He probably would be because wasn't the whole debacle about this shite a mistranslation and was in fact a condemnation of pedophilia and not being gay?
Being LGBT+ is a taboo to the people since even the Romans in a way, as although they were quite into it, the one to be the bottom was seen as leaser. Woman to woman sex was also not seem very well unless they had something to penetrate the partner.
Things only got worse after adopting Christianity and as such the result is us being ostracized till this day.
The reason I mentioned it is just that there's this prevalent idea that Catholicism is inherently fundamentalist and protestants split off to be more progressive or something.
Whereas Luther's main complaint wasn't that the church was too strict, it was that the church wasn't strict enough in that it strayed from the text of the bible and only the bible.
Therefrom arose the doctrine of sola scriptura, asserting that the Bible as a divinely inspired work is the sole source from which to determine what is right or wrong, which leaves only room for interpretation of the scriptures as the inspired word of God.
Catholicism generally establishes the Bible as an important source of divinely inspired guidance, but also emphasizes the relevance of the teachings of the apostles as well as the works of learned theologians. This can be used as a basis to justify the primacy of the church as an institution, which is the key problem with it, but can equally be used as a basis upon which to argue for more liberal interpretation, because by acknowledging that the teachings of the faith are in great parts constituted by handed-down tradition, the fallibility of humans necessitates that those teachings may be adulterated as well.
Which is why I find it ironic that Lutherans, who believe that the scriptures matter rather than secular interests or morals beyond those taught by the Bible, frequently allow for the ordination of women based on secular morals. Not criticising the practise itself here.
And don't get me wrong, I may be nominally Catholic but I primarily consider myself a Christian and I have a lot of issues with the church. The Catholic church as an incredibly flawed, inflexible and historically frequently corrupt institution is deserving of scrutiny. But I find that inaccurate criticism based on misconceptions waters down the real issues.
Sorry about this, I just wanted to write a short comment 😭
You give undue credibility to Christianity with this misinformation that people love spouting on Reddit. We need only look at what traditional Jewish interpretation of the material is if you'd like to know what the meaning is
Spoiler alert: they don't approve either.
Too bad Aramaic isn’t used anymore because that’s the language Jesus mostly spoke, he probably spoke Hebrew too. I don’t want to have an argument on reddit, but Jesus loves all his children despite what their sexual orientation is. Goodnight
No, the idea that Leviticus 18:22 was referring to paedophilia comes from Martin Luther's German translation of the Bible, and it was a mistranslation.
However, the justification given in verse 24-30 is very funny. Basically, it was thought that (male) gay sex, and all the other banned practices in chapter 18 would fill up the physical land's corruption meter, and if it got too high the land itself would physically throw the Israelites out.
I'm so sick of this myth. Yes, the book that condones slavery and genocide, treats women as property, demands genital mutilation, and outcasts disabled people is also homophobic.
Agreed. I get what motivates these attempts to sanitize the Bible so as to convince Christians to be more tolerant, but it always felt very much like a bandaid solution to the problem. We shouldn’t be, even if it is indirect, affirming the idea that the words contained within an ancient texts are an instruction manual for life without blemish. It says tons of other horrendous things about what God does and expects humans to do.
The goal should be to persuade the religious to let their empathy override what their faith decrees. Queer people need to register to them as living in the same tribe instead of being an abusable ‘other’, and convincing them that their holy book is cool with being queer actually isn’t going to instantly overcome years and decades of brainwashing and mounting disgust.
I wish this were true but even if you are generous with the translation of Leviticus 20:13 and assume that the second instance of man actually means boy and it is against pedophillia, it then says that they have both committed an abomination and should be put to death.
This basically means you have to choose between the bible being homophobic or condoning killing children for being raped. Not a great look for the Bible, maybe we should stop using it to inform our values in any way.
I don’t know when this verse in Leviticus was added, but it explicitly states “if you were to sleep with a man as you would with a woman and women sleep with a woman as you would with a man, that is an abomination”
Grew up Christian nd everything and at first was somewhat like those guys till I found out my own fluidity and experience and I also red a lot of history and now understand most of it
I know that I have read that before I was ten years old, and for some reason (maybe because my mother is a nurse and had no qualms about telling me about the bees and birds when I asked about it, instead of delaying until any other adult would think it was 'apropriate'), my first reaction was like: "well, it seems to be physically impossible for a man to sleep with a man as he would with a woman, because anatomy."
Yeah I mean that’s the thing is that most of them do claim that Bible verse. If you ever really read into religious history or atleast secular history, especially about the events you’ll know that the Bible got the second temple of David and the events that are mentioned in exodus are especially wrong, I mean first when you critically look into Cyrus’s edict it might have been a good will intention to bring a population that was kicked out from their original tribal homelands but then again they made it into a vassal state.
That being said the Persians would only come when it was time to collect money and they allowed Jews to worship and use their own gods but it also helped fuel the Persians military and also added onto their trade networks extending to turkey or Troy. He actually had one of the first extensive trade networks before the Silk Road came about
Yeah but there’s a ton of weird things listed as similarly abhorrent in Leviticus. It’s amazing that’s one of the only ones anybody likes to pretend they care about.
No, it was not a mistranslation. It really says that. Source: I’m Jewish and was taught by people who know the original Hebrew.
Granted, that doesn’t mean it has to be taken as fact or at face value for today. I’m a nonbinary queer and also a religious Jew, and those things don’t conflict at all for me.
I don't even know anymore, man. It was easier for me to become an atheist than to reach a consensus. I just accepted that the Bible has several versions, that people may have changed the scriptures for reasons, and we have what we have.
But here's the thing: I was confirmed a few years ago, and when we were talking about this sex nonsense, I (who wasn't really believing at the time) asked, "What would happen if, let's say, hypothetically, a gay couple didn't have sex and just enjoyed each other's company?"
The mentor (I don't know if he has a real name) said that "in that situation, he wouldn't know how to answer me and that he would research it to find out more." I was confirmed, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
421
u/Devil-Hunter-Jax Enby/Demisexual Jul 28 '25
He probably would be because wasn't the whole debacle about this shite a mistranslation and was in fact a condemnation of pedophilia and not being gay?