So, he's saying gay people need to go into the meat locker?

bgddy24601: Sounds like this pastor has seen fire AND rain.

Hey ain't it good to know that you've got a friend
in Jesus.

I find these religious nuts to be scary and comical.

Agrees.

Who is stupid enough to listen to a fundamentalist. Just knowing he is a fundamentalist should be enough to ignore him like a coughing man with the flu.

Chariset: bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.

What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands.  With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases

Not to mention other hygiene issues. That is a big reason for circumcision. Reminds me about the Chris Rock skit on eating a pork chop.

My locker is open. Anyone is welcome to use it.

jake_lex: I'm filing this story away for the day when this dude is caught sucking dick in a bus station bathroom.

If that's right, I don't wanna be wrong.

Oh, freeze a jolly good fellow, freeze a jolly good fellow...

Pretty sure most cities have a gay bar called "The Meat Locker"

Interesting comment about refrigeration, which does have some basis in fact. Many of the dietary restrictions did have to do with inability to preserve foods and disease from some foods. That being said there are many many verses in the Bible that have to be taken in context. If you pick in choose any argument can be made.

Be wary of those that base their position on one or two verses

Mentat: Chariset: What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands. With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases

But now that we have condoms, birth control, antibiotics and vaccines, shouldn't the same standards apply to restrictions on sexual activities?

Mentat: Chariset: What he's alluding to is the argument that dietary prohibitions (against pork or shellfish) were health measures and not eternal divine commands. With the advent of better cooking and food handling measures, a lot of the danger of contamination or parasites is gone, so those injunctions can be waived.

Commands against homosexuality, he thinks, don't fall under a health mandate (because...um... God), though you could argue that they most definitely do and should also be set aside with the advent of condoms and better management for sexually transmitted diseases

But now that we have condoms, birth control, antibiotics and vaccines, shouldn't the same standards apply to restrictions on sexual activities?

But only if those methods are effective, which they are not. To prove they are not effective ask any gay person with HIV, anyone with the antibiotic resistant clap or the two kids running around my house.

I love that his argument is "Well, we've fixed a lot of those other things. But God said homosexuality is bad, so that's what matters!"

No wonder it's been so cold here lately

It's been ~2000 years since Jesus, so who knows what modern day things we might be doing completely wrong? Maybe it's a sin to wear glasses, or driving a bicycle is a route straight to hell.

Since the Bible hasn't been updated to cover the last two millenia, its essentially worthless.

TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.

Scholars have also speculated it might mean pedophiles, male rapists, men who have anal sex with their wives, incestuous relationships, pagan fertility cultists. But it would NOT seem to mean "homosexual", because there's a specific word used for that, "androkoitai"/"androkoites". And there's other known words which could be used, too.

The declaration that it meant "homosexual", the " man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman" phrase, and the word "abomination" come from King James translation, early 1600's.

If you don't know Acts 10:11 you're really not much of a fundamentalist pastor.

Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

HIstorical whatnot

That's fantastic. I'd never heard any of that before. Amazing the things you learn on Fark.

bgddy24601: Chariset: I could defend this nutjob -- but I won't.

I would love to hear a defense, even if it is just someone playing Devil's advocate with a position that they do not actually hold.

Here is where he gets it from the New Testament:

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

New International Version (NIV)

So because they were wicked and foolish, God made them more wicked and foolish, then punished them for their wickedness and foolishness. According to Paul, anyway.

Mugato: The Meat Locker. Is that a gay club members of the clergy hang out in?

It's called the Mudd Club. That's where they hang out (and all the rest of whom for which to when-so-never of partially indeterminate biochemical degradation seek 'the path' to the sudsy yellow nozzle of their foaming nocturnal parametric-digital wheat/inter-faith geo-thermal terpsichorean ejectamenta)

In serious leather! in serious chains!

Uber Christain logic drains me mentally and emotionally.
Thus I am convinced that all fundamentalist Christians are really vampires and should be staked through the heart.


/makes about as much sense as they do.

bgddy24601: Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.

Scholars have also speculated it might mean pedophiles, male rapists, men who have anal sex with their wives, incestuous relationships, pagan fertility cultists. But it would NOT seem to mean "homosexual", because there's a specific word used for that, "androkoitai"/"androkoites". And there's other known words which could be used, too.

The declaration that it meant "homosexual", the " man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman" phrase, and the word "abomination" come from King James translation, early 1600's.

bgddy24601 I remember reading in more than a few sources that James I was gay. A quick Google search shows that is a prevalent theory. However I also remember being told that the reason the KJV Bible exists was to make the Bible more appealing to him as he wasn't too enthused w/the idea and since they were still big on the whole "divine right" of kings back then that would have really farked up the narrative. I have always concluded that the reason for the interpretation showing up then was to try to convince James to stop with the gay already because God made you king.

There is a good chance that some or all of that is malarkey. I cannot say I have ever felt the need to invest myself in deep research on the topic. Anyone who knows differently please feel free to correct / admonish me.

There's a fair amount of rationale to the concept that Jesus was gay. Hanging around town with a band of close menfolk, no women in sight. Unless you go for the Mary Magdalene being his lover or wife theory. If you dismiss MM's relationship, then a question of Jesus' preference should logically come up.

Is he referring to shrinkage?

How is this any less stupid than anything else a fundie pastor says?

