• hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Idk it sounds like it would be a huge translation error if it was so

    Leviticus 20:13

    13 If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them.

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a case of modern morals trying to square a round hole.

        Here’s what the new American Bible standard says (which is considered the most accurate English translation by Bible scholars)

        If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their [j]own deaths upon themselves

        That’s it, not man and child but man and male. As in, lumping in homosexuality with pedophilia (that old chestnut).

        • XIN@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even there it uses two separate words. I thought it was a weird stretch until I actually read into it.

          • cogman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Right, but the two words used are “man and male” not “man and child”. That’s a more broad statement, not a more narrow one. As in it’s lumping in pedophilia with homosexuality. You’ll also notice the punishment isn’t for the “man” to be put to death, it is for BOTH to be put to death. So even if we take the argument “by male it means male child” you have to square away that it immediately calls for you to put that child to death. You’ll also take note that this says nothing about “man and girl”. If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?

            Well, that’s clear from other bible verses, because you pay 50 shekels of silver and get yourself a new child bride in that case. (Deut 22:28-29)

            If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.

            The bible very clearly knows what girls are yet has no real punishment for raping them.

            • XIN@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If this was truly a condemnation of pedophilia then why is it limited to male children?

              I think the verse in Deut you quoted explains it nicely. A female was just another man’s property and as long as they aren’t married “rape” was just claiming them. If the women was married both were put to death.

              In the end I don’t put much stock in this just being a mistranslation as the precedent seems to be homosexuality was sinful, but the argument did have a little more logic behind it than I thought it would when I first read the headline.

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the verse is against pedophilia (“man shall not lie with boy”), why does it say both the rapist and the victim needs to be killed?

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good question. Because they think gays are irreparably trainted and should die?

          You’re trying to apply modern sensiblities and logic to a “how to survive in the middle east as a goat herding tribe” manual. It’s not always going to make sense.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To my understanding this difference between man/male just equals homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia. If it were to protect kids from pedos, it surely would use a word describing children, not male.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          At the time it was written, both women and girls were property. They were not something to be protected, except that if they were damaged the owner was to be compensated.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except they had a Hebrew word for boy which the author choose not to use. Making the verse general. The author intended to say any adult man who has sex with any male of any age.

        It would be like me saying “do not use your stuff to steal property”. Property includes stuff.

    • Carvex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where’s the one about it being ok to fuck children?Because the people who wrote that have been fucking little boys and girls for two thousand years.

      I couldn’t care less about what they think we should all be doing.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        To be fair, we didn’t become conscious of uiquity of fucking children (and that it might be causing irreparable harm) until the late 20th century. Before the 1990s in the US, it was a social convention to let each household raise kids without checks, so if you hear violence from your next-door neighbor’s house, you leave it be.

        The term incest technically covered any familial sex, but in the 1970s when discussed was about daddy (oft inebriated) having his way with his daughters. It was assumed child sexual assault typically was of this kind (and everyone’s doing that) so it was disregarded. (other pairings were going on, but we made Alabama jokes about it. Or Mississippi jokes.)

        Then it came up in some public cases that not dads and not dangerous strangers, but other familiar adults (teachers, caretakers, ministers, etc.) were getting handsy with the kids. When it was investigated it was found to be so ubiquitous that there were concerns full prosecution of all the child molesters would drastically reduce the workforce, and cause an economic crash.

        This was the backdrop for the 1970s-1980s Satanic Panic, because we just couldn’t process that everyone was diddling kids (1in 3 women and 1 in 5-9 of men in my generation were sexually assaulted as kids, and it’s intergenerational ) so the whole story that satanists were ritualy sex-abusing kids became popular, inspired by The Exorcist and the Hollywood Satan-movie knock-off craze.

        For more fun and existential horror, check out the Behind The Bastards pod two-parter on The Satanic Panic.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Really doesn’t matter in Christian thought. Paul looked at all the laws of Moses, kept a few of them, and tweaked a few other ones. Which includes homosexuality. Which he attacks twice.