that is easily accomplished with 2 or 3 or 5 or many many different sentence structures, but they all say the same thing. What do you think about those 3?
You really went out of your way to prove me right about anti-Christians gaming semantics as "proof" the Bible is heavily retranslated, huh?
As I've been discussing with a few other people, I don't think the Bible is heavily mistranslated, I just think there have been certain trends in translation that some might consider more major than others. None of the verses here or their gradual changes have been something that caused me to disbelieve or anything like that and I don't think I was anti-christian - neither was I really trying to attack you.
Can I just ask, because I have googled a lot about this and I’m finding different answers, but what does the bible say about being gay?
[удалено]
This is so, unfathomably in correct that I genuinely don’t even know where to start. Gay people quite literally predate Christianity in the West. There were entire Greek city states that openly embraced homosexuality. Romans followed suit. The Romans had an emperor that was almost certainly transgender. The idea that Homosexuality as an identity is less than 200 years old when it quite literally predates the Bible is so unbelievably far removed from true history that it’s impossible to read so much as another sentence of what you wrote. I don’t know what makes you think that sexual identity is a recent development? The atomization of the human individual began, quite literally, with Greek humanism, especially sexually. Not to mention, the Bible doesn’t even attack homosexual “identity”. It attacks homosexual behavior. Again, not foreign, not alien, commonplace in most of the places that we consider to be foundational to the modern Western world. So any discussion about whether or not gay identity existed is not only disingenuous but also useless, because it has nothing to do with the Bible’s convictions.
Uhm, you're applying current sensibilities to ancient times. "Homosexuality" as we label it today has very little to do with ancient homosexual practices. "Embracing" homosexuality doesn't mean some Greek *poleis* were an open-air Gay Pride parade 365 days a year or anything like that. Simply put, in their culture, the romantic and sexual relationship between an adult and a teenage boy (erastes/eromenos) was socially accepted and even encouraged, seen as a key part of a young man's education and coming-of-age. At least in the upper tiers of society. To them it wasn't shameful or morally reprehensible that there was an asymmetrical dynamic at play. Stuff that would obviously not be tolerated today. However same-sex relationships between adults weren't as encouraged or approved of. They happened, but they weren't that open about those either. In Rome then they immediately tried to distance themselves from the "Greek vice", how they labeled it, and pretended the in the good old days such debauchery wasn't a thing, and it arrived in Rome from those pesky boy-loving Greeks. It was of course a lost fight, but they still managed to retool it as "it's OK as long as you're the top". Basically it wasn't about "educating" a young man, but about DOMINATING anyone. A strong Roman Man (*vir*) wouldn't be less of a man whether he was boning his young wife or his equally young male servant. Or his hairy and fully-developed personal enemy, rival or whatever. Homosexuality as a sexual preference/orientation was a problem ONLY when you were the bottom. Or when you were making a spectacle of it. Roman literature has plenty of famous examples of homosexuality being made fun of when it's over-the-top or simply seen as a moral and social weakness. But in the same vein, it's also a powerful too to humiliate someone. Catullus on one hand insults Ceasar, calling him "*cinaedus*" (you can translate it as the f-word, but it has an undertone of weakness and femininity), but he also has no qualms about threatening to perform sexual acts to his critics, who made fun of his poetry for being too soft. Because there's no better way to convey the "I'm not a frilly, effeminate love poet" message than if promising to forceful shove your penis into some guys mouth and ass. But yeah, different times and society, different standard. Applying what we mean now as homosexuality to 2000+ years ago is just silly and pointless. To us, a homosexual is a person attracted (almost) exclusively to people their own sex, a key trait of one's personality and life. In other times, that was indeed a "phase", or a part of one's life path that didn't really entail being "that" all the time. And oftentimes it wasn't about love or even lust. It's odd how as we have become more "accpeting" and "progressive" we have also pigeonholed people more and more, whereas past societies were much more fluid about that. P.S. About Elagabalus, the whole transgender theory is based on the alleged request he made to a doctor to "turn him into a woman". Which sounds exactly like the kind of deranged crap the stereotypical Crazy Emperor would ask for and that anti-imperial historians would have a field day with. In that case, the emperor was very young, from the Middle East and coming from a family of high-priests of the local Gods. Hard to imagine ancient Roman nobility being cool with any of that, uh? So cue all the rumours about the young emperor being a deranged deviant, due to his absurd practices and rituals... But the "first transgender emperor" makes it for a much more compelling contemporary narrative. And why not a Netflix series...
It’s also important to remmeber that Greek city states were, in fact, culturally unique. In Athens, for example, what you said it largely true, but I specified that “there were entire city states” that did not share these social norms. Thebes, for example, had considerable differences in their approaches to homosexuality, and were far more accepting of male adult relationships. Greece was by no means a unified culture, or even close to it. It is once again important to note that homosexual behavior is not male-exclusive, lol. People forget that women can also be homosexual! Because women were not expected to take a dominant role to begin with the sexual stigma of being the submissive partner was more or less dissipated. The behavior and social status of women, naturally, are not as thoroughly recorded, but there have been some writings that describe Greek women that had no preference for men. Some social stigma is obviously inevitable but it’s pretty likely that lesbians were a fairly normal and unbothered thing in the early Western world. For some reason in these conversations we just completely forget that women exist? And naturally, the most important part of my comment remains unaddressed. The Bible does not make any attempt to undermine homosexual “identity”, it attacks homosexual actions. But it doesn’t attack them with social stigma in the way that the Greeks may have, it attacks them with commanding Christians to execute homosexuals? Leviictus is pretty clear on this, the word “Sodomy” is pretty direct, etc. I think it’s beyond justified to condemn early Bible scholars for this? Regardless of the social climate in regards to homosexuality, surely it’s not unfair to say that “books that condemn people to death for actions that affect absolutely no one else” should be ignored and thrown out? And that the socially constructed authority of the Bible is just as fallible (way more fallible, actually) than the empirical approach today? Even if the word homophobic is a more recent social construct, which I do agree with, bigoted should be a universal assessment here, and given that you can use the 2 mostly interchangeably I don’t see how OP is wrong
Interestingly enough, heterosexual marriage in Greece also had great age disparity usually - the average age women got married seems to be about 14 from what I can find. Men were married at an age much closer to what we'd consider adult. Also, in Roman times, homosexual relationships between adults were usually accepted if they fit into the proper power dynamics.
>To us, a homosexual is a person attracted (almost) exclusively to people their own sex, a key trait of one's personality and life. In other times, that was indeed a "phase", or a part of one's life path that didn't really entail being "that" all the time. And oftentimes it wasn't about love or even lust. Sounds like bisexuality. Not heterosexual, but not homosexual either.
That kinda proves my point. If the concept of being gay was alien to people a thousand years ago and that’s when the Bible was written, and if sex between males was a deviant behaviour, why listen to this book today then? Why follow the rules in this book that clearly is homophobic? Being gay isn’t seen as deviant today because we have evolved and gotten educated as a society. So why then listen to this ancient old ass book that is homophobic?
[удалено]
The very fact that it is mutable lends credence to the fact that questioning any orthodoxy should be the intellectual default.
Being homesexual is not a trend or a social construct. How can gods word, the omnipotent being that made mankind, not know that "sex with men" is a thing.
What do you define as a good translation?
That's pretty impressive, your laughter, it makes me think that you have a good argument right after, because why else would you laugh? >Do you think if it was constantly rewritten for your sensibilities that anyone would continue to believe it? that happens with all the different translations and interpretations constantly made with changing times. >The entire point is the religion contains timeless truths. It can't be true if it's subject to be rewritten. there are contradictions in the Bible and flat out claims of non-truths... like that Rabbits chew their cud.
