Why do some care about rules about gay people but ignore rule about shrimp, rape, and stoning women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear. If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible. I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.

Wait -- you knew that the Christian bible wasn't originally written in English, right?

If the original language is ambivalent, how so? Let’s have that explanation, I’m interested. I’d rather read an actual point than witless snark.

Sure, we can discuss it. How have you been interpreting the Greek word "malakoi," for the purposes of this thread?

I don’t know Ancient Greek and I’m pretty sure you don’t either.

If you are knowledgeable about this topic- go ahead and lay it out. Where is the ambivalence in the language and why is your interpretation more correct?

Oh! So you aren't the poster who wrote above, "I'm sorry, the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics" ? Or are you?

I think I'll wait for them to come back. I've never read a non-ambivalent translation that was supported by the text, and I'd really like to hear that first.

Part of my oral defense for a philosophy degree was translating Epictetus. I'm definitely no expert, but I do find the issues of translation fascinating.

I’m right here! And excited to learn from you about why the text is ambiguous. I don’t know Greek, but if you do, you can explain the issue.

NP. PP never said it was ambiguous, just that it’s in Ancient Greek so you can’t say one way or the other. YOU’RE the one who made the definitive statement that “the language is not ambivalent.” Please explain yourself.

What is the basis of saying that the original language is ambivalent if you don't know if the original language is ambivalent?

The resistance to laying out the viewpoint as to why the language is ambivalent is pretty telling in itself. Whoever the pp is who made that statement would rather run in circles than just say anything meaningful. The English is clear; if there's an argument otherwise you can make it. It seems like whoever is more interested in ridicule or having a "gotcha" moment. The truth is- no one cares- this is an anonymous discussion website and the only value is the quality of the discussion. If you are only interested in ridicule, well, that's the quality of the discussion that will take place.

Hello people. It's not that hard to google the word.

Here is the wikipedia entry for the Greek word malakia, with lots of interesting discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakia

In the gospels, the only instance of the word (in the adjectival form) is in Matthew and Luke, who use malakos to refer to luxurious clothing, in contrast to the attire of John the Baptist: "What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft (malakos) clothing?" In this context, the word is translated as "soft", "fine", "delicate", "expensive", "fancy".

Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians uses malakos in the plural to refer to persons. This is commonly translated as "effeminate", as in the King James Version, which has: "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."[35] Another common translation is "male prostitutes". Other versions have: "passive homosexual partners", "men who are prostitutes", "effeminate call boys", "men who let other men use them for sex", "those who make women of themselves".

I translate documents quite often and always find it fascinating that people take the Bible literally when they haven't actually read the original scrolls. Translation ALWAYS involves quite a bit of interpretation on the part of the person translating. You don't just translate "word for word." (If you don't believe me, read 10 different Bibles from the past 400 years cover to cover to compare the different sentences for the same books.)

Lots of words have layers of meanings that do not follow that word into another language. You can take a thing and find a word in each of 2 different languages to refer to that thing, but in one language the word *only* means that thing, nothing else, while in another language the word for that thing can also refer to something else entirely (just look in the English dictionary to see the many meanings behind individual words). Or a language may have only one single word that means a particular object. But in a different language, there might be 2 or more words that can mean that same object.

Translation is nuance. But it's also never, ever perfect. See the Wikipedia entry for malakai above, for example.

Moreover, the oldest scrolls we have for biblical texts are almost assuredly not the original texts that whoever originally composed them sat down to write, pen to papyrus. And you know, when it comes to scribes copying texts to send out in the world, scribes make mistakes. Or they make their own corrections and revisions. How do we know this? Because of ancient texts that have different versions, that's how.

So. You may feel that the Bible is an unalterable word of God, to be read "literally." But any scholar of ancient texts knows that there are multiple versions of those texts out there and it is debatable which are the closest to the original source. When you go back to all the ancient sources out there, you'll find a paragraph or phrase here, a sentence or words there, in some scrolls but not others. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed translations of the Bible just in the past century, adding in new passages. Who decides which versions are the true word of God?

Never mind the ongoing debate between Protestants vs. Catholics over which books should be accepted into the Bible in the first place...

So... you're saying that the verses are prohibiting... soft clothing? Being effeminate? Is that the controversy? That makes no sense, in context. You're not offering a real alternate explanation for what the Bible was saying or a convincing argument.

People aren't going to take a deep dive into the translations because there are only so many hours of the day, and not something that interests everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christians are bound by NEW TESTAMENT LAW, not OLD TESTAMENT.

Shellfish, stoning, and shrimp laws are OT laws.

Homosexuality is NT law.

Jesus also said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” to people who wanted to stone an adulteress.

We follow the Law of Christ. That’s why we don’t follow all laws in the Bible anymore. It’s not picking and choosing though, it’s based on which law we are bound to.

How do you feel about Luke 14:25-27?

So In Luke 14:25, large crowds were travelling with Jesus because they had seen him healing people, feeding people and teaching people at no cost. Why not follow Jesus? You can get something for nothing. However, in this passage we see Jesus telling them that following him is not without cost - you have to place him before other important people in your lives. You even have to place him before yourselves.

