LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

@Max I'd just like to point out that the point the Bible that actually uses the word "homosexual" has to be mistranslation because that word didn't exist in any language until a few hundred years ago.

‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.

And furthermore, those translations in particular are from the 1950's, right around — surprise! — evangelical revivals revolting against post-WWII sexual revolutions. And then we got the NIV.

But yeah, homosexuality as a persistent orientation wasn't even recognized as a topic at all until the late 1800's. Up till then it was thought to be just an extension of general "screw everything that moves" because the people that did it the most visibly...well, did. No translation up till then would refer to it because nobody knew it was a thing.

Man, different denominations don't even translate to English from the same source. Orthodox churches translate from the Septuagint, Catholics mostly from the 5th-century Vulgate (though we've deviated from it recently), and Protestants from a set of Byzantine manuscripts.

These aren't even in the same language to begin with.

I mean fuck. Almost all of those were made because nobody knew Latin, or because someone thought the copy they were already using was "too liberal".

edited 5th Dec '12 7:28:32 PM by Pykrete

Homosexuality as a orientation is new but it has been pretty long accepted that a man knowing an other man is considered da ick (lesbians get a free pass for some reason).

hashtagsarestupid

Oi! Don't forget the other effect... "Whatever our neighbours are using must be wrong by definition, as it's them using it: let's find something else..."

edited 6th Dec '12 2:47:51 AM by Euodiachloris

"for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1-10 New International Version (1984)

"For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" 1 Timothy 1-10 American King James Bible (1999)

"have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites," 1 Timothy 1-10 American Standard Version (1901)

---

"Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," 1 Corinthians 6-9 King James 2000 Bible (2003)

"Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," 1 Corinthians 6-9 American King James Bible (1999)

"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men," 1 Corinthians 6-9 American Standard Version (1901)

---

Two sections that are often mistranslated to include homosexuality in the lists.

The word commonly and mistakenly translated as homosexuals are arsenokoitais )ἀρσενοκοίταις) in 1 Timothy 1-10 and arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) in 1 Corinthians 6-9. Both are different forms of the same word. Both of them are speaking of male prostitution, rather than homosexuality as a whole.

---

It wasn't until recently that people started translating that word as homosexual. Just look back to the original King James Bible, translated in 1611, and you'll find the two passages to read:

"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

and

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

---

The earliest example of this translation would be in the Young's Literal Translation from 1862, in which the two passages read:

"whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse,"

and

"have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,"

As you can see, this translation translates it to say "sodomites".

---

Not only are there recent Bibles that translate it as something other than homosexuals, it is only recent Bibles that translated it as homosexuals.

edited 6th Dec '12 6:07:51 AM by deathpigeon

Accepted where? Your cultural blinders are showing.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Okay, so I grossly misspoke in saying the Bible as it is goes back at least a millenia.

My point is that all these "arguments" about scrolls, and Greek alphabets, and mistranslations.....

For all that, there isn't a single copy of the Bible in any language that makes it appear homosexual acts are a cultural taboo. The words it uses are "abomination" and it demands, not suggests, it's not done.

All this, and the words haven't changed not even during the times when homosexuality and homosexual acts were generally accepted.

Short of finding an errant copy with the alleged proper translation, I find this all a lot of second-guessing.

It was an honor

In major western religion, (I don't have to explain that do I?)

hashtagsarestupid

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18-22 New International Version (1984)

That, I'd say, is a better translation than calling it an abomination.

---

And the meaning of "cultural taboo" is taken from the use in other places such as Genesis 43:32 where it says:

"They served him by himself, the brothers by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians." New International Version (1984)

"They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians." English Standard Version (2001)

"And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians." King James Bible (1611)

---

And in Genesis 46:34 where it says:

"you should answer, 'Your servants have tended livestock from our boyhood on, just as our fathers did.' Then you will be allowed to settle in the region of Goshen, for all shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians." New International Version (1984)

"you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,’ in order that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.” English Standard Version (2001)

"That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians." King James Bible (1611)

---

All the same word. It is used to distinguish Hebrew things from non-Hebrew things. Such as Genesis 46:34 where it's used to differentiate themselves from the Egyptians who find shepherds "an abomination", while the Hebrews themselves were shepherds. Similarly, it is used in Leviticus 18:22 to describe homosexual acts as non-Hebrew since they were commonly used in religious rituals of non-Hebrew people.

---

Like the Graego-Roman Religion that included gods that regularly had gay sex?

edited 6th Dec '12 6:46:41 AM by deathpigeon

To clarify my position, I'd like to point out that I find the question of what exactly the Bible says or means to be ultimately irrelevant. Judging from what I've seen of Christianity, enough vagaries and differing translations exist to justify just about anything using the Bible.