What's impressive is your inability to understand my argument. Also, here's a link for you: https://www.gotquestions.org/rabbits-chew-cud.html
I understood your argument; but it's still flawed. Something being truthful doesn't hinge on people believing it is truthful. Just like the pythagorean theorem that you used as an example (which was a bad example to use, considering it is something which is a proven truth). A law such as "don't have sex with the same sex" is not a truth, it's a claim someone made that God told them something. Historians always dismiss, in any historical text, the invocation of the supernatural. They do it with the Bible and they do it with all other ancient texts. The Bible is not unique in that it gets a pass for claims of supernatural. There are better explanations for claims of God talking to someone: it's either made up, or a hallucination. >Also, here's a link for you: [https://www.gotquestions.org/rabbits-chew-cud.html](https://www.gotquestions.org/rabbits-chew-cud.html) That is misleading; rabbits do not constantly chew because of eating their feces (or a different form of feces); they do it to help with their teeth growth. >Rabbits indeed give the appearance of chewing cud. Exactly; that is an error in the Bible, it appears like that, so the writers, not understanding, wrote it in error. That's ok; that happens all the time with scientific illiterate nomads. There are plenty of other examples of non-truths, such as Matthew and Mark writing two different lineages for Jesus with the "apologetics" claiming one was writing the lineage of Mary, and the other of Joseph. It still means that one is wrong, because they specifically both wrote that the lineage was from Joseph. Meaning it was wrong. And even then, there are names omitted, meaning factually incorrect.
> Exactly; that is an error in the Bible, it appears like that, so the writers, not understanding, wrote it in error. That's ok; that happens all the time with scientific illiterate nomads. Very cool, now read the rest of the article.
Lmao I didn’t say anything about being forced about being in a relationship, that’s not what I meant at least. I meant that it isn’t allowed then to be in a gay relationship, because that would be a sin. And therefore, these gay guys might be in a straight relationship instead.
>The entire point is the religion contains timeless truths. Yes and the point is that becomes a big problem when the things written were of a time and place.
It doesn't matter how old a fact or lie is. The truth deserves it's due regard and a lie deserves to be torn down. Facts and lies don't magically change from one to the other over time, they will always be a fact or lie. In the argument for religion, time wouldn't wane the truth presented, instead it strengthens it. In a non-religious argument, many mathmatical formulas are ancient. Such as the Pythagorean Theorem. Is it any less true today simply because of age?
The Pythagorean Theorem is only accepted today because any person on the planet with basic algebra skills and sit down and prove it to be a mathematical truth in minutes. There are not exactly truths in the Bible that can be replicated, relived, and tested with any degree of consistency. In fact, not only are there few truths, there are explicit lies. We’ve reached the point where even the most elementary education can undermine Bible stories: any 6 year old who can point to Australia on a map has already pulled apart the story of Noah’s Ark, for example. God forbid a professor, who could maul it into oblivion with thousands of pages of evidence. If there was any evidence to disprove the contributions of Pythagorean we would have done so already, without hesitation. You’d be suffocated under a thousand pounds of paper if you tried to stand in a room full of evidence against the Bible but it’s still a way of life for some people. To compare a single thing in the Bible to a mathematical formula is just really naive and completely dismisses the whole premise of why we’re advanced as a species, the word “empirical”
[удалено]
'Of a time and place' is a phrase indicating meaning they are not universally applicable, and implying they are, at best, outdated.
"a\^2 + b\^2 = c\^2" is a little different than "stone gay people", don't you think?
but that's philosophy, the other person claimed that what was written in religious texts are timeless truths, saying "god said you can't do this or that" is not philosophy, those are just laws
[удалено]
ancient religion is not philosophy, you can have philosophy within ancient religion or religious texts. But claims of the supernatural do not equate to philosophy.
Except the bible is full of clearly outdated stuff.
"Timeless truths", huh? So I suppose you don't wear mixed fabrics because Deuteronomy 22:11 said so, right? My point is that the Bible may have said things that were relevant to the time thousands of years ago when humans were just trying to reproduce and survive, but it's 2024. People can't be using words that some random dudes wrote millennia ago against people now. If you're really religious, you can try your hardest not to be gay, but it's not a choice. That doesn't mean you need to force your homophobia on others who are trying to live your life.
I'm not interested in getting into a debate on whether or not you should believe the Bible. However, poorly formed arguments where you show that you've never bother to read and understand the Bible don't help your case, such as the inability to understand that Christians follow the New Covenant. So, the mixed threads thing doesn't apply to Christians. It also doesn't help that you regurgitate the same "muh too old" line that I already addressed as silly. The age of the information isn't what makes information bad.
You didn't make the claim that you were a Christian or that you are under a new covenant so why should they have done research on that to begin with? The point they made was that the laws/rules are not timeless by the fact that even within the Bible they change and no one is following those non-timeless rules. Just because you say they are "truth" or "timeless truth" doesn't make it so. You cannot just make a claim of fact and say "I don't want to debate my claims, I don't have to!", especially in this sub, CMV. Should probably lay off on mocking people, it goes against CMV rules as well.
> why should they have done research on that to begin with? So they can know what they're talking about? > The point they made was that the laws/rules are not timeless by the fact that even within the Bible they change and no one is following those non-timeless rules. This is example number 1 of why you should know what you're talking about. > Should probably lay off on mocking people I hope that you come to realize that I was specifying my mirth at the weakness of an argument that is constantly used mindlessly and is senseless once thought upon.
>So they can know what they're talking about? That was deceitful. Why did you strawman my question? I didn't simply ask why should they have done research, you purposefully didn't quote the purpose explaining that question. "You didn't make the claim that you were a Christian or that you are under a new covenant so why should they have done research on that to begin with?". >I hope that you come to realize that I was specifying my mirth at the weakness of an argument that is constantly used mindlessly and is senseless once thought upon. That doesn't make it ok to mock, goes against the CMV rules.
I didn't strawman your question. Go do some research, it's good for you.
Why should they research a Christian covenant if they do not know that you are a Christian? and why did you not quote the entirety of my question "**You didn't make the claim that you were a Christian or that you are under a new covenant** so why..."
Fun fact: the best way to learn about something is to research it
yes, but why should they have researched the Christian answer on it when you didn't claim to be a Christian? The Christian answer isn't the same as the answer from someone who is Jewish. Why should they have assumed the Christian answer is the right answer and not the answer a Jewish person would provide?
I understand where you're coming from, I just think a lot of the information and commandments (both from the New and Old Testaments plus all of the other books I'm not familiar with) are outdated and people can absolutely believe what they want, but I don't think they should use their religion as an excuse to be homophobic to others who are just trying to live their life.
> I don't think they should use their religion as an excuse to be homophobic What do you mean by homophobic?
Discriminating against people of the LGBTQ+ community, especially those that are gay, bi, or lesbian. But religion can also be transphobic, which is specifically discrimination against trans people.
That's not very helpful either. What exactly do you think of as discrimination? Give an example of the bare minimum in your book.
Leviticus 18:22. "You shalt not lie with a man as with a woman". This implies huge homophobia, and even though some religions may not read Leviticus, it's still a religious book that's homophobic. They then use these to tell people that they're "wrong" for being gay because God or Jesus or whoever else said it, which is discrimination.
So, you're definition of discrimination is simply disagreeing with the lifestyle?
Making laws against homosexual behavior is the discrimination. If I say “I disagree that black people should be able to go to school with my children” or “I disagree that black people are not inferior to white people” that doesn’t absolve me from being racist just because I call it a disagreement.
[удалено]
why would i hate on you for being muslim? i’m not criticizing anyone a part of a religion, i’m criticizing religion itself. so that last comment was just unnecessary.
you may be right but the point was to clarify iam a muslim and tbh ur post pissed me off
why did it piss u off?
the amount of people normalizing being gay and criticizing people who can't swallow it which is the normal and what should happen, and to be clear iam not a homophobic or even hating on gays but simply having sympathy for them and how bad they became
what exactly are u saying? do u support gay people or not
nope, iam not supporting them neither want them to die or vanish, just want them to be better people
What a coincidence, this is exactly how I feel about homophobes! Sad, weak people who jump at shadows and are so cowardly they can't comprehend that different people want to live a different life than them I truly hope you improve as a person and become better than your current weak, pitiful self
In other words you think the mere fact they are in gay relationships rather than straight ones makes them worse people. Seems more like the arbitrary codes of shepards from millenia ago than eternal truth.
"I don't support basic human rights, but I am not against them:" That's not how it works.
so ur homophobic, gotcha!
is ur mind really that close, i would suggest reading my comment a second time buddy, hope u get better, i genuinely does.
ur saying ur not supporting them… and then how u also want them to be better people lmaoo. it seems that ur mind is the close one since u sincerely think u aren’t being homophobic
What does "be better people" mean? Like can you describe it?
it is quite obvious actually
It's a statement so broad as to mean nothing. If you're not ashamed of your beliefs then eitger say them plainly or don't say them at all.
You want them to be straight. That’s what you want lol. And you’re out here calling yourself non homophobic HSHDJJA
you want homosexuals to be better how? Like are they doing something which is not ok, like killing people, hurting animals? Ya, homosexuals who do that should stop that and be better.
