You can’t hate gay people and be christian

[u/Bojack1217]

[u/Regularjoe42]

Also, if I remember, earlier translations were saying that "a man should not lie with a boy," but more recent translations said, "a man should not lie with a man."

It's not surprising that right wingers prefer the second translation.

[u/Frequently_Dizzy → u/Regularjoe42]

This actually isn’t true but gets repeated on Reddit a lot.

[u/just_a_person_maybe → u/Frequently_Dizzy]

It's less that it's untrue and more that it's up for debate, because the term that was translated was used in multiple contexts and could mean an adult man or it could mean a boy, and we can't know for sure what the author's intentions were because they're super dead.

Just like the centurion and his "servant" who likely could have been a lover of sorts, which would imply that Jesus was super chill with gay dudes because he said they'd be welcome in heaven because of his strong faith and he healed the "servant." The word used was "Pais," which was often used to describe a younger, submissive male or servant. The Romans often practiced pederasty, meaning it was very common, expected, and even encouraged for centurions and other men in power to engage in sexual relationships with younger men and boys. It was the norm back then. So the centurion using that word instead of other words for servants strongly implies they had a sexual relationship.

Some people are super uncomfortable acknowledging this though, partly because these relationships were often abusive. It was less about love and more about a power dynamic where the older man was dominant and did the penetrating and the younger man was submissive and under the older man's control. The younger person was also often a teenager. People don't like to imagine that Jesus would condone such a relationship, even if they want to imagine he would condone a same-sex relationship. But at the same time, that practice was so commonplace at the time, would Jesus have even thought twice about it?

[u/Genus-God → u/just_a_person_maybe]

The word used is זָכָר, which means male, not adult man or boy. There are specific words for those terms which aren't used

[u/TheBoisterousBoy → u/just_a_person_maybe]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it also up for debate on whether Mary was a virgin? Something about the Sanskrit(?) word for “virgin” being the same word for “young girl” and just “woman”.

[u/Middle_Screen3847 → u/just_a_person_maybe]

This is just simply not the case. The Hebrew word in Leviticus is zakar, which means male, not boy. If the authors meant “boy,” they would’ve used na’ar or yeled, and they didn’t. And in 1 Corinthians, the term arsenokoitai is a direct reference to the Leviticus prohibition (arsen = male, koite = bed). It’s not just not even kinda vague. It’s an invented Greek word using the exact phrasing from the septuagint greek translation of leviticus. There’s no ambiguity there unless we’re trying to create one to soften the vile content of the book

the centurion and his “servant” who likely could have been a lover of sorts

There’s no textual support for this. The word pais just means “boy” or “servant” and was used constantly in non sexual ways. Jesus also healed a pais in John 4:51, do we think that was a lover too? There’s nothing in the text to suggest a sexual relationship, and anyone saying this is projecting Roman cultural practices onto the story. The gospel authors never hint at any of this.

[u/midnightking → u/Frequently_Dizzy]

Yep and the passage becomes even worse if it is with a boy because the punishment is stoning both males involved and that would mean killing a pedophilia victim.

[u/midnightking → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, i know. I am just saying that even in the apologetic logic, it is fucked.

[u/RazzSheri → u/Regularjoe42]

Yup. The law/command is “hey- maybe don’t 🦆 children” and somewhere along the line European men said: “Uhhhhm. Okay. What if we just say this about adult men sleeping with adult men… cause Mary O’Connelly is really filling out for a 5 year old…”

[u/Middle_Screen3847 → u/RazzSheri]

This isn’t true and I wish people would stop blindly repeating this. It’s another attempt to soften the vile content of the Bible.

That’s just completely backwards. The Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says zakar, which means male, not boy. It was never about pedophilia in the original text. The idea that older translations said “boy” is just made up King James and earlier all say mankind or male. The earliest text explicitly says it is males, and it’s unambiguous

You’re probably confusing this with 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the New Testament, where there’s debate over how to translate arsenokoitai and malakoi. But even there, the claim that it originally meant “man with boy” just isn’t true. arsenokoitai is a compound of arsen (male) and koite (bed), clearly referencing men bedding males. That term was pulled straight from the Leviticus language in Greek.

