Orbit
I'm a planet
Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds
I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yeah post hoc rationalisation studies don't impress me much.Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds
I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
Just for whomever wants to read it the following page links to a pdf formatted copy of the full, 75 page report:Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds
I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
Evidently you haven't been following the pope's decrees relating to this subject in the last few years.I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
My first thought was "WOW THESE PEOPLE ARE GENIUSES!!! Not."Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds
I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
Certain groups try doing this with the 42 Principles of Ma'at that are found in the Book of the Dead. The argument is the typical, 'We don't know what this word means', and it has been rendered variously as against homosexual relations, sexual relations with boys (underage), and other forms of sexual misdemeanour. A book I have says it literally translates as I have not [f-word] a lady-man. The translation given in the actual text is [the more acceptable!] 'I have not sodomised a man'. There are other Pagans wanting to make this something about pederasty or such and I think they are just trying to convince themselves out of the obvious implications here.nor do I care to find leniencies for homosexual relationships
Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds
I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
It seems to me it's the other way around: its Western Moderns wanting to find a way around what's been clear to everyone else for millennia.but NOTHING will convince some people
It seems to me it's the other way around: its Western Moderns wanting to find a way around what's been clear to everyone else for millennia.
I guess the way the majority of Jews, in whose native language it is written and from whose culture it came, have tended to interpret this for the past thousands of years just doesn't matter. And no, these passages don't mention female/female sex practices and no-one has ever suggested they do. The stance against lesbianism comes from the Oral Torah.
Also weird how it took 4,000 or so years to figure this out.
I don't trust PinkNews for anything like this, honestly.
My first thought was "WOW THESE PEOPLE ARE GENIUSES!!! Not."
But then again, I'm not Christian, nor do I care to find leniencies for homosexual relationships, so maybe I don't understand what's ground-breaking about this "discovery". As @Rival said, some of these little details have been known by Jews for millennia. Others we simply don't agree with. It was just the other day that a poster asked me why Jews study carefully every detail in the text - well, turns out that's one of the reasons we figured this stuff out before everyone. Go figure.
I think the first problem I see here is with people talking about rights. The modern mindset considers many things a right that I, and many other traditionalists, would consider privileges. You haven't the right to a relationship or a marriage - these things are privileges. A marriage is a privilege and a blessing. If you are homosexual, you simply haven't the privilege of a marriage. One privilege of marriage is sexual relations (which I don't see as being valid outside of a marriage).The claims in the study seem to be an overreach at first glance, but I'm not familiar enough with Biblical language to comment much on that. What I find more pertinent and more significant is that many Jews and Christians don't subscribe to this idea of a mistranslation but still support LGBT rights and have no issue being both religious and accepting.
One of my primary questions about the supposed (and, in my opinion, false) dichotomy of literalism and acceptance is this: if the only two choices are either to stick to the prevalent translation and deny a group their rights and safety or to embrace a newer translation, which would be the more ethical and reasonable option?
In my view, humanity and modern knowledge (such as our current scientific understanding that homosexuality is neither unhealthy nor harmful) always come before tradition, but again, the dichotomy is false--since millions of believers accept traditional translations of scriptures without denying others their rights or dehumanizing them.
While I'm not sure a modernized translation as opposed to reinterpretation of the passages as traditionally translated is a sound approach, the idea that people should be at peace with a scriptural interpretation that has historically fueled persecution and killing of specific groups and continues to influence denial of their basic rights in the modern day seems to me far more potentially dangerous and threatening to certain groups' safety than most alternatives are or would be.
Bible passages justifying homophobia 'misinterpreted', study finds
I doubt it will change anyone's mind, but there it is. See article.
I think the first problem I see here is with people talking about rights. The modern mindset considers many things a right that I, and many other traditionalists, would consider privileges. You haven't the right to a relationship or a marriage - these things are privileges. A marriage is a privilege and a blessing. If you are homosexual, you simply haven't the privilege of a marriage. One privilege of marriage is sexual relations (which I don't see as being valid outside of a marriage).
So I don't really feel the need to defend rights that I don't think exist.
Cue the hate
In my view that would be God.I'll steer clear of the hate. But a privilege is something granted, correct? So who has the rights to grant someone the ability to marry?
In my view that would be God.
Yes [edited].So you'd see Cherokee marriages in pre-European America as invalid?
No.
In arguing from the hypothetical POV of a Torah worldview, this God claims to be universal; so their marriages would not be recognised anymore than the RCC would recognise an SSM.
Nor would I recognise them as valid based on my understanding of what my God wants.