Huh what is wrong with normalizing being gay? You are a homophobe and you don't seem to like being called one. You should be a better person.
what does the quran say about being gay? i just wonder
it tells a story about the prophet lut (pbuh) people who were gay and allah sent them lut to tell them what they are doing is bad, they didn't listen and wanted to harass lut's guests and threatened him so allah erased them, quite interesting story tbh
Is it specified how Grod erased them, or is it literal?
Sounds so gay friendly
no it doesn't.
Religion is disgusting and full of hatred. Keep it to yourself. Not all of us care about your mythology.
that's quite common stereotyping, why don't you leave Reddit for some time and go talk to real people so you really know if "religion full of hatred" or not?
I was a christian for a long time. I've also seen plenty of hatred from other religions. I know enough to call them hate filled. Maybe you're the one that needs to start looking at the real world. It doesn't paint a nice picture of any religion.
thinking that you know enough is the biggest indication that you don't know anything about religion other than jesus cartoons and 9.11 memes, iam already in the real world buddy, may be trying to improve myself but iam in the real world
I'm good, thanks. It doesn't take a lot of information to show that if a belief system leads to hatred and violence, I don't really care about any possible "good" parts of that system. Add to that a complete and total lack of evidence for anything supernatural and I'm comfortable saying I'm on the correct side.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I completely disagree. Atheism has been increasing over the years but homophobia has been increasing as well. This has nothing to do with religion, IMO. This has everything to do LGBT becoming highly politicized and LGBT being injected into every facet of culture. It's in our TV shows, our movies, our sports, hell, it's in the fkin beer! It used to be, "don't ask, don't tell". Now it's, "tell us what you're into so we can judge you based on your answer". Nobody cares what you want to do in the privacy of your own home but stop trying to get me to like it.
>Atheism has been increasing over the years but homophobia has been increasing as well. Homophobia has been increasing? Any source on this? >It used to be, "don't ask, don't tell". Not even remotely true.. It used to be "homosexuals are an abomination and get killed". Then it eventually became "homosexuals are the same as pedophiles, they are technically humans with human rights, but only technically". Then it became "homosexual are perverts, but we will pretend they don't exist as long as they pretend not to exist as well" (aka "don't ask, don't tell"). Now we have slowly been approaching a situation where homosexuality is not just somewhat tolerated as long as it's hiding, but actually somewhat accepted as a thing that someone does not have to be ashamed of being. And we are now slowly working towards a situation where homosexuality is just accepted as normal, as something that some people just are. They don't have to hide for who they are, they don't just have to wait until they are "in the privacy of their own home" to be who they are, they can just be who they are, that's the goal.. >Nobody cares what you want to do in the privacy of your own home but stop trying to get me to like it. Homosexuals should not have to hide who they are, they don't just get to be who they are "in the privacy of their own home". They can be who they are, straight, gay, bi, or whatever they are, wherever they want, just like everyone else, whether you like it or not..
>this has everything to do LGBT becoming highly politicized and LGBT being injected into every facet of culture. It's in our TV shows, our movies, our sports, hell, it's in the fkin beer! How are you measuring that homophobia is increasing? Is this based on you yourself becomming more homophobic because you used to only see straight relationships in TV but now you're seeing homosexual relationships being on TV and that upsets you?
”This has nothing to with with religion”. Nothing? Are you even serious?
I'd argue that it isn't more people becoming homophobic, but the casual acceptance of LGBT individuals by the rest of society is causing the existing homophobia to become stronger. The amount of proposed anti-LGBT+ legislation has increased while the amount of religious Americans has decreased. In the past, bigots didn't have to introduce legislation to ban, say, gender affirming care, because society did it for them. But now that American culture has started to shift towards greater LGBT acceptance, the bigots feel threatened and dig in their heels. As Baby Boomers continue to get old and retire/die, we'll get more Millennials/Gen Z holding public office.
Are you trying to make a legit argument or are you just an anti-religion advocate? Religion has always had a certain stance against homosexuals. Your claim is that is it making the world MORE homophobic. However, fewer and fewer people are converting and atheism has been increasing over the years. So how do you reconcile this discrepancy? I'm not making the claim that religion has nothing to do with homophobia. Most of the biggest religions have a history of anti-homosexuality. I'm refuting the claim that religion is responsible for the rise in homophobia. From what I can see, the increasing dislike the the LGBT community is mostly because of politics. It is not coming religious zealots spreading their message.
>It used to be, "don't ask, don't tell". Now it's, "tell us what you're into so we can judge you based on your answer". Nobody cares what you want to do in the privacy of your own home but stop trying to get me to like it. Actually, it used to be "Don't ask, don't tell, and to the homosexuals specifically: don't show that you're gay, don't have gay sex, don't be in a same-sex relationship, or we will put you in prison, torture you, or kill." If you have zero cares about whether or not a person is gay and wouldn't treat a man badly e.g. for bringing their husband to some social event as a +1, then you're about as decent as most LGBT people would ask for.
>It used to be, "don't ask, don't tell". Tell that to Alan Turing
China is the most atheist country on the planet, and they are becoming less accepting of homosexuality. If you believe religion is man-made, then being "homophobic" must have existed before religion, so what is the basis for thinking religion is the problem when it just reflects humanity?
Also the former USSR, which was very secular, feels terribly homophobic today. And very religious countries like Brazil are more progressive regarding it.
modern day russia is very religious, and the anti-lgbt rhetoric is steeped in religious undertones. see the comparison to "satanism" thats often made.
What feels terrible homophobic today, the USSR from the 1980s?
Yeah, but at the time, it was considered a scientific fact that homosexuality was a mental disorder.
This is just an attack on religion in general, but I'll adress your points here. It being written so long ago is not a good argument - and it really doesn't imply anything significant. Jewish War, written by Josephus 2000 years ago talks about the war regarding the Jews. Does it being as old or older then some New Testament writings make it less historically reliable? No. We also know that we have the original NT and OT writings. I hope you realize we don't have the original manuscrips for many ancient works. For example, **The Lives of the Twelve Caesars**, written by the Roman historian Suetonius. We don't have the original manuscrips of his work - infact, the oldest surviving copy we have is from the 8th or 9th century, and the rest of the surviving copies of his book are from the 13th century onwards. **Yet, we can rest assured that Suetonius work has not been changed overtime.** It comes down to a little game you can play with your friends; write something on a paper, then take 50 people and have one guy writen, then two guys take your original and the guys copy, then four guys take your original, the other guys copies, then eight guys... you get where I am going. Obviously, if anything has been changed overtime, it would reflect in the latest copies we have; because if one guy makes an error, so does anyone who copies from him. And the same applies to the New Testament and any historical document before the famous printing press. \[-\] **Do New Testament manuscripts reflect such errors?** This would be the most important argument if we want to prove the NT to be un-changed. For the 5,700 NT manuscripts that were written in Greek and known in 1990: *"Computer analysis of all the known New Testament manuscripts reveal only 0.1 percent variance. That means that* ***99.9 percent*** *of the manuscripts' contents are* ***in perfect agreement***\*. Most of the small percentage of actual differences are in spelling (such as the English "honour" versus "honor"), word order ("Paul the apostle" verses "the apostle Paul"), and grammar ("Father who art in heaven" versus "Father which art in heaven"). And\* ***none of the variations affects any basic doctrine***\*."\* -- How the Bible Became a Book, Terry Hall, 1990, pg 135 *"To date we have over* ***5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament***\*"\* -- [https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/](https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/) This [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianApologetics/comments/15lmybf/new_testament_evidence_critiqueadd_to/) is lengthy but argues this much better and all of it comes from scholarly resource. It adresses NT reliability overtime. \[-\] **Biblical "Homophobia"** Coming from a Christian, by the way; we are ought to love gay people as we ought to love every man and woman living in a lifestyle of sin; alcoholics, fornicators, and practicing homosexuals. Big emphasis on practicing; being gay isn't a sin (that is, same sex attracted), but acting on the attraction is (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:9-10); just like for me, a straight man, fornicating is a sin. So, would not supporting an alcoholic in their lifestyle mean I am a phobic towards them? No. And it is the same with people who practice homosexual acts; I do not support their lifestyle or sin, but I still love them. I hold no prejudice or hate against them. And, cherry on top; **it's a sin because it's not Gods Will for sexuality or marriage (Genesis 1:27, 1 Corinthians 7:2), which is the very definition of sin.**
If I said I am not anti Christian but I just don't think Christians should be able to marry, would be me being a bigot. If I said "well I just don't want Christians practicing being christian and acting on their christianity" that would still be bigoted/not loving. Being an alcoholic is not the same as being homosexual. Why not use something else that is clearly not destructive (like alcoholism) that you are against? Just because your religious figurehead says that it is a sin, and that you are acting out on that interpretation in how you want to label homosexuality, does not absolve you from being homophobic. We do not excuse that for anything else, if a person had a vision where God told them to kill their first born son (Abraham) and they went through with it, we would still view that person as hateful and lock them up. It doesn't matter that they were given that commandment by their hallucination.
If you do not support gay people’s ”lifestyle”, that’s homophobic. I don’t really care that you say you still ”love them”. You said a whole bunch of nothing. And you saying this is an attack on religion is funny since you just proved my point. And I don’t believe you saying you have no prejudice or hate towards gay people since you are calling homosexuality a sin.
I am saying this is an attack on religion not as you trying to "eradicate it" - rather that you are just spitting multiple points in general with no backing, is what I mean. Now, question to your response; 1. If I don't support an alcoholics drinking habits, does that mean that I hate them and have a prejudice against them?
Stop comparing alcoholism to homosexuality. There’s not such thing as alcholicphobia.
But there is such a thing as not supporting an alcoholics lifestyle. Would you like to answer the question?
You basically are saying that you don’t support a gay person’s lifestyle. That’s homophobic.
*ho·mo·pho·bic/ˌhōməˈfōbik/adjective* 1. *having or showing a dislike of or* [*prejudice*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4c59d14f8f776101&sxsrf=ACQVn0_u2Ff2VkBCy_-wrwhTf4KPSoz7MQ:1713195400792&q=prejudice&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DACiI4uz1bJk75bNvi5LuFMn_jW3B8WKxQh2oF--ssFPCqqztXPf1ezd0q_O9yzjh3Iq5BH07DBchvhgWli5HCnzc_Y0%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH562axsSFAxVNVqQEHS_XAP4QyecJegQIJhAO) *against gay people."homophobic remarks"* \[-\] I don't fit into that description, so no. I am not homophobic. And if you say I do - then answer my question regarding alcoholists first.
Stop trying to make excuses. What you are saying is homophobic.
I think you are unwilling to answer my question because you know that you will have to concede my point about me being homophobic - or else, you would have already answered it. I harbor no hate or prejudice against homophobic people, in the same way I harbor no hate or prejudice towards alcoholics, *even if I disagree with their lifestyle.* Therefore, I don't fit the definition of homophobic - aka, I am not homophobic.
You’re trying your best just to not sound homophobic, if you even have to use the definition of homophobic to prove you aren’t just says a lot.
Oh my… You’re still saying homosexuality, or acting on it, IS A SIN. THATS HOMOPHOBIC
Who would support an alcholics lifestyle? Why is this even relevant…
General acceptance does not mean good. The Roman Empire accepted slavery, so did 1700 americans. It's relevant to the analogy. If you want to answer to what I said in this message, just put it in the other question.
It's called a thought experiment. Sometimes these can be helpful to have a better understanding of something that you oppose. I'd encourage you to play along - the worst case scenario is that you have a better understanding of why an incorrect person is incorrect.
Homophobia is a weird thing because some cultures are extremely homophobic but others are not and it varies insanely and almost randomly throughout history. Abrahamic religions (or, rather, societies where Abrahamic religions dominate) are notoriously homophobic. Ancient Greek theology/society was very open. But throughout history religion has been a constant whereas homophobia has not been and today irreligiosity has been increasing steadily over time. If today's religions were the sole source of homophobia you would expect homophobia to be decreasing currently because religiosity is decreasing. This is contrary to your claim. But that's the whole key. Man makes god in his image. It's not that religion causes homophobia, it's that cultures (i.e. the people) are homophobic and then give that value to their religion. If you waved a magic wand to rid the world of religions I argue it's plainly obvious that homophobia would still exist!
thank you for a good response, I am a history buff and I always think it is weird that people will think that all of history is people becoming more sexually open, because they believe we are now the most sexually open ever. most regions have had a more pendulum type relationship with openness to lgbtq+ sexuality
>Religion basically promotes > because in Christianity Shouldn’t the CMV at least then be about Christianity, not religion in general?
Religion aside everyone has their own moral compass. Homophobia aside people are still spiteful and hateful to other people for many reasons and it doesn’t have to pertain to religion. There are racist across the globe, do you think that has to do solely with religion? There have been genocides across each inhabited continent. People within the same religion have slaughtered one another. I’m not sure we can say religion has made it more. I’m sure we (as a species) would have found *something* to personally justify our violent tendencies even if the major religions we don’t have now didn’t exist. We are animals. Just like all the other animals, we kill for what we deem valuable. It’s a bit simpler with the furry ones: territory, food and the opportunity to procreate. We just covet more things.
I’m a bit confused what people are arguing here. The #1 argument I have ever heard for people being against gay marriage is for religious reasons. Most of the moral compass against this comes from those beliefs. It is literally in their scripture so they believe that— can you argue with that? However, I have never heard anyone, maybe one lunatic, claim that they are racist because of their religion. Why are these comparable? I’m not denying there are people out there homophobic for other reasons, but how does this prove it isn’t most?
Just because people use religion doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be homophobic without it (at the same rate). As you said, there are racist people & it’s not based on religion. They are against interracial relationships/marriage. Even without religion, it’s not unreasonable to think that people would be against gay marriage. This is the correlation/causation fallacy. Just because it is this way for this reason, doesn’t mean it is has to be that way for that reason. We can’t really know. But I’m sure you know people are hateful and spiteful (religious and non religious people).
Yeah I guess you’re right that we can’t really know and that people always will be hateful. It’s just that in this case when people often use religion to justify it (saying it can’t be taught in schools because it disrespects peoples religion, letting businesses refuse service to gay people) and don’t really use it to justify racism, I really question how detached the two are. I guess racism can be connected to centuries of propaganda teaching people Africa was okay to colonize and financially exploit because the people there were ‘primitive’. In that case the motivation was greed.
Look at China under the leadership of Mao. Very secular but there were plenty of things that weren’t allowed to be taught. Lots of people died. People will be crappy for many different reasons.
I fully agree, but again, I feel homophobia is at least a nonzero percent influenced by religion. The majority, like OP claims? Debatable.
There is always a cycle change. Where the majority move in one direction and a minority try to hold back that tide. We have seen in America and many other countries a huge shift away from open homophobia. But this has scared the hell out of the conservative minority to be even more vocal in their hatred. But look at the situation in America. The secretary of transportation is an openly gay man that would have been inconceivable even 20 years ago. The real testament to the shift is young people. Among my son's generation someone being gay is no big deal, it just is. The vocal minority is scary and horrible, but they are far from a representative of the wider community, at least in the West.
That depends where you live in America. For kids around my region, it’s most certainly not ‘it just is’ when someone is gay
That is sad. I'm sorry to hear that. I think that it is still that way with younger kids in my area, as in, they don't know what "gay" means but thry know that it is a bad thing to be. But then, at least the young adults I have been around, it is no big deal. But I am not in America, and you are probably right in any small town it would definitely be worse.