To get his point across he uses very emotive and challenging language - you must hate everyone else. In so doing he is not saying that you do it literally but you must be prepared to put everything else second.

Jesus’ statement is emphasizing what must be the top priority if you are to follow him.

He also advises the wealthy to give up their wealth and belongings to follow him and to ensure their entrance into heaven. That’s one of his commands that most followers don’t seem to follow.

you know how hard it is for a wealthy person to get into heaven, like nearly impossible according to Jesus. This is just routinely ignored by most people. I tend to agree with the Chinese saying "to get rich is glorious."

There are basically no morals in Chinese culture so I think I'd look somewhere else for your moral compass

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christians are bound by NEW TESTAMENT LAW, not OLD TESTAMENT.

Shellfish, stoning, and shrimp laws are OT laws.

Homosexuality is NT law.

Jesus also said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” to people who wanted to stone an adulteress.

We follow the Law of Christ. That’s why we don’t follow all laws in the Bible anymore. It’s not picking and choosing though, it’s based on which law we are bound to.

How do you feel about Luke 14:25-27?

So In Luke 14:25, large crowds were travelling with Jesus because they had seen him healing people, feeding people and teaching people at no cost. Why not follow Jesus? You can get something for nothing. However, in this passage we see Jesus telling them that following him is not without cost - you have to place him before other important people in your lives. You even have to place him before yourselves.

To get his point across he uses very emotive and challenging language - you must hate everyone else. In so doing he is not saying that you do it literally but you must be prepared to put everything else second.

Jesus’ statement is emphasizing what must be the top priority if you are to follow him.

He also advises the wealthy to give up their wealth and belongings to follow him and to ensure their entrance into heaven. That’s one of his commands that most followers don’t seem to follow.

you know how hard it is for a wealthy person to get into heaven, like nearly impossible according to Jesus. This is just routinely ignored by most people. I tend to agree with the Chinese saying "to get rich is glorious."

There are basically no morals in Chinese culture so I think I'd look somewhere else for your moral compass

it's immoral to get rich? Well. we're going to have go ahead and disagree about that.

[Anonymous]

Not gonna derail the thread but there have been numerous cases of Chinese companies becoming rich at the expense of the health and safety of their workers and customers, not to mention the environment. For example my dog was killed by poisonous Chinese dog food that was altered to beat a specific test for protein content

[Anonymous]

The Chinese (and others) eat dogs so they would not remotely care that your dog died.

I have no respect for Chinese culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not gonna derail the thread but there have been numerous cases of Chinese companies becoming rich at the expense of the health and safety of their workers and customers, not to mention the environment. For example my dog was killed by poisonous Chinese dog food that was altered to beat a specific test for protein content

Um. Have you ever studied the history of industry & manufacturing in the west?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I translate documents quite often and always find it fascinating that people take the Bible literally when they haven't actually read the original scrolls. Translation ALWAYS involves quite a bit of interpretation on the part of the person translating. You don't just translate "word for word." (If you don't believe me, read 10 different Bibles from the past 400 years cover to cover to compare the different sentences for the same books.)

Lots of words have layers of meanings that do not follow that word into another language. You can take a thing and find a word in each of 2 different languages to refer to that thing, but in one language the word *only* means that thing, nothing else, while in another language the word for that thing can also refer to something else entirely (just look in the English dictionary to see the many meanings behind individual words). Or a language may have only one single word that means a particular object. But in a different language, there might be 2 or more words that can mean that same object.

Translation is nuance. But it's also never, ever perfect. See the Wikipedia entry for malakai above, for example.

Moreover, the oldest scrolls we have for biblical texts are almost assuredly not the original texts that whoever originally composed them sat down to write, pen to papyrus. And you know, when it comes to scribes copying texts to send out in the world, scribes make mistakes. Or they make their own corrections and revisions. How do we know this? Because of ancient texts that have different versions, that's how.

So. You may feel that the Bible is an unalterable word of God, to be read "literally." But any scholar of ancient texts knows that there are multiple versions of those texts out there and it is debatable which are the closest to the original source. When you go back to all the ancient sources out there, you'll find a paragraph or phrase here, a sentence or words there, in some scrolls but not others. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed translations of the Bible just in the past century, adding in new passages. Who decides which versions are the true word of God?

Never mind the ongoing debate between Protestants vs. Catholics over which books should be accepted into the Bible in the first place...

The issue of words is worse for the Hebrew bible, because for the period earleir than the dead sea scrolls, we have hardly any writings in Hebrew other than the bible - and some words appear only once or twice in the bible, so it can be very difficult to tell what they meant in their time. People can look at other Semitic languages, but that is hardly proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus says this about homosexuality:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A22&version=NIV
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

But a common question people ask then is if the rules of Leviticus are perfect, then why do people eat shellfish?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+11%3A9-12&version=NIV
But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat.

Deuteronomy is even crazier.

A section on how women who are raped must marry their rapists:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.



And a section on how a woman who is not a virgin before her marriage should be stoned to death:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.


