LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I do.

That's why I've stopped trying to use it to argue by now.

Still doesn't change that people have altered it, directly or indirectly.

And it doesn't change that some people have translated it wrong.

And it doesn't change that neither of you have any proof of that.

We've given lots and lots of proof of that. The fact that you don't accept the proof is not evidence of lack. We've linked many many bits of evidence. There is in fact far more evidence that it's been badly translated than that it's right.

You've done nothing at all to refute our proof other than say it doesn't fit how you read it personally. Being unwilling to deal with evidence is not the same thing as your opponent having none.

Not reading linked evidence does not make it disappear.

edited 6th Dec '12 9:38:00 AM by shimaspawn

@Starship

It seems to me that you are intentionally closing your mind to logic and evidence that disagrees with your world view so you don't have to doubt it, and by extension The Bible.

I haven't refuted it because there's nothing to refute. You throw up bits of data, declare it The Truth, and move on.

And as Jhimm pointed out there are actual Bible scholars who've presented their data that would suggest this massive game of telephone everyone swears happened...didn't.

You ignore that.

So yes, as Matues says, it's pointless to carry on.

No L Mage. Declaring with a holier-than-thou attitude that would make a Baptist minister blush that homosexuality means the orientation/preference, not the act, and anyone who says it does is being "selfish"; then being presented with the fact that in actuality, the words refers to both the orientation and the act; and then proceeding to act as if the whole thing never happened...... Yeah, that's closer to what you're talking about. Note, it didn't require translating scrolls; 5.6 seconds on Google did the trick.

What I'm doing is refusing to substitute suggestions and implications for facts and evidence.

edited 6th Dec '12 9:53:57 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

That's not exactly a shock to most Christian denominations. There are thousands of English-language translations alone; they're not all going to be accurate, orthodox, or free of translator's designs. But again, there's a long line of Christian thinkers who've made it their business to sift wheat from chaff in this area.

The inconsistency and "alteration" of Scripture is a faddish notion that's been losing steam for a century. For about 50 years (centered around the turn of the 20th century), you couldn't find an ancient document that the German "New Criticism" didn't declare a crazy-quilt of several dozen lost Ur-texts. The last century has seen a steady deflation of these shaky (and suspiciously all-applicable) claims, in favor of recognizing greater unity in previously disputed texts, and the possibility that a single authorial voice might [gasp!] vary. And the more knowledge we gain of Exilic Judaism and mediaeval monasticism, the less credible become the accusations of scribal liberties or hijinks in those milieux.

edited 6th Dec '12 9:45:54 AM by Jhimmibhob

@Starship

When someone presents you with data that challenges your position, it is your obligation to refute it if you find that it dose not successfully defeat your position. Instead of reading and debating the data, you've put your fingers in your ears each time and started singing bars for "amazing grace".

You have to refute the evidence presented to you, if you can't, then your position is wrong. That's how it works.

Note: I'm not saying you can't refute it, I'm just saying that you've refused to try.

@ L Mage - My apologies. I understand what you mean. I linked to an article saying that this fad of saying the Bible has been altered in translation is actually..well, a fad. The article made the point that written texts don't really drift like that.

Jhimm and others have added far more data.

I just don't have the energy to go in the same circle again.

What I'm doing is refusing to substitute suggestions and implications for facts and evidence.

Starship, you are blatantly proving that you didn't read any of the things linked, they where not "suggestions and implications" they contained actual fact.

I linked to an article saying that this fad of saying the Bible has been altered in translation is actually..well, a fad.

I do not no where this came from (and would appreciate a link so I can no) but it is the greatest example of Blatant Lies I have ever seen. Everything changes in translation, language is a string of sounds put together to specify certain things, and are so wildly different from each other that alterations are inevitable, from friggin Harry Potter to the Bible translating something will always cause differences, from far reaching to small details.

And in fact, small details (which you so reveal in referring to homosexuality as being in the grand scheme of the Bible) are the most often fubbed and changed, because people don't spend much thought on them.

I'm trying to say L Mage that these same links to this "proof" has come up before. We've posted the same link repeatedly that say "Um, that's not proof".

At a certain point it's gets tiring to hunt the same articles and to read the same things over and over again.

There's no word for homosexual - Yes we know that. Different languages translate differently - Yes we know that. The original word means cultural taboo - Based on what exactly? The Bible has been altered since the 50's - Why do all English, Spanish, French, German, Afrikaans, every single Bible read the same?

At a certain point we're in circles.

Here is a full detailed explanation. Please read it.

The cliff notes version though is that the line in Leviticus says that "Fucking the temple prostitutes is a cultural taboo" not "a Man should not lie with a man." The first word in that sentence is the word for holy man in the Hebrew. The second man is the word for temple male prostitute.

The word you translate as "abomination" is far more often translated as cultural taboo in context in other parts of the Bible.

The important bit though is no matter if it's cultural or not, it still only applies to religious prostitution. That's why it's in the religious worship area, and not in the sexual immorality section.

edited 6th Dec '12 10:25:18 AM by shimaspawn

As I explained in depth here, context in which it was used throughout the Old Testament.

They don't. Have you read all the times I've posted stuff from multiple Bibles that say different things? Same line. Different thing. Slightly different, but still different. Like 1 Timothy 1-10 in which only some translate a word as homosexuals, and others translate it differently, such as "abusers of themselves with mankind"? Based on the context in which the word that's been translated as "homosexuals" has been used, generally lists of economic sins, it appears like the second translation would be more accurate, and, more specifically, it was probably speaking of some sort of male prostitution. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, there are different meanings in different English Bibles which I demonstrated several times by posting the say excerpt from many different translations of the Bible.