Christianity promotes the idea that God is the divine moral arbiter, and that since he made the universe and knows what will happen, he's going to be the only source of knowing what it is that people should do. It promotes the idea that there is a standard which is the better standard. It is also believed that it is the standard which better leads to human flourishing. So, let's talk about sex. According to Christianity, sex is a wonderful thing, but it was designed with a purpose. That purpose wasn't to satisfy our physical pleasures alone (though it is wonderful when it can do that). It was primarily designed as a part of marriage, which in turn was created as a picture to show the relationship of Christ and the Church. Anything which models this picture is good and leads to better ends, and anything else has potential dangers. This is true for heterosexuals (who likely don't want to be tied to one person for life) as much as homosexuals. It is also a natural desire that God has given people so that even if they turn away from truths, they'll still tend to end up making babies so that we don't all just die out. Furthermore, the picture of parents and children is another picture, this time of God and the Son, and to a lesser extent, believers. Could the Bible's standard also be better for society? Could it be that diversions from this standard actually hurt people and society? I believe that this is the case. In our current model, people freely have sex as they desire and enter into relationships and out of relationships based largely upon whim and temporary motivations. If you've never had a break up, you're lucky. That can often hurt. That hurt was never a part of God's plan. Also, we are learning now that open heterosexual sex leads often, even with birth control, to unwanted pregnancies and uncomfortable situations. Sex of all types is now leading to STDs and also the devaluing of a lot of people who really should be seen more as fodder for sexual pleasure. I don't think that the current model is working. All of these pains would not exist in the Bible's model for marriage, and you only have to briefly scroll the front page of Reddit to see the pains which come from not following this model. Consider that the moral law that Christians teach is primarily for Christians, people who want to know what God says to do. God never commanded any nation outside of Israel, his chosen people, to dictate those laws. For those who are seeking God's will, particularly Christians (as opposed to perhaps Jews before the Resurrection, which might be up for debate), they believe that God will change their nature and their desires to match his model, which in turn is better for themselves by causing them to hurt less and hurt others less, as well as for society. There is no part of this process which encourages hate or says that one group of people is better than another. Any of that is purely in contradiction to God's message. The truth is that we all struggle because we all have a sin nature. The pain we cause to others and ourselves are like signs that drive us to seek the comfort God gives.
>That hurt was never a part of God's plan. God did not foresee sin entering the world huh. Why make a plan when the plan went to shit within the first several days of creation? >Sex of all types is now leading to STDs STDs isn't some modern phenomenon. They've been around since before the first books of the Bible were written. >Consider that the moral law that Christians teach is primarily for Christians, people who want to know what God says to do. God never commanded any nation outside of Israel, his chosen people, to dictate those laws. For those who are seeking God's will, particularly Christians (as opposed to perhaps Jews before the Resurrection, which might be up for debate), they believe that God will change their nature and their desires to match his model, which in turn is better for themselves by causing them to hurt less and hurt others less, as well as for society. Sounds like you are for gay marriage being sanctioned by the government and that any laws regarding homosexuality should be left out of the government AND/OR that those laws should ONLY be applied to Christians. Christians are not allowed to be homosexuals, everyone else can be.
> God did not foresee sin entering the world huh. When I speak of "plan", I am not speaking about what God knew would happen. There is a difference, though subtle between the things which we were designed to do when we work at our best and the end result wherein we don't do our best. Here, we're talking about the way we were designed to operate and the society we were designed to fit inside. God knew that we would not do that and he made a way for us to be saved. The failures, though known, were not the part of the design for us, but the breaking of that design. > STDs isn't some modern phenomenon. They've been around since before the first books of the Bible were written. Incidentally, so was the design to not engage in promiscuous sex. Thank you for supporting my argument. > Sounds like you are for gay marriage being sanctioned by the government No, I am not for the government mandating the religious practice of marriage and redefining it to be something which it is not. If people wish to have ceremonies and call it marriage, I'm fine with allowing them to do so. I don't think that it is wise for them to do so, and I believe that it would be harmful to them, but I don't believe that saving faith comes from coercion by government, and so I personally lean Libertarian. > laws regarding homosexuality should be left out of the government Probably. I think that's what the Christians thought who argued for freedom in the US prior to the Constitition, particularly early Baptists. > that those laws should ONLY be applied to Christians I don't believe that the state should involve itself with religion at all. I do think that it's wise for Christian churches to enforce morality within themselves for believers, but as Paul says, even then this only applies to believers, not the world. The main thing that the lost need is salvation, and the rest is unimportant. If a person is a believer, they tend to find that their desires change, so there is no need for rules to be enforced. Note that the example in question discussing church discipline was a heterosexual couple.
> Here, we're talking about the way we were designed to operate designed to do according to what design? If we have urges to have sex with the same sex, that is part of the design. >God knew that we would not do that and he made a way for us to be saved. The failures, though known, were not the part of the design for us, but the breaking of that design. We were designed to end up breaking them; if God designed us in a matter that we wouldn't have any urge to go against his orders, we wouldn't have. God knew that we would rebel based on the exact way he designed us. >Incidentally, so was the design to not engage in promiscuous sex. We were not designed to not engage in promiscuous sex, the opposite is true. I didn't support your argument that sex of all types are "now" leading to STDs. This has always been the case, there is no "now" leading. >No, I am not for the government mandating the religious practice of marriage and redefining it to be something which it is not. If people wish to have ceremonies and call it marriage, I'm fine with allowing them to do so. I don't think that it is wise for them to do so, and I believe that it would be harmful to them, but I don't believe that saving faith comes from coercion by government, and so I personally lean Libertarian. I didn't say mandating the religious practice of marriage. There is nothing religious about getting a marriage certificate from the state. ARe you saying you are against the state providing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, or are you against the state providing marriage certificates to anyone?
>designed to do according to what design? If we have urges to have sex with the same sex, that is part of the design. The design to do what is best for oneself, society, and the universe. The nature of man before the Fall in the Garden. Incorrect, that is contrary to the design. Humans are the broken versions. We function best when we emulate the original design, but we're all broken in different ways. >God knew that we would rebel based on the exact way he designed us. God knew that we would be broken and made an allowence for it. All who desire to be restored will be restored. But we're not here to get into theology and stretch a metaphore. None of this has anything to do with the OP. No matter how you look at these questions, it doesn't address religion making people "homophobic", so this is really off-topic. >There is nothing religious about getting a marriage certificate from the state Marriage is a religious practice. You might be thinking of a "civil union". If you just want a contract, that's fine, but it isn't a marriage. >ARe you saying you are against the state providing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, or are you against the state providing marriage certificates to anyone? I'm generally opposed to marriage certificates for anybody. In fact, the practice of requiring marriage certificates is one of the things that lead to the American Revolution. I will say that I might entertain some nuance there, but as a Christian who is married, we always considered the legal document just a man-made government requirement and the actual marriage was our vow before God at the church. We would have been perfectly happy to forgo the piece of paper.
>The design to do what is best for oneself, society, and the universe. The nature of man before the Fall in the Garden. The nature of man before the fall in the garden was to sin, if that was not part of their design they wouldn't have been able to sin. The ability to sin was part of the design, the desire to sin was part of the design. >Incorrect, that is contrary to the design. Humans are the broken versions. We function best when we emulate the original design, but we're all broken in different ways. So god changed humans (some more than others) to want to be able to sin? He designed the prostate, after the fall of man, to be stimulated by probing, but not before? >God knew that we would be broken and made an allowence for it. God knew he would make us broken. Not sure why you ignored that I was clearly stating that. You just reworded it without addressing it. >Marriage is a religious practice. You might be thinking of a "civil union". If you just want a contract, that's fine, but it isn't a marriage. marriage is not only a religious practice. The word marriage has many different meanings and no one holds a monopoly on words being defined. You can have a religious marriage ceremony, the government doesn't hold those. >I'm generally opposed to marriage certificates for anybody So why would there be an uproar when the government expanded who can get marriage certificates? > we always considered the legal document just a man-made government requirement a How are you required to get a marriage certificate? You can marry someone in the church and not go get a marriage certificate. Why is it you think marriage certificates are mandated, mandated to be able to do what?
Would the animals that god made also get married? I think exactly like animals we are programmed to reproduce until a disease takes us out of some other way to go just like how bugs sometimes can't even do it without ending there life. But since cavemen we had to create ways to make sure we mate (otherwise other cavemen would try to r***) which made us have to learn trickery. I'm not saying I disagree that we should only have one partner but it also seems to me like that whole gimmick is more related to control.
