LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

If the English translation of the Bible is meant to be taken at face value, what about Levitcus 20:13, the KJV of which translates to say men who engage in homosexual relations must be put to death?

Someone help me out, are heterosexual Anglican clergy allowed to marry? Or are they like the Roman Catholics?

I know Orthodox can marry, but I know little of the Church of England.

I can only assume they can, or this ruling would make little sense.

Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be a bishop for an institution so vehemently opposed to their rights, but chalk that up to another thing on my list of Why I Just Don't Get Religious People.

@Polar - There's no dispute that that's where the "creativity" may have come from. But again, "Well, it's difficult to translate this, thus this is incorrect" is non sequitur and is not proof of anything. For all we know, the people translating were just as knowledgeable as Gabe or anybody else, perhaps more, and they had a solid translation.

(Sigh) The Bible is quite clear in repeatedly saying that it's no man's place to harm or kill anybody on God's behalf.

Except for the numerous stories of people killing and harming on god's behalf.

The celibacy requirement for Anglican Clergy was dropped in the 16th Centaury.

Starship, how many times do you have to be given common sense before you actually acknowledge fact?

Name me one language used to help translate the hyperbole and metaphor used in the various forms of Ancient Hebrew.

Just one.

I'll wait.

I'll give you another hint, most Western translators have conciously rejected using these segway texts simply because they do not cater to what they want. That is why you can find Middle Eastern texts, even in English, with a different translation because they use these other bibles to ensure they are getting it right.

Now Western translators have the precident from King Jimmy that translations smansltions. Change it and te original text be damned.

How many times do you need to be told that "well this makes sense to me, therefore, it is right" doesn't pass as actual proof?

There's a community of Bible scholars that doesn't include you and there's no consensus in that community that there's any proof there was an error in the translation. You don't like, that's your prerogative, but it's the fact nevertheless.

edited 4th Jan '13 9:59:58 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

And there is more evidence from scholars who can show the texts themselves.

It's not about what I want. I don't have an agenda.

You still can't name one language?

I can't. Your point? My point is, until I get something a little more substantial than you, Shima, Gabe, and all the others who already agree with each other saying "But we all agree", then I don't consider that conclusive proof.

You say you can show the texts have changed. No kidding. Shakespeare has gone through edits since it's original writing since English itself has changed. Again, you (proverbial you, not you Polar) argue things that aren't in dispute. But saying there's a difference between ye olde Englisch and American idiomatic English doesn't equate to Shakespeare's plays being functionally the same today as they were in the old Globe theater.

The fact is simply because the Bible has been translated throughout the years doesn't mean they got the nuance wrong. And like I said, when the community of Biblical scholars can present these text with substantial variations between them, then I'll give it more credence.

And again, I notice nobody really points out the fact that no one really can say with certainty what sheqqets truly meant makes me a little confused as to how people can puff out their chests and say "See, we knew this was translated wrong."

All my sources are on paper.

The fact you can't name a language, and aren't willing to look even if just to prove me wrong, means that no matter what source we give you will insist on you viewpoint until you die because it makes you feel better.

Honestly since you love defending the mercy and compassion of Christianity so much I figured you would jump at the chance to prove "our view" right.

Polar, you should know by now, I don't just give credence to things so I can seem open-minded and progressive. I argue facts.

You've got sources on paper? I'm happy for you. There are other scholars with more title and education than you and copious amounts of paper and they don't agree with your conclusions.

So going by you own post, I see that no matter how much evidence you're given that you really have little to go on but your word, you'll ignore it, as you've done.

You're also the same kid who conciously ignored that an organization you apparently loved was a hate group with a disgusting agenda until the evidence snowballed on you and you decided to investigate for yourself.

You don't have to take my word. Look at the sources opposing you. And think, why would these people want to disproved the admonishment of homosexuality as a sin? What do your sources have to loose?

Only bigotry and hatefulness, as well as the chance to use the bible you love so much as the justification to kill, maim, damn, and hate another group of people.

So you tell me if it's worth considering a different point of view or not.

I'd be willing to wager that there is a comparable amount of papers claiming either viewpoint, from similarly qualified people.

Nice try sport, but no dice. You only prove my point, not refute it.

Yes, Polar, I'm not someone who's so blinded by my own inflated sense of self-righteousness that I'm not willing to see reason. Unlike others who have their opinion, have it validated by others who think like them, and then are offended by the mere concept that *gasp* that's not actual truth.

When people's sole reason to demand I stop supporting the FRC was "they say things we don't like" or "well this group we generally like threw out the hate group label and we don't question them," yes, my answer was "If that's all you got, then you can kindly stick it."

When people presented something akin to the facts, yes, I looked closer. And then based, on my own conscience alone, I made a choice. That's who've I've been since long before I had a user account here.