Because they don't, as evidenced by the fact that there are hundreds of translations of the Bible in English alone and over forty thousand distinct christian denominations, a number of which are perfectly fine with homosexuality.

edited 7th Dec '12 12:10:52 AM by Snipehamster

Ye gads: Afrikaans... you have several kinds of Bible, depending on how Dutch Reformed you are (or aren't), and which dialect of Afrikaans is being used! And, if you're using one of the old Duits (Middle High Dutch) Bibles!

The ones in the more Kaapse Taal (Western-based), Dutchfied Versions are far more difficult for me to read than the ones that are in more modern Standard Afrikaans. I'm an Eastern Rooinek, and proud of it!

Some of the Duits bibles use words you can't find in any woordeskat (vocabulary/ dictionary) any more, even if they were ever collected up in the first place (Afrikaans spins on Duits words weren't considered important enough to collect together for centuries). It's basically the King James of Afrikaans Bibles... without much commentary or a place to find out what the heck the words mean. You have to rely on a teacher. And, their world-view.

And, welcome to the rainbow of possible meanings.

edited 6th Dec '12 11:59:46 AM by Euodiachloris

Anywho,

I think when DP says that "abomination/detestable" in the passage in question, he's not trying to argue that it's being mistranslated so much as it's being misinterpreted. The word is right, but he's questioning what the authors meant by that word.

edited 6th Dec '12 12:03:01 PM by Haldo

Whoa hang on, there miss. I may be a dog rapist but I don't kick puppies. (Thread stares at Starship, baffled.) Argh, never mind.

Haldo, I'm not trying to bring you into this. I was referring to the whole thing. And since it's not like someone can't just click back a few pages and read the exchange, I didn't think it was inappropriate to bring it up.

Furthermore, I actually wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to someone else, actually.

Now, the point I was trying to make was that many, many people, both here and in Real Life, cite how intelligent and in touch with reality they are and how if anyone had half a brain, they'd see things as they see them.

I'm using the example that if we make mistakes on this that need only a Google search to establish, then when discussing headier topics of planet dating and creation, psychology, and theological examination, perhaps we shouldn't just assume that if someone has a different view, they're automatically wrong.

But people should be either able to back their views up with evidence and refute other people's points with evidence. You instead ignore evidence, do nothing to refute it, and then claim it not to exist. That's not debating in good faith which is what we're doing here.

Address the arguments. Not the posters.

Shima, really now.

I always attack arguments. And I never attack posters. If I have, then please take your own advice, and show me where.

The link you posted is the same you posted, what, 40 pages ago. It was discussed and debunked then. I'm not going to rehash it.

Besides, this has nothing to do with my point above.

I think that the word is translated without any thought of connotations on either side. The Hebrew word's connotations, which are of it referring to cultural taboos, are very different from the English word's connotations, which are of it referring to absolutely horrible things, though the denotations are probably accurate. I think connotations are important to a translation, so I consider it mistranslated.

edited 6th Dec '12 12:45:04 PM by deathpigeon

It wasn't debunked 40 pages ago. You still haven't even addressed it once. I went back and looked. You ignored it and passed it over in favour of taking shots at easier targets.

Y'know, I didn't really intend to attack you when I said that referring to homosexual acts as "homosexuality" is selfish. I intended to attack your word choice, but then I derped.

I think some of the people here have a hard time differentiating you from your views because you're one of the only people here who's arguing for them.

I do agree with Shima on the point that you often fail to address why you don't find the evidence brought against your claims valid.

Ah, I see.

edited 6th Dec '12 12:47:34 PM by Haldo

Max, you haven't debunked anything. You haven't even tried. From the language you're using, it sounds very much like you tldr'd the stuff that got posted at best, and didn't bother clicking on it at worst. I've yet to see you single out and address a single specific point from any of the linked material, in favor of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying NOPE BECAUSE GOD. Speaking as a devout Christian, this is a horrifying way of going about discourse.

I mean hell, different translations of the same passage with vastly different renderings and implications just got posted under your nose barely a page ago. This was a quite meaty analysis of ancient Hebrew that categorically explains difficulty with translation of poor languages, how things get skewed, and how almost every word in the offending sentence has been divorced from context — one I'm still in the process of reading and digesting.

edited 6th Dec '12 1:03:42 PM by Pykrete

Once again, this is not the first time this has come up in this thread, or in OTC. And as Jhimm says, this isn't a new debate topic.

I've never a person big on throwing a ton of links at the screen. I do it once, twice at most.

This topic alone is over 200 pages long and I'm not going back to rehash it. Especially since Jhimm explained that the whole "translation drift" theory has been steadily waning in relevance not two pages ago.

This in combination with the futility of getting people here to admit clear mistakes on things that don't involve scrolls and long dissertations but rather a couple of key strokes on Google, and like I said, I'm not doing this dance again.

edited 6th Dec '12 1:04:07 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Sorry Maxima, but I've got to agree with Pykrete above. Just a few pages ago I asked you to justify or explain a number of things, and ultimately your response was to acknowledge that my criticisms were reasonable and then go silent until the topic changed with no further comment or admission.

If you've got a moral position to defend, please explain and justify it. If that's not possible, why hold that position in the first place?

edited 6th Dec '12 1:06:03 PM by Snipehamster