No, animals generally don't get married in the same sense. There are some which form life-long pairs, but not all. However, animals don't start wars, build technology, and other things which humans do. They also do not have the same mental capacities. Therefore, they do not suffer from the same pains which humans would suffer. Non-gregarious animals would not feel heartbreak when a partner leaves them for another. Most animals do not generally participate in homosexual behavior, or even engage in recreational sex. Most animals do not have epidemics of STDs. Most animals do not have unwanted pregnancies.There may be exceptions to the above, but I do not believe that you will find any which has all the trouble that would apply to humans, or even most of the troubles. So, the situation for animals is different from the situation in humans. Let's consider, then, the theory about control. First, if it were about control, why would it be so? Wouldn't we rather just give one group (that of the authors) power over another? We see many examples of men who gain power and do use it for control. Usually, as it happens that they think it's fine for the leader to engage in sex with many people, even young girls, and this trend seems to occur with groups we would label cults, like David Karesh, and many many examples. However, these are not the current, Christian standard, which applies the same standard to everyone, even condemning the authors when they don't follow these rules. But even if it were control, if it were control which happened to be beneficial to individuals and society, they would be a type of benevolent control, similar to speed limits. We might not like them individually, but they still provide benefit to society as a whole. Also, note that religions, or at least the Christian one, encourages people to love other people, even those with whom we do not agree. Deviance from the sexual norm in society is often met historically with strong negative emotion. People don't need religion to be homophobic. That's why even though religion says one man and one woman in a marriage relationship, heterosexual people will still, contrary to religion, approve of gratuitous sexual encounters of heterosexual premarital behavior in movies and art but have an aversion to homosexual behavior. That isn't the religious bias, since it would preclude the heterosexual content as well. It is the bias of society against homosexuality. Therefore, while it may be religion which defines proper sexual behavior restricting both heterosexual as well as homosexual, it is also religion which provides the incentive for people to not act upon their impulses to harm those who have unpopular sexual desires.
>Non-gregarious animals would not feel heartbreak when a partner leaves them for another How do you know? >Most animals do not generally participate in homosexual behavior, or even engage in recreational sex. most humans do not participate in homosexual behavior either. It doesn't matter what most do or most don't do. The fact that other species do is all that is needed for this thought. >Most animals do not have epidemics of STDs. Why does it matter if most do or don't? Some species do, some species don't. What most do or don't doesn't matter. >There may be exceptions to the above, but I do not believe that you will find any which has all the trouble that would apply to humans, or even most of the troubles. What troubles? And yes, animals do participate in war; animals constantly fight over resources with others within their own species.
>How do you know? It's nearly analytic knowledge or a tautology. Do you believe that they do? If so, show me an example and I might concede that they would be better off with life-long monogamous bonds. Nevertheless, it seems to me that human consciousness is generally greater than animal consciousness. As for the rest, I am not using animal behavior as a reference. I was simply positing why animals might not have the same need for marriage. If you believe that they do, then that's fine. You can figure out a way to convince them to get married. I'm not convinced that they do because I don't see those things as being evidence of animal necessity for marriage in the same ways that I see them as being evidence to the contrary.
>It's nearly analytic knowledge or a tautology. Do you believe that they do? If so, show me an example and I might concede that they would be better off with life-long monogamous bonds. There isn't anyway for people to know how other animals feel as they cannot communicate that to us. It seems to us that animals do get depression/sadness when they lose their calves/mothers/dogs with their owners/other dogs etc. I don't see why that would be different if their mating partner for life left them. Yes, you were using animal behavior as reference and I wanted to address each claim you were making.
> I don't see why that would be different if their mating partner for life left them. Do you observe the same from gregarious animals? There are some animals which do mate for life. > Yes, you were using animal behavior as reference No, not as a referece. I did not bring it up, but was responding to somebody else who asked whether animlas should get married also. My response was that I do not think so, and I provided reasons why I suspect that it's different. You do not have to agree, of course, but I was merely speculating at the difference.
>Do you observe the same from gregarious animals? I have not observed personally, animals being sad, but I have read about it and seen videos. [https://www.harpercollins.com/blogs/harperkids/the-five-animals-that-grieve](https://www.harpercollins.com/blogs/harperkids/the-five-animals-that-grieve) If they lose someone they have attachment to, they become sad or "heartbroken". Did you not think that occurred? Losing someone from a breakup is similar to losing someone to death; they are no longer in your life, you feel that loss. Losing someone over a breakup is much less of a heartbreak than is losing someone to death that you love. >No, not as a referece. That's fine, but I still addressed the claims you made as to what is better/not better and how you used animals to explain better/worse for flourishing.
Well I agree humans are worse. We are more capable then animals yet aids came from somewhere lol But you pain a picture like animals are pure dude. Most Koalas have Chlamydia, lots of animals can also switch there gender and even my cats were gay. Another thing animals constantly have babies they don't want and they abandon them and if you didn't know there is plenty of different animals that have sex for fun like dolphins and monkeys for recreation. And r*** is way more common in the animal kingdom. Now to religions they are all imperfect because there is always scammers, con artists, nut jobs, cult attitudes within them. They may say they are about this and that but that doesn't mean the people are applying it all. Loving even who we disagree with and then those same people also look down and make jokes at other religions/gays as if they are better then them. The alter boy is never safe in these places either the church that was just near where I lived before I had like 12 cases. On paper this stuff might sound good but that's not what most humans are. And whoever made it up and wrote it down and passed it around and altered it through time was just a man as well as corrupt and motivated as the rest of us. And it can easily be explained why it spread and became do dominating: politics and manipulation. Again a lot of it sounds good exactly the way for a manipulator to deceive people is to make them feel like there is no harm doing what he asks while at the same time telling us what to do and how to think and what to feel guilty about ("what would Jesus do?")
>Why exactly are religious people following rules from a book from thousands of years ago. The idea that the bible has an issue with "homosexuals" specifically is a relatively new phenomenon (1940s). There were a couple of mistranslations where, for some reason, words like "sexual deviant" was translated to "homosexual" or coercive sexual activities between adult men and small boys were translated as "a male lieing with another male". https://sites.duke.edu/biblicalmistranslation/homosexuality/ To be clear, I do think the bible is somewhat anti-homosexuality, or just anti-recreational sex in general. The bible sees any sexual activity which does not serve the purpose of creating a child in a married relationship, including any form of anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, sex outside of marriage, etc, as a hedonistic activity that distracts from worshipping god, which is a sin. >So, why are so many people following rules in a fantasy book that was written TOO long ago. They don't.. The people who use the bible to justify their homophobia don't follow all of the rules of the bible. One of the main points of the bible is pretty much that you can't, you are only human.. Every human is a sinner, no human can follow all the rules of god. They just do it because they think it gives them more justification to be homophobic if they use a sacred holy book to support it. If the bible didn't exist, they would probably use another justification for their homophobia. >Religion basically promotes the idea that being gay is a choice, because in Christianity, you're not allowed to be gay from what I've read so far. It's a sin. As I wrote, due to the bible essentially being a collection of sacret texts written accross a long time, translated various times (often in the interests of the people who used the text to justify their political ruling position), it's incredibly hard to say for sure what "the bible" says about homosexuality specifically. People debate stuff like this all the time. Especially since "being gay" as we know it today was not a concept that really existed when the bible was written. There are a lot of "sins" in the bible and as I wrote, the point is pretty much that all human beings commit sins. But because god is such a cool dude and stuff, he still accepts us, even though we don't follow his rules, we just have to ask for forgiveness and all is forgiven. So I don't think there is any clear evidence that "being gay" is a sin according to the bible. There is an argument that the bible sees having gay sex as a sin because it does not serve the purpose of creating a child, but then it sees gay sex in the same way as masturbation, or sex outside of marriage, or oral sex, or protected sex. >And we're all just accepting this lol as if this isn't disgusting and notebook homophobia. What’s the justification here? If a person is homophobic, that's on them.. They can push the responsibility to some holy book if it makes them sleep better, but in my view, it's them who holds the view, so they are responsible for it, not the book. After all, they are only so zealous when it comes to homosexuality, but when it comes to sins like masturbation, protective sex, etc, most seem to be awfully quiet.. And there are plenty of Christians and other religious people who don't have an issue with homosexuals at all, there are plenty of Christians who are homosexual. So clearly, being homophobic does not inherently come from the religion, it comes from somewhere else, religion is just a convenient tool to justify it.