I get that a lot of people resent someone saying "I know you think your opinion is sacrosanct, but to me it's just an opinion." I know people are offended that someone calls out their assumptions and don't accept them as the truth. Nevertheless, that's who I am because I believe it to be right. And if that rubs a few folks the wrong way, so be it.

While musing as to motives of the sources that oppose me is an interesting intellectual exercise, that doesn't change the fact that the "proof", alleged, you present is hardly as solid as you present.

Hm, and going by that logic, what do you have to lose by accepting that maybe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and always did? Only the moral privilege and arrogance of thinking you're above having your choices judged just like everyone else, perhaps?

My point exactly, if you're someone who accepts objective fact over arguing points.

edited 4th Jan '13 11:25:57 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Starship, do you think the Christians and scholars who see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality are wrong or do you think their interpretation is valid too?

Of course I believe, personally, they're wrong. That's not the point though. I don't need to agree with your logic to see the validity of your logic.

Likewise, I don't want people agreeing with me simply on my say so. But I refuse to argue on what people 'think' are facts or what people 'think' should be proper. It becomes a battle of which echo chamber is louder. That kind of thinking is why I didn't see so many things then that I do now.

If you want to say "Hey, as far as we know there was no way to comparably translate this phrase, thus we think the translation is wrong," cool. I won't disagree. But don't come at me with "We know the texts are wrong because this word doesn't mean that," when everytime I point out "Um, excuse me, your own Wikipedia article says nobody knows for sure what this word originally meant so how do you say that??"

... I was just asking a question. :V

If there's no way to translate a passage, wouldn't any translation be wrong?

But it is possible to not know what something definitely means, but to be certain of a few things it definitely doesn't.

edited 4th Jan '13 11:43:01 AM by Elfive

I'm sorry, re-reading that I did come off as a bit more combative. My apologies.

Ah. A good assumption. But not necessarily. A definition being lost to time doesn't mean that some folks back then didn't get it correct. But like I've said, there've been a ton more research that suggests that this pile-up of translations errors...didn't happen.

Like I said, I want to see a copy of the Bible that shows these errors. That no one can produce one, well...

edited 4th Jan '13 11:45:09 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

You'd need to learn Hebrew, I think.

Perhaps. Or I could just wait till there's more proof than a bunch of guys on one side yelling "We've got fancy titles and we say it's wrong" and a group of guys on the other yelling "We've got fancy titles and we say it's right".

Starship, the thing is you actually looked at the data and it was proven.

And it's not so much of a religious studies stalemate as you think it is. There are linguists with nonreligious affiliations that have worked on this.

And just because the bible does or doesn't say something doesn't mean that you can't hold an independent view. You even do that yourself.

If you want to believe that Christianity is fundamentally against homosexuality, fine. Go ahead. But use your own interpretation. Don't blame what you think a book says.

If you want to go by: The Bible says so! Than you better go by everything it says.

Which means you need to be against shellfish, interracial marriage, mixed fiber clothing, marriage unless you can't hold your libido, and self defense.

You would have to be for capital punishment, public flogging, not shaving, a widow being forced to marry her dead husband's kin just to make babies, and all sorts of other scary things.

On the Co E allowing Gay Bishops, it's a step in the right direction. Given enough time and I think the Co E will continue to move forwards, if nothing else having Gay Bishops should speed up the advance as this move will rapidly increase the amount of influence gay clergy have. Now what I'm wondering is if once this move is approved we will have some bishops coming out as gay.

@Pola, yes Co E clergy can be married. Hell my old vicar even got divorced.

@Elfive, "Not that I can understand why anyone would want to be a bishop for an institution so vehemently opposed to their rights, but chalk that up to another thing on my list of Why I Just Don't Get Religious People." you're making the mistake of assuming that the Co E is like the protestant churches in America. The Co E isn't, it's stance on homosexuality is less "vehement opposition" and more "can we not have a civil war please". Now some parts of the Church do vehemently oppose gay rights, and some parts (like my old vicar) are the kind of people who will secretly bless a civil partnership (and are disappointed to not be able to marry gays).

@Pola & Starship, are there any printed versions of the Bible that don't list homosexuality as a sin? I can understand Starship's scepticism, when pretty much every version of the bible out there calls homosexuality a sin I can see why he's unwilling to agree that it's not simply because we can demonstrate that the issue is contested. Also I'd like to say that I don't think we should take shots at Starship for being (very ) slow on coming around to our side on many of these issues. In the end he's willing to listen to reason (eventually) and change his views when given evidence and reason to do so, and that's something that should be applauded.

I...damn, I got nothing to say. I think that sums up my viewpoint. Perhaps I'm just going to hire Silasw as my rep.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:02:06 PM by TheStarshipMaxima