So why do people take the part about male-male sexual relations literally but ignore the rules that say to not eat shellfish, to have rape victims marry their rapists, and to have non-virgins stoned to death at the door of their father's house?

I am asking this sincerely because I am trying to learn more about Christianity and am part of a denomination with a wide spectrum of views on LGBT issues.

That’s the Old Testament. We’re supposed to be living by the New Testament. Everything changed when Jesus died for us. The new law is about mercy and forgiveness.

[Anonymous]

OP here. thanks for your reply, but many people point to stuff written by Paul in the new testament.

I believe that he was referring to exploitative sex between powerful men and powerless males/boys and he wasn't talking about the sex in a monogamous relationship that men can have in today's society

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus says this about homosexuality:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A22&version=NIV
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

But a common question people ask then is if the rules of Leviticus are perfect, then why do people eat shellfish?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+11%3A9-12&version=NIV
But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat.

Deuteronomy is even crazier.

A section on how women who are raped must marry their rapists:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.



And a section on how a woman who is not a virgin before her marriage should be stoned to death:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.


So why do people take the part about male-male sexual relations literally but ignore the rules that say to not eat shellfish, to have rape victims marry their rapists, and to have non-virgins stoned to death at the door of their father's house?

I am asking this sincerely because I am trying to learn more about Christianity and am part of a denomination with a wide spectrum of views on LGBT issues.

That’s the Old Testament. We’re supposed to be living by the New Testament. Everything changed when Jesus died for us. The new law is about mercy and forgiveness.

So you're all supposed to entirely ignore the Old Testament?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. thanks for your reply, but many people point to stuff written by Paul in the new testament.

I believe that he was referring to exploitative sex between powerful men and powerless males/boys and he wasn't talking about the sex in a monogamous relationship that men can have in today's society

What about the text makes you believe that?

And why would Paul need to issue that kind of reminder? Ostensibly early Christians would have known that raping people was wrong, wouldn’t they? They would have known that rape and adultery are wrong because that is very well established.

In context this type of waving the text away does not make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. thanks for your reply, but many people point to stuff written by Paul in the new testament.

I believe that he was referring to exploitative sex between powerful men and powerless males/boys and he wasn't talking about the sex in a monogamous relationship that men can have in today's society

What about the text makes you believe that?

And why would Paul need to issue that kind of reminder? Ostensibly early Christians would have known that raping people was wrong, wouldn’t they? They would have known that rape and adultery are wrong because that is very well established.

In context this type of waving the text away does not make sense.

And so this never happens because it's so well-established?? Sexual immorality is a big focus because it's a HUGE problem. Men are still taking advantage of their power (read about the Southern Baptist scandal that has been in the news lately) so I think the Bible is going to emphasize issues that are big and real and need continued focus. What kind of sexual immortality is causing the most problems in our world? - pretty darn sure it's still adultery, rape, sexual assault and mainly men of power over others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. thanks for your reply, but many people point to stuff written by Paul in the new testament.

I believe that he was referring to exploitative sex between powerful men and powerless males/boys and he wasn't talking about the sex in a monogamous relationship that men can have in today's society

What about the text makes you believe that?

And why would Paul need to issue that kind of reminder? Ostensibly early Christians would have known that raping people was wrong, wouldn’t they? They would have known that rape and adultery are wrong because that is very well established.

In context this type of waving the text away does not make sense.

DP
If you look at other things marked as prohibited in that same section, they are also obvious.

In context saying it can't be that, because it's obviously wrong, does not make sense. So are the other things in the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus says this about homosexuality:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A22&version=NIV
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

But a common question people ask then is if the rules of Leviticus are perfect, then why do people eat shellfish?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+11%3A9-12&version=NIV
But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat.

Deuteronomy is even crazier.

A section on how women who are raped must marry their rapists:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.



And a section on how a woman who is not a virgin before her marriage should be stoned to death:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.


So why do people take the part about male-male sexual relations literally but ignore the rules that say to not eat shellfish, to have rape victims marry their rapists, and to have non-virgins stoned to death at the door of their father's house?

I am asking this sincerely because I am trying to learn more about Christianity and am part of a denomination with a wide spectrum of views on LGBT issues.

That’s the Old Testament. We’re supposed to be living by the New Testament. Everything changed when Jesus died for us. The new law is about mercy and forgiveness.

So you're all supposed to entirely ignore the Old Testament?

For every time Christians of different flavors debate the meaning of the Hebrew bible could y'all at least make a donation to some Jewish charity, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. thanks for your reply, but many people point to stuff written by Paul in the new testament.

I believe that he was referring to exploitative sex between powerful men and powerless males/boys and he wasn't talking about the sex in a monogamous relationship that men can have in today's society

What about the text makes you believe that?

And why would Paul need to issue that kind of reminder? Ostensibly early Christians would have known that raping people was wrong, wouldn’t they? They would have known that rape and adultery are wrong because that is very well established.

In context this type of waving the text away does not make sense.

It's not the text that makes me think that. It's my understanding of society in that era

There were not open, normal monogamous homosexual relationships that Paul could have seen. Whenever he heard of male male sex, it was something more depraved