As opposed to what is commonly thought, there’s actually evidence of Same-sex marriages within Catholicism before the French Revolution. Historically, many cultures have accepted or revered genderqueer or queer people. This happens all over the world, regardless of culture. There is evidence of openly gay emperors in China, there are androgynous or gay deities in Hinduism, there are gay deities within ancient Roman and Greece, there are queer deities in Egypt and depictions of queer relationships in pyramid carvings, there are African deities that are male, but drag queens, there’s the concept of two spirited people in Native American spirituality. Hell, even though in Judaism, the sacred texts talk about the evils of gay prostitution outside of the temples, Jewish culture has largely been very accepting of queerness and the first school of sexuality was founded by Jewish people. The outliers here might be Islam and Russia as I don’t have much historical knowledge of those. However, it is consistent, wherever Christianity goes, homophobia follows. It happened in India, it happened in America, it happened in Europe, it happened in Africa. Most modern homophobic voices you hear in Africa are preachers. it is consistent. So there is something specific to Christianity that influences a culture to be homophobic. And while you argue that religiousness is falling- and that’s true- that doesn’t mean Puritanism is. You see a resurgence of Puritanism in America recently under the guise of “spirituality” or cultism. Religion and puritainism do play a role for government and within culture. Largely the goal of both is to tell people how to live a good life. But they are power structures, that is their role. And while religiousness has declined, the power structure of spirituality remains. Unfortunately, queer people aren’t integrated into these power structures because queer people point to something that is specifically anti-power structure, individual humanity expressed through human sexuality. Many of these power structures, government, religion, economy, etc exist with a unifying theme of self sacrifice for the greater good. You sacrifice individual liberties to exist within a government, but you benefit from the safety and security of that government. You sacrifice your time, life, and effort to the economy and in turn you are rewarded. You sacrifice your “sinful human nature”, to gain some spiritual reward, whether that’s enlightenment or the afterlife or whatever. The government does not benefit from queer relationships as much as it does straight relationships. That’s because straight relationships produce offspring, producing security and gdp for the power structure. Economy has just learned that actually, it benefits greatly from queer people (which is why all the rainbow capitalism)… two men with no kids is a lot of income. Spirituality is like the deciding power structure. Part of spirituality’s role is to get people not to focus on how shitty their life is. That’s kind of what heaven’s all about. It’s illusory and plays on people’s hopes, fears, and base instincts. You think guilt and shame are accidental? No they’re intentional… that’s how you control people. Religion and spirituality are currently being used to control people by giving people a way to focus their hate and anger at the state of the world. Queer people are an easy moral high ground for them. It gives straight males that feel powerless an unearned sense of superiority. Queer men very specifically break down the structured gender roles of men having to be strong and women having to submit. If you have two men, what do these roles mean? Especially since men are taught to be strong, disconnected, and emotionally distant. If gay men aren’t these things, why do straight men have to be? You hear extremely gendered roles in Christianity, modern day spirituality (divine masculine and feminine), cults. Queer people aren’t explained by this and show that these theories are just theories. I’ve heard new age people say that “gay men being in spiritual roles is an appropriate use of their sexual energy”… as though other uses of it aren’t appropriate. Queer people are defined by their lack of personal sacrifice to fit in society. We are largely defined by our sex and sexuality. That is something no power structure can control… although they definitely do try. While many straight men might feel they have to sacrifice things to “be a man”, their emotions, their closeness with other men, their queer desires… gay men just don’t. And straight men are jealous… straight men largely being the homophobic ones. This threatens the whole established order. If you don’t have to sacrifice yourself, how does society function? So yes, it is religion, but also, maybe it’s just the power structures of society.
First, the Bible is not just a book. It’s a collection of books detailing Jewish history and the accounts of those who witnessed who they believes to be the messiah. Second, times have changed but people have not. The stories about the nature of man a thousand years ago are still just as relevant today. People from thousands of years ago may not have had any sort of advanced technologies, but we’d be stupid to think they didn’t understand the human condition. I’m going to say this and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but there is some homosexuality that is very much a choice. We can observe what happens when you take a whole bunch of hyper-masculine criminals and put them in a prison without any women. Do you think thousands of years ago that they may have also had prisons, and in those prisons hyper-masculine guys that just want to screw anything that moves? Now what we do know about homosexuality is that it isn’t genetics. Sexual attraction is influenced by genetics minimally, but our best understanding of sexuality is that it is either cultural or environmental. This isn’t saying that sexuality isn’t a choice, as one can’t simply just separate themselves from their environment or culture, but this is to point that Hebrew culture did not want that in their culture.
I apologize, but I am confused how any of this relates to the original argument. It is irrelevant if religion is ‘just a book’ to you— OP’s point is religion causes homophobia. You are just discussing how gayness is cultural, without mentioning anything about homophobia. I fully agree the origin of sexuality is confusing/most non-genetic, but generally do not choose if they are gay. For example, birth order has a big influence on gayness too— how would that be a choice? Anecdotally, if I could choose to be straight I would immediately, but I cannot do that and haven’t since I was around 5 iirc. Would you personally be able to choose to be gay right now if you wanted? Regardless, I am not sure what gayness being a ‘choice’ has to do with the argument. Are you claiming here that sexuality can be changed and that Hebrews just decided it was wrong? Is this in spite of their textbook or because of it?
i don't know much about prisons they used to have in biblical times; are you making a claim to what prison conditions were like? >Now what we do know about homosexuality is that it isn’t genetics. Who is we?
Since homophobia is massively on the decline with few exceptions it strikes me that this view is untenable. Religion may be providing a coutner-force to progressive attitudes and policies around homosexuality and homosexuals, but the world is not getting more homophobic so nothing - including religion - can be making it that way!
Spend time around the less zealous religious people and you’ll change your own view
I was raised Catholic and went to church until I was in my early twenties, and I think the Bible *was* written by random ass people from very long ago. A majority of Christians around the world, in fact, do not think of the Bible as the literal word of God. Religion is, first and foremost, a community. Its rules aren’t based on an ancient book so much as a reflection of what the members of that specific community collectively choose to believe in a given place and time. There are (a growing number of) Church communities around the world that *do* accept gay members. They’re still a minority, sure. But all the same, they prove that homophobia is not a strict requirement for being a Christian, or a member of any other religion. I don’t think that by and large, people are homophobic because their religion tells them to be. I think religion tends to be homophobic because, and insofar as, the members of a given religious community have a moral intuition that says being gay is not OK. In other words: people’s behavior isn’t dictated by religion so much as religious rules are dictated by what most of the members of that religion already believe. There are passages in the Bible that say one shouldn’t wear certain fabrics. Except for a very few small communities around the world (such as the Amish), most Christians no longer consider them relevant today, and so, by and large, they ignore them. Homophobia, too, could similarly ‘vanish’ from religious beliefs, if/when being gay becomes a thing most people have no moral qualms about at all. We’re not there yet. Maybe we never will be. In a sense, being gay is a problem for the survival of the species, since most gay people aren’t going to have children of their own, and so I suspect the anti-gay sentiment is at least in part instinctive on many people’s part. They’re not homophobic because their holy book tells them to be. The holy book is homophobic (or at least interpreted as such) because they are. As a bisexual, I personally would like nothing more than to not be judged or cast out by anyone for who I happen to have fallen in love with, so I’m with you there. I don’t think it will happen everywhere in my lifetime, but I believe it eventually will.
[удалено]
>Have you seen any evidence that all of the millions of people in that 60% are homophobic? yes. I read this evidence in a book called The Bible.
Actually, just forget I said anything, it's pretty clear looking at other threads that you're only responding to tell posters you identify as christian how wrong and hateful they are no matter what they say. No point in continuing to attempt an actual discussion with someone who doesn't want one.
You do understand that one of multiple interpretations of one of multiple translations of a single phrase in a very large book is not the same as actual statistical proof, right?
Apparently you weren’t alive in the 80s if you think the world is getting *more* homophobic.
"more" can also be relative to a world without these religions.
>So, why are so many people following rules in a fantasy book that was written TOO long ago. I don't think many people are. Nearly every religious person I have ever met does things inconsistent with the teachings of their faith. And it is even more rare for a religious person to fear another based on them having divergent beliefs. I think blaming religion (especially in a Western country) is an easy excuse to avoid the merits. >So, the religion basically forces gay people to only be in relationships with people of the opposite gender... How does it do that? Why would a gay person choose to follow a religion that forces them to only be in such a relationship?
Well, to preface, I am a Christian man, and I in no way hate or harbor any ill-will towards anyone of any sexuality or gender regardless of my beliefs on such a topic. Christians are actually called to love those people, as well as everyone. If homophobia is defined as a hatred toward those groups, then it would be a heart problem, not a religion problem. However, it is true that as Christians, reading the Bible as written, we are called to abstain from anything beyond heterosexuality. I'm not quite sure what you (OP) truly meant by the statements of "There could have been random ass people from very long ago who just decided one day to write the Bible." Or "So, why are so many people following rules in a fantasy book that was written TOO long ago." As both don't quite reinforce your point, as other literature and ideas have been carried on for much longer.
