974
New Charlie Kirk statue vandalized at Turning Point USA headquarters
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
974 points (98.3% liked)
News
39288 readers
1931 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't cry for a man who called for the stoning of gays.
Instead, we can all laugh for the man who fought hard to change the world for others and got to experience that world for himself.
I can never see this meme and not think of this...
https://youtu.be/oMRgdpXLElE
This level of poetic justice happens so rarely.
Clip in context?
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
I know, a twitter link. Throw it into yt-dlp.
Also, the line that Kirk counters Ms Rachel with may have been a mistranslation and the original text may have said something more along the lines of "Man shall not lay with a boy the same as they lay with a woman", which is a very contentious idea among Christians. Whether that's because it means they're not being told to hate gay people or because they're being told to hate statutory rapists is up to you.
It is not a mistranslation, it's very clearly talking about same-sex intercourse. The "mistranslation" angle is being invented out of whole cloth to retcon the Bible.
I appreciate the Christians who are trying to be accepting of LGBTQ+, but IMO they should just acknowledge the Biblical authors were wrong about this instead of pretending they didn't say what they said.
If it was just about same sex intercourse, they would have included a line about women lying with women. This was very likely more about not denigrating another man by forcing them into the role of a woman. Also, given this spent generations as oral tradition before being written down and translated several times, trying to say your particular personal interpretation is the only possible correct one is asinine at best.
Clearly, it just meant that hetro couples shouldn't do anal.
Favorite take so far. Lol
I'll have to push back there and maybe you have an argument if this was the only time it was talked about in scripture but it is not and it matches the threads of other biblical narratives.
A common thread through the Bible is that families are God's plan for humans on this side of death. They are good to His kingdom and to promote the values of His love. Now homosexuality would directly go against that narrative so I don't think the "man to a woman role" is a valid argument anymore. Romans 1 goes through the "homosexuality is bad" too.
Someone else said we are to say the writers of the Bible are wrong and that is a fundamental difference in ideals that we cannot overcome. I believe the Bible is the word of God and it is complete, authoritative and not up for change based on societal influences where that may not be the case for others so we would be arguing from literal difference in fundamental values. And that's ok to do but no resolution could possibly come out of that.
Oh, so you read the bible in its original ancient Hebrew? I wasn't aware any copies survived past the end of the Mouseion. Or do you just conveniently not count all of the translations, excisions and retranslations, along with editorialising at times such as the council of Nicea as "change based on societal influences"? Or, perhaps, do you believe that God, YHWH himself, gave forth the words, in English, to produce the specific version you read?
There are literally readily available copies of the Hebrew Bible. Complete copies are available which are over 1000 years old, and individual books and fragments going back to the end of the biblical period.
But are there any remaining in the classical ancient Hebrew from before the Babylonian captivity? You know, the language that the Jewish survivors of the second temple period had to reconstruct nearly from whole cloth, because their own language had evolved orally, and the entire written language was purely contextual to determine which vowels were being used? My question is whether the bot up above was in the habit of reading a language so thoroughly dead that it might as well be fucking Minoan. When even the Jews of the second temple period had to just trust that the Septuagint was a faithful translation, that begs questions of accuracy in translation from "the word of god".
You have a lot of misconceptions about Hebrew continuity. Also misunderstanding of when the Bible was written.
Try reading Robert Alter. Very respectable scholar, but also fairly accessible.
I am genuinely interested in the topic, and will gladly look into the scholarship! Thanks for the reference! I'm fairly certain, however, that the biblical Hebrew was no longer in use by the time of the second temple period, instead being replaced among the populace with Aramaic, and all pronunciations and vowel renderings were, therefore, purely guesswork on the part of the scholars (hence the three or four different pronunciation interpetations), the most common of which wasn't even invented until the middle ages. It's the same deal with so-called "Church Latin", except that Latin isn't an abjad, so there wasn't any guessing at context clues for spelling.