I was looking for a more reverent picture, but I guess this one will do.
Oh, and this one too:

brantgoose: If cold kills the ghey, then your homophobes ought to:

Come to Canada!

Uh yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and rescind that invitation. Why would we want to import homophobes? No one needs more homophobes.

Oznog: TFA: "But the reality is it doesn't change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across."

God wrote the word "abomination"? In ENGLISH??

That's more than a technical point. Leviticus 20:13's translation is highly disputed. It's nothing approaching a direct translation- the original used an exceptionally rare word, condemning the "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)". Literally, that would be "man-beds", and there's no other information. Paul repeated it in Corinthians.

This sourceless word has puzzled translators. Apostle Paul repeated the word and its condemnation, but he not a clear source, because Leviticus was literally hundreds of year old by then. Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Paul which gives SOME credibility to his interpretation the word as being known to mean "temple prostitution" in his time, implying that's what PAUL might have known it to mean. That practice itself is somewhat of a mystery, we don't understand the practice clearly. Some sort of pagan rite.


The word "Arsenokoitai"/"Arsenokoites/(arsenos ou koimethese koiten)" is more than just rare. So far as we can tell, it didn't even exist until Paul MADE IT UP. And it's entirely possible (though not certain) that Paul was unable to read Hebrew or Aramaic and relied on a Greek translation of Leviticus. when he made it up --- probably a bad translation.

As you say, exactly what Arsenokoitai" means is debated, and it comes two roots "man" and "bed", but one more possibility is that it really says specifically that men should not have sex with men IN A WOMAN's BED. That's the "-koitai" in "Arsenokoitai": "marriage bed," "bed belonging to a woman."

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. The concept of separate beds for men and women (or for sex with men and sex with women) is consistent with that notion of "purity."

At the very least, it can be said with some certainty that the word "arsenokoitai" refers to men only ("arsen" means "man" in Greek), so even if Paul meant to use the word to condemn same-sex activity, he was giving lesbians a pass.

But ... wait ... if this were true.... then why do we have all these lesbians in Russia?

One of the biggest problems with the KJV of the bible, particularly the OT, was that the best experts on Hebrew were by law prohibited to set foot in England. Jews were not allowed back into England until several decades after James' death, under the Cromwell protectorate.

bgddy24601: I remember reading in more than a few sources that James I was gay. A quick Google search shows that is a prevalent theory. However I also remember being told that the reason the KJV Bible exists was to make the Bible more appealing to him as he wasn't too enthused w/the idea and since they were still big on the whole "divine right" of kings back then that would have really farked up the narrative. I have always concluded that the reason for the interpretation showing up then was to try to convince James to stop with the gay already because God made you king.

There is a good chance that some or all of that is malarkey. I cannot say I have ever felt the need to invest myself in deep research on the topic. Anyone who knows differently please feel free to correct / admonish me.

I was interested in the language of King James bible, that so many recognize as "bible speech" and many DIRECTLY associate that form of speech, the "thee, thou, of, shall, art, upon" with the Word of God. It's of course hardly the only translation out there, but it's the most common and strongly emphasized one. The New International Version uses modern formal English, and it totally lacks "flavor" IMHO.

The language structures used in KJV have NOTHING to do with the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts. That is, translating as "thee" is no more direct that "you". Nothing in the original text style dictated the KJV writing style.

The style was not common speech at the time KJV was written, either. It was more common in the prior generation, and by then was considered stuffy, formal, perhaps even pompous by many. Even at that time, people didn't say "thou" much anymore, even in formal writing. It was controversial, basically. But it was not done casually, the edit copies exist and they worked and argued both meaning and language quite extensively in a very cooperative committee.

NIV for Leviticus 20:13:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Well "Their blood will be on their own heads" is a bit more poetic liberty than objective statement. It's symbolic metaphor, their liquid blood doesn't end up on their heads.
The "Easy-to-Read" Bible used a more basic structure:
"If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."

In fact the "original" of Leviticus 20:13 is:
ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם

Translated into our phonetics, the text would be represented by:
"V'ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."

Direct, objective translation without context is impossible. Some literals:
"And with a male not you male shall lie down beds of a woman abomination she".
"'And with mankind you shall not lie beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun).'"
"And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them. "
Or

It may be saying that a woman's BED was unclean and a male should not sleep there. The oddity is that, as I understand it, contextually Leviticus doesn't use "lie" as the modern euphemism for sex, it seems to literally be laying down.

I was a bit confused before, lemme fix this. "arseno koites" was not in Leviticus, it was said by Paul in Corinthians/Timothy. His usage was important because modern Christians consider the early Jewish law (and its restrictions on ham, shellfish, blended fabric) to be deprecated by Jesus' "new law". Except Paul IS New Testament and in these two places asserts that that homosexuality is bad, and some say he's specifically citing THIS ONE PART of Leviticus and saying it's still relevant, which is why Christians still cite this part of Leviticus with such fervor.

Paul's text says "arseno koites"... "man-beds" and nobody knows WTF that meant to Paul. Paul's NOT citing Leviticus, unless he really cited it badly. Like I said, there's no extant use of the word prior to Paul, Philo was a contemporary (lived at the same time as Paul, but did not KNOW Paul) said it meant "temple prostitution". The mere fact that someone had to ask Philo suggests people were confused at the meaning even then, so Philo's word isn't definitive either. And still true that in Paul's time, "andro koites" was the word for "male homosexual" or "male homosexual acts".