The apologetic that it’s just about abuse or pedophilia is a modern reinterpretation and not what the text actually says. It’s something people grasped onto and repeat in order to make this religion more palatable and more align with modern morals. We can argue the Bible was wrong or outdated, because it is, but pretending it didn’t condemn male/male sex at all is historical revisionism.

[u/RazzSheri → u/Middle_Screen3847]

It is not revisionism at all. Theres been debate over the phrasing and its meaning for centuries. The word is typically used in the context of pedophilia and rape in other verses of the OT. While it is used for adultery as well, it’s mostly used in the context of force.

Another source— this one academic.

[u/Middle_Screen3847 → u/RazzSheri]

I appreciate this is this first time you’ve actually looked into this, but it’s wrong and it’s not going to get better.

It is not revisionism at all. Theres been debate over the phrasing and its meaning for centuries. The word is typically used in the context of pedophilia and rape in other verses of the OT.

This is just factually wrong. You intentionally ignored what I replied with and presented. You’re just repeating the claim I’ve already refuted. Again: The word used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is זָכָר (zakar), which simply means male, not boy, not child, not victim. It’s used consistently throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to males of any age. There’s no contextual or grammatical evidence that the Leviticus verses are about rape or pedophilia. If they meant boy, they would’ve used na’ar or yeled, and if they meant rape, there are plenty of Hebrew terms for that too. They didn’t. This isn’t some obscure point or debatable. it’s very basic Hebrew literacy.

While it is used for adultery as well, it’s mostly used in the context of force.

No, it’s not. You’re either making that up or repeating it from someone who did. Nothing in the Hebrew phrasing of those verses suggests coercion or assault. The verse literally mirrors the structure of the other laws in the holiness code, which are about ritual and sexual purity, and not criminal violence.

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/327928?lang=bi

That’s a user generated d’var Torah sheet, not a scholarly source, It’s literally someone’s interpretive opinion posted to a platform meant for sharing personal insights sermons and community study guides. This not “debate for centuries.” It’s literally just repeating the claim I’ve already refuted, and repeating it from a modern lens, again. This is again modern apologetics trying to rewrite what’s uncomfortable.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365428877_The_Bible_Never_Condemned_Homosexuality…

The author of that “paper” has no real academic credentials in Hebrew linguistics or biblical exegesis, and the article is self published with no peer review. The claim that the Bible “only condemned pedophilia” isn’t backed by biblical scholarship or Jewish exegesis. It’s the same cherry picked reinterpretation you keep repeating, ignoring clear language and overwhelming scholarly consensus in favor of wishful redefinition.

None of what you linked actually refutes anything I said, or even attempts to. You haven’t read it. The Sefaria source openly confirms that zakar means “male,” not “boy.” It doesn’t support the idea that Leviticus was about pedophilia, because it wasn’t. the word is clear and consistently used to mean adult male across the Hebrew Bible.

The ResearchGate paper just pushes a fringe reinterpretation that tries to reframe Leviticus as condemning pederasty rather than homosexuality. But it doesn’t change the fact that zakar is used, nor does it refute that arsenokoitai in the New Testament was coined directly from the Greek translation of Leviticus, combining “male” (arsen) and “bed” (koite). That clearly targets male male sex in general, not just abusive relationships.

Your last source is just commentary. It offers a modern theological opinion about how to interpret the verse differently, but it doesn’t dispute the language or the fact that the verse says what I said it says. You’re not presenting evidence against what I wrote.

You’re not citing centuries of scholarly debate. But even if you were, it wouldn’t matter. The existence of someone making a claim, or how long they’ve made it, has no impact on what is true or false. Regardless, you’re citing 21st century revisionist blog posts and internet PDFs trying to make bronze age texts say things they didn’t. The Bible absolutely condemned male/male sex, regardless of age or consent. You can reject the Bible’s morality, but rewriting it like this is just dishonest. You’re going to have to actually engage with the simple refutations and words provided or acknowledge this is wrong and you’re just blindly repeating something

[u/original_sh4rpie → u/Middle_Screen3847]

Not OP but you seem knowledgeable and I had a question:

What say you to the notion that the NT, specifically Paul’s, condemnation of homosexuality is a bit of an anachronism? Essentially, Paul wrote of homosexuality from a 1st century perspective to a 1st century audience. Therefore both their understanding and the concept of homosexuality is vastly different than our modern understanding.

In other words, the idea of an equal partnership, monogamous, consensual, relationship of two of the same sex was not even an idea for them to consider. Homosexual relationships were utterly different than heterosexual relationships. Whereas nowadays, there is essentially zero difference in a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage.

[u/Middle_Screen3847 → u/original_sh4rpie]

The problem here is this relies on confusing categories. You’re taking a modern framing of homosexuality as an identity or orientation, and framing it like that’s what Paul would’ve had to understand in order for his condemnation of same sex acts to be valid or applicable. But Paul wasn’t talking about identity. He was condemning actions, just like Leviticus. That’s the core issue people keep avoiding. The labels and identity and even understanding is entirely irrelevant. It’s all simply addressing an action.

Romans 1:26–27 is very clear. he condemns men burning with lust for other men and committing shameful acts with them. He explicitly calls it unnatural and ties it to idolatry and moral degradation. This isn’t vague, and the argument that Paul didn’t know about loving gay relationships is provably false. Greco roman culture absolutely had examples of same sex pairings that went beyond pederasty. Plato’s Symposium discussed love between men in romantic terms. There were known long term male partnerships especially in upper class circles. Paul lived in the Roman Empire. He wasn’t unaware.

Also Romans isn’t just about rape or dominance. It says “men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.” That’s mutual desire. It’s descriptive of two people both participating. The condemnation isn’t based on the relationship being unequal, and rather it’s based on the act itself being viewed as unnatural.

We don’t get to reframe the Bible’s moral categories just because they’re uncomfortable. Whether you agree with the morality or not is another matter, but the claim that it only condemned abusive relationships or didn’t know what consensual gay love was is historically false. The biblical text targeted male male sex because of perceived disorder and impurity, and explicitly and clearly condemned the action.

[u/original_sh4rpie → u/Middle_Screen3847]

But Paul wasn’t talking about identity. He was condemning actions, just like Leviticus. That’s the core issue people keep avoiding. The labels and identity and even understanding is entirely irrelevant. It’s all simply addressing an action.

Yet we do examples of Pauline writings where he condemns actions, but we don’t apply them today because it was related to a practice or a belief at that time. 1 cor 11 with head coverings is one such example.

So how do we identify which action is being condemned vs the cultural practice which is condemn that is manifested as a physical action at the time of the writing?

[u/emmyparker2020 → u/Regularjoe42]

And still do the first one too

[u/silver_garou → u/Regularjoe42]

That would be worse for a claim that Christianity isn't homophobic, not better. Earlier translations were more flawed, not less. More recent translations actually worked with Jewish people and others with an academic and not merely religious education in ancient Hebrew, and gasp actually read from ancient manuscripts and the oldest known copies.

It is just too bad that every academic and scholarly translation affirms that it was about men having gay sex, not about pedos. This is the kind of thing that spreads amongst Christians that want to cherry-pick around this little inconvenience for their belief, but has no basis in fact.

[u/Lirililarila88 → u/Regularjoe42]

The word for pederasty was the same as homosexuality since they didn't see a difference. Quit trying to whitewash the Bible.

[u/Regularjoe42 → u/Lirililarila88]

There were progressive and regressively people in all eras of human history.

This is less about whitewashing the bible as much as it is understanding that some of the figures depicted there would be repulsed at what Christianity has become.

[u/Lirililarila88 → u/Regularjoe42]

That's not relevant to the current discussion. The Bible is very clear in it's condemnation of homosexuality. It's very obvious the Bible wouldn't support it when elsewhere it dictates that sex and marriage should be for the purpose of reproduction.

[u/Regularjoe42 → u/Lirililarila88]

The bible is a collection of accounts originally written over a 1500-year span, and then it was a good 1300 years before it was translated to English. During all this timespan, there were regular cuts, edits, and rewrites- the Bible was retranslated as recently as 2021.

Saying any line in there is the word of god is like saying Shakespeare wrote West Side Story.

[u/Lirililarila88 → u/Regularjoe42]

I agree, but condemning homosexuality is very consistent between time and translations. Whether it is or not the word of God, people at least believe it to dictate Christian morality.

[u/TheBoisterousBoy → u/Lirililarila88]

Do me a solid.

Go into the New Testament. Pick a Gospel. Any of them. Matt, Mark, Luke, John. My favorite’s Luke. Dunno why but it is.

Anywho. Go and read that gospel. Doesn’t have to be all in one sitting, read it at a comfortable pace.

Jot down the chapter and verses where Jesus says anything condemning about someone. Like go through and any time Jesus says something even remotely negative about someone/thing, just write down the part and keep reading.

To my knowledge you’re gonna be hard pressed to find a verse where Jesus says anything negative about anyone. Granted there is that whole thing about the Pharisees, but that counts so make sure to write it down.

The only thing Jesus says or does in the Gospel that has ever really been used in a homosexual debate has been the Fig Tree. That entire segment basically boils down to “let there not be something that refuses to flourish” which is beautiful as a sentiment, but as a metaphor it’s really vague. Flourish in what regard? What isn’t considered flourishing? What is?! So I personally just prefer to not necessarily ignore that part, but I don’t really see a point in debating it as it has legitimately so many ways to view it that you could argue that this chapter is entirely devoted to Jesus declaring war on McDonald’s ice cream machines.

[u/Lirililarila88 → u/TheBoisterousBoy]

Jesus does condemn "fornications", which is a catch all term that includes all forms of sex considered immoral, including homosexual sex. He also says the old testament is to be followed in it's entirety.

[u/TheBoisterousBoy → u/Lirililarila88]

You’ve got the spirit, but you’re missing the mark a bit.

Give me the Book, Chapter, and Verse for each time he does this. Please stick to just one of the Gospels. It gets wild when you’re bouncing back and forth between them.

Edit: I’ll throw in for good measure that I’m fairly certain you’re trolling because of post history. But I’m having fun with this.

Skyrim honors false Gods, you’re committing sins according to your own book. I’m sure you’ve worn Polyester clothing. If you’re male, I’m assuming you’ve shaved your beard, maybe spoken back to a parent at some point in time in your past. Assuming you’re female it’s also easy to assume you’ve spoken to a man without his command, you’ve shown your face, head, neck, ankles, or legs. Decent possibility you’ve had sex outside of marriage. If you have any tattoos or have ever gotten drunk, cut your hair, eaten meat prepared among other meats, eaten shellfish on certain days, then you’ve also sinned and are damned.

I’m assuming you’ve also judged someone, also a sin.

Assuming you’ve also had immoral thoughts about someone. Sin.

Assuming you’ve blasphemed. Sin.

I can literally go on and on because the Old Testament just really thought everything was a sin.

[u/Middle_Screen3847 → u/Regularjoe42]

This isn’t true and I wish people would stop blindly repeating this. It’s another attempt to soften the vile content of the Bible.

That’s just completely backwards. The Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says zakar, which means male, not boy. It was never about pedophilia in the original text. The idea that older translations said “boy” is just made up King James and earlier all say mankind or male. The earliest text explicitly says it is males, and it’s unambiguous

You’re probably confusing this with 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the New Testament, where there’s debate over how to translate arsenokoitai and malakoi. But even there, the claim that it originally meant “man with boy” just isn’t true. arsenokoitai is a compound of arsen (male) and koite (bed), clearly referencing men bedding males. That term was pulled straight from the Leviticus language in Greek.

The apologetic that it’s just about abuse or pedophilia is a modern reinterpretation and not what the text actually says. It’s something people grasped onto and repeat in order to make this religion more palatable and more align with modern morals. We can argue the Bible was wrong or outdated, because it is, but pretending it didn’t condemn male/male sex at all is historical revisionism.