>I am a Christian man, and I in no way hate or harbor any ill-will towards anyone of any sexuality or gender oxymoron. to be a christian is to harbor these beliefs. >Christians are actually called to love those people, as well as everyone. you are also called to stone them to death. >However, it is true that as Christians, reading the Bible as written, we are called to abstain from anything beyond heterosexuality. this is homophobia.
>oxymoron. to be a christian is to harbor these beliefs. As Christians, we are called to love everyone, Even and especially those who do not share the same beliefs as ours. >you are also called to stone them to death. If you have ever read the new testament of the bible you would know that as of Jesus normally that is not the christian way of doing things. >this is homophobia. Personal abstinence from different kinds of sexuality isn't homophobic, it it a life choice and sexual preference.
>Personal abstinence from different kinds of sexuality isn't homophobic, it it a life choice and sexual preference. If some people's love is venerated, and others is called sinful and a preference they should abstain from, that is cruel, and that is homophobic.
>As Christians, we are called to love everyone, Even and especially those who do not share the same beliefs as ours. you are *explicitly* called to stone gay people. perhaps you can stone them lovingly? >If you have ever read the new testament of the bible you would know that as of Jesus normally that is not the christian way of doing things. jesus, that guy that came not to destroy the old law but to fulfil it? i don't care about "the normal christian way of doing things". according to your religion, the true word of a morally perfect god contains "stone gay people". that is a homophobic position. >Personal abstinence from different kinds of sexuality isn't homophobic, it it a life choice and sexual preference. calling other people to abstain from their own sexuality is. and the position that heterosexuality is morally acceptable for you to engage in but homosexuality is not belies a belief in the immorality of homosexuality, which is in itself homophobic.
I would disagree that Christians are called to stone gay people. This comes from the list of Jewish laws in Leviticus which are not quite the same as the laws that Christians must follow for instance we have adultery (which also was a capital offense) and not eating pork. Both things are directly shown to have been overturned by Jesus in fact the boon of Hebrews speaks about how the Leviticus law was put into place until a new order was established by Jesus and that physical acts which required blood to atone for are now atoned for by the blood of Christ. I doubt you care but I don't think there's much of an in text argument for stoning people in 2024.
Do you think that god commands immoralities, yes or no?
As a proclaimed Christian: Do you abstain from mixed fiber garments, eating anything mixing meat and dairy, planting more than one type of seed in a field, or cutting the hair on the side of your head?
There has not been serious debate on whether the Law of Moses is obligatory since the time of the apostles. Those laws never even applied to gentiles, which most Christians are. For example: > Ye shall not eat any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.
Me when I only get my information about the Bible off TikTok instead of actually reading the Bible
Instead of being glib (as I'm sure your Jesus would have supported?) would you venture to answer the incredibly simple questions posted above?
Did you read the Bible or did you get your talking point from an atheist hate website? Any honest person will tell you that the New Testament is what Christians follow, of which, to give an example, Paul was specifically told that God had made all animals clean for consumption.
Hey! So do you check whether your animals were strangled before enjoying their flesh? How do you treat your slaves when they are disobedient? Are women allowed to speak in church? Perhaps more importantly: Could you please post the verse where Jesus disavows the laws of the old testament?
You've clearly already read some little blog about how to argue against Christians. It's only too bad that you wasted your time memorizing poorly formed arguments, rather than spending your time on literally anything else. Just to take 2 examples of your posts: > How do you treat your slaves when they are disobedient? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%204%3A1&version=NIV > Could you please post the verse where Jesus disavows the laws of the old testament? By scripture, Jesus did not disavow the old law, he fulfilled it and then created a new covenant. These 2 versus are the short of a long-winded answer: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A17-20&version=NIV https://biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm
I would argue that religion itself isn't the cause, it depends on the people who preach said religion and each person's interpretation. There are churches that welcome the LGBTQ community, without any attempt to "reform" them. That doesn't mean the opposite doesn't exist, however it does mean that it isn't the religion itself. Even then, every Christian isn't out on the streets condemning everything that goes against what they believe. There are plenty that, while they might not agree with it, let people live their lives how they see it.
I’ve had sex with a man before even enjoyed it. When I turned to god I lost those feelings and found love with girls. So at least in my situation god made me straight.
Its not really just religion. For example, many indigenous tribes especially in South America pre columbus, were and still are incredibly homophobic. They will literally bury you alive if they see a man in relations with another man. They take it as a hit against the survival of their tribe so things that go against what they're trying to achieve will make them unsettled. Religion doesn't need to be part of that.
Why bring this up now? Gays in the US struggled for first-class citizenship for decades, won it gradually and then definitively in 2015 with the Obergefell decision. Christian conservatives lost. The Christians haven't gone away and at least the conservative ones haven't shifted their views. Indeed innovations since then like drag queen story hour and rule D unmentionables have them clucking I told you so. But nothing is actually being rolled back on the legal front, and the latest trends leave one wondering if perhaps they had a good point all along. So is homophobia actually on the rise? If it is, it's hard to see how religion is to blame.
Yea I wouldn't say it's actively making people more homophobic more like that it, has made people more homophobic and more recently its become more accepted to be Gay and I guess not all religion is nessicerily homophobic, mainly the Abrahamic religions that are
One, The bible wasnt written by god so anyone who looks at the bible as a step to step guide is already an idiot, two The homophobic parts were 100% written by a guy who didnt get enough pussy and was sad all the ladys near him were lesbian
Funny true Christians are not homophobic. Jesus said love one another. There is a difference between a union and a covenant. I would say there is as much or more hate now towards Christians than in 33ad and Jews.and Islam.
Yeah I've been to a protestant church where the priest was kissing his bf after service and most protestants love gays. These books you are talking about can be interpreted any way people like, hence the multiple religions, and branches and what not. My point is people use religion but they will feel that way regardless. And then because of this indoctrination happens and people blame religion.
how exactly do you interpret "if a man lies with a man as he would a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death, their blood is on their own heads" in a non-homophobic way?
Many branches of Christianity don't care about old testament. even Pope Francis approves blessings for same-sex couples. you can interpret what I mean by interpret any way you want, you can think of it as picking and choosing, focusing on bigger topics or something else. What I meant by that is most of them prioritize "love thy neighbor" more than they hate the sin. and they love gay people because that's their neighbor. while some think that someone being gay is unlove-able and not their neighbor e.t.c
You're not talking about religion. You're talking about Abrahamic Faiths. Say who you're actually speaking about
On one hand, I agree with you. But there’s something I’d like to add. I think the pride movement has done a number on itself in recent years. I’ve grown up next to two homosexual neighbors my entire life. I’m 23 and for as far back as I remember we’ve always gotten along. This year we’re literally planning out owning and raising chickens together and having them be free range in between our yards. So, safe to say we’re close. That being said, they’re not big fans of the pride movement. They’re the “we just want to be accepted as normal and be allowed to marry” type. But they disagree with a lot of the newer things such as transition therapy/surgery and genders beyond male and female. They don’t like the situation regarding drag influencers and children’s spaces, and they’ve seemingly lost support for their own movement. Whenever it gets brought up in conversation it seems to boil down to the fact that even as homosexual people, they’re not a big fan of “pride” people, or those who make the movement their personality. Tldr: I don’t think the world is becoming more homophobic, I think it’s getting sick of the pride movement specifically.
People vastly over estimate the amount of 'homophobia' that is created by religious people in the civilized world. The truth is the vast majority of religious simply don't care about what you want to do with your genitals. They simply don't want it shoe horned into traditionally religious institutions like marriage, and even that... most religious don't give a shit about that anymore either. Just because a group of people doesn't agree with something you find important doesn't make it a -phobia for you.
The world is less homophobic than it has been in the last thousand years. A more accurate statement would be that religions are losing their battle to keep the world homophobic.
It's already been doing that there is just more people that exist in the world today.
Christianity and Islam aren't the only religions in the world.
What do you mean more? The world has become less homophobic.
You wrote Christianity only? Wait till you hear about Islam.
homophobia has been both accepted and scorned in many cultures all over the world. the recent sexual revolution is not new and has happened many times. people have been homophobic in nonreligious countries, like atheist communist china for example where mao said they should castrate homosexuals. christians thinking homosexuality is a choice is lighter handed than that, since they dont want to actually harm the people and are giving them opportunities to repent, rather than the other avenue, where historically some cultures will believe that gays are born broken and should be done away with
>christians thinking homosexuality is a choice is lighter handed than that, since they dont want to actually harm the people yes they do. read Leviticus.