My question is why the Bible should be considered a source of good interpersonal conduct in the first place. What justifies it to speak authoritatively on this issue, aside from its own assertions?

Thank you.

edited 6th Dec '12 6:51:01 AM by Snipehamster

I'm hearing nothing but good things from you hamster.

hashtagsarestupid

My position is that, if you're going to accept the Bible as the word of the Abrahamic God and you're going to follow it's teachings, don't pick and choose, and base your decisions on the original text, rather than the potentially faulty translations, and the context of things, such as the Hebrew word that's translated as "abomination" many times in the Bible being used elsewhere to refer to cultural taboos.

edited 6th Dec '12 6:52:59 AM by deathpigeon

I don't share your assumption that it was ever mistranslated. Nor do I share your assertion that it was manipulated..

The Bible has seen the ebb and flow of Western Civilization from the Ottomans to Bush II.

As I said to Shima, if a bunch of stodgy uptight Puritans really wanted to make the Bible anti-homosexual it would read something like this...

"And God doth looked on Sodom and Gomorrah and with great wrath spake saying 'I have had it with these motherfucking faggots on my motherfucking planet!'"

As it is God nuked them off the face the Earth for many reasons, not one of which was homosexuality.

edited 6th Dec '12 7:00:58 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

I don't think it was manipulated either. I think it was translated by people with inherent biases, so they saw what they wanted to see, rather than what the text actually was saying. That being said, they never strayed too far from what it originally said. They just unconsciously made subtle changes to the meaning from mistranslations caused by internalized biases.

Also, if it was never mistranslated or manipulated, then why is there such a discrepancy between different passages in different Bibles? Surely at least one of them must have mistranslated something to cause the discrepancy, be it intentional or not.

Maxima, that's perverse. Biblical scholars have known for ages that, when the Hebrews returned to Judea after being allowed to from Babylon... that extensive "tweaks" occurred to the Torah when they "standardised" it to the rough shape we have today. Heck, it was admitted at the time! Heck, that's where you get some wonderful rabbinic arguments, right there!

They even updated the language used from various paper sources, let alone transcribed oral tradition!

And, a lot of "discrete" edits and spin occurred (not least downplaying the roles and numbers of female Judges: they couldn't get rid of them entirely, but they gave it a good shot).

edited 6th Dec '12 7:09:35 AM by Euodiachloris

@joey: the same Western religions that followed the civilizations of the ancient Greeks? In some places homosexuality was considered awesome.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

...Wait, it was legitimately manipulated? I did not actually know that.

Such as the story of Zeus and Ganymede where Ganymede became Zeus's "cupbearer", and the two had lots and lots of sex.

edited 6th Dec '12 7:10:51 AM by deathpigeon

You basically have two versions of what occurred. The popular myth that the Torah was discovered when the Holy of Holies was reopened.

And, what Levitical families knew for ages: that people sat down and standardised the various texts, due to several versions floating about as a means to connect everybody under one wing after reunification.

It's how a lot of Babylonian-based allegory and even mythic arcs enter the Torah purporting to be older stories.

edited 6th Dec '12 7:15:41 AM by Euodiachloris

You know that. I don't.

It was an honor

Sounds fascinating! I'd love to hear more about that, though this seems like it might be getting a bit off-topic.

edited 6th Dec '12 7:15:47 AM by deathpigeon

There's a PBS Series called "Empires", you can look up on Hulu or PBS's website. One of the Empires they look at is the Israelites, and a lot of it focuses on the history of the Tanakh.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Awesome! Thanks! :)

I covered this in Religious Studies... alongside various versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh as contrast. It... was fascinating. Particularly how the Babylonian concept of a "garden" totally changed Hebraic creation myths (however, elements of what must have been before certainly survive: namely the snake, the Trees... but, surprisingly enough, not Adam and Eve).

There is plenty out there if you Google the topic of the recreated Torah upon the return to Jerusalem. Warning: some is a lot of guff. Others, not-so-much.

edited 6th Dec '12 7:24:04 AM by Euodiachloris

Not to mention the Nicene Council or the fact that the first English translation was done for political reasons, of course.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

For the Nth time, you'd think that hermeneutics and textual analysis had never been invented or applied. You don't think these "from the right vantage, the Bible could say anything" problems have occurred to anyone in Christendom's history? They have. And for nearly 2K years, various Churchmen have addressed them in rigorous, philosophically & logically coherent ways. A non-Christian needn't accept the Bible as a guide to life & the universe, but can we maybe act as if that much has happened?

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones