stovestalker: noshamejustlove:zorobro: shota-purinsu: zorobro: linzthenerd: theguilteaparty: cripple

stovestalker:noshamejustlove:zorobro:shota-purinsu:zorobro:linzthenerd:theguilteaparty:crippledcuriosity:itsfondue:Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okayI talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them. I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts. Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.Matthew 8:5-13THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.^^^^thisreblogging for the comments ^^^^^^EXCUSE ME WHILE I REBLOG THIS FIFTY MILLION TIMESSo, yeah. There’s a lot of misinformation in this post. I study this era and specialize in religion and culture of this period. And there are two things to keep in mind: (1) The above interpretations of these Bible passages aren’t *wrong* exactly, but they aren’t TRUE FACTS either. They are an interpretation of difficult passages that are possible, and not necessarily probable. They are, what you call in our field, apologetics which = pretending that that shit don’t stink by choosing to interpret them in a way that 98% of people reading the passage would never think of. Now, if you would like to choose to believe a more progressive interpretation of certain biblical passages because it’s a text that meaningful to you, that is great. But we shouldn’t pretend that the text itself, or the attitudes of the cultures they came from, were not highly, highly problematic, or that the elites of those cultures didn’t try to control sexuality in violently misogynistic and hierarchical ways. Reading these texts in the original languages doesn’t change that. (2) All of that being said, the bible never presents a picture of an ideal sexual or romantic relationship, so anyone who says anything about “biblical marriage equals 1 man + 1 woman” is full of shit. The bible is full of polygyny, concubinage, forced concubinage, betrothal of minor girls without their consent, orphans and widows left destitute because of patriarchal inheritance laws, what we would definitely consider rape mostly involving slaves (like ACK even above that “male love slave” thing ≠ “lover,” it = what it says–a male forced into sex with their master, this was par for the course in ancient Rome, this is not something we should hold up as positive right?), and so on. So to me a good response to the person who quotes the Bible as not allowing male-male sex (it says nothing about female-female) is “ok but the Bible also thinks it’s fine to force sex on your slave in order to bear your children if you don’t have an heir. Is this really a book we should be getting our sexual morals from?”  -- source link

More pics about