As far as the original comment was concerned, my point was that any translation is a change, and meaning is often lost. The modern christian bible has gone through at least 4 translations, no matter which route it took from the hand of bloody moses to the Christian fundies. This, in addition to things such as the Second Temple Period changes to which books would be selected for the accepted canonical Hebrew bible, or the Council of Nicea, completely destroy any idea of some pure word of god, unadulterated by human reinterpretation, as the bot was suggesting. The bot was clearly claiming that it was a Christian reading the modern bible, and that it somehow was the word straight out of the mouth of YHWH himself. That's fucking idiotic.
Well, there are some people who have an interest in exaggerating uncertainty and inconsistency in the biblical text.
Many diasporic Jewish communities of the ancient world were not familiar enough with Hebrew and required the Septuagint (Greek), or the Targum (several Aramaic translations). However, there were rabbis in the first and second centuries CE discussing the correct intonation and punctuation of the text for homiletical purposes. That suggests that they where both very familiar with the language of the text, and shared a "correct" intonation. Worth noting that these discussions were happening in Hebrew.
It's true that early 20th Century scholars debated that the ancient Hebrew script was lost to Jews after the Babylon exile. We have since found examples of the Ancient Hebrew script and Assyrian script (used in Hebrew from the Babylon time until today) side by side in the same documents.
Your point about translation is right on the money, although some ancient translations do provide additional context about what the original text meant to the people of the day.
Yeah, I just find that the voices I hear talking about it instead have an interest in downplaying uncertainty and inconsistency by, for instance, claiming that the modern Christian bible is the direct word of god, translated by divine inspiration, and that there has only ever been one, consistent version, in order to justify unconscionable beliefs, many of which even members of the original culture to develop the mythology and belief systems might have found abhorrent. So I'm just here calling out the fundie on the fact that they have no basis for the claim that their pet version of the document which, above all others in human history, has undergone the most reinterpretation, excision, addition, and translation, is completely free of human conceit. That original context is, as you point out, lost in translation. The things we could learn if we had a window to the Canaan of 3500 years ago...
Yep, that too.
Lmao you're so lazy. And half your "citations" are Facebook and Reddit links. The other half are heavily biased Christian organizations.
Surprise surprise you demanded the AI to tell you something you wanted to hear, and it did.
The amount of biblical reproductions and verifiable copies are factors higher than homers illiad. That's a fact.
Here are some real sources.
L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford University Press)
Paul Maas, Textkritik — the foundational 20th-century work laying out the method (stemmatics/cladistic analysis of manuscript families) that's
Martin West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Teubner)
These compare the methods used on classic literature that society deems as some of the most accurate books and preservation in history. Using those same standards, the Bible becomes an outlier for accuracy.
Here are some real sources.
L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford University Press)
Paul Maas, Textkritik — the foundational 20th-century work laying out the method (stemmatics/cladistic analysis of manuscript families) that's
Martin West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Teubner)
These compare the methods used on classic literature that society deems as some of the most accurate books and preservation in history. Using those same standards, the Bible becomes an outlier for accuracy.
You can't even speak in your own words and you think you are the all knowing authority on the Bible? Settle down with that blasphemy please.
Did I say I was an all knowing authority on the Bible? No I'm bringing up counterpoints. That's how discussions work
The Bible has been translated and re-translated across basically every language on the planet, as well as appropriated for propaganda purposes over and over as well. To think that you can take a line at face value - especially in English - is naive. There have been at least 50 different cultures and societal revolutions between you and when that line was first written.
For example, the King James version of the Bible is a propaganda piece commissioned by a monarch at a time when kings were quite literally losing their heads with the express purpose of including as many references to kings and monarchies as possible in order to foster positive sentiments in the peasants toward the "divine right of kings" or whatever.
In early versions of the Bible, Lucifer was imprisoned in Tartarus alongside the Titans that Zeus put in there. I'm pretty sure Hell was added later during a medieval reformation or something. The Bible was definitely altered several times during the Medieval period. The line in question here I think had at least 3 variants during this time period. The one claimed to be about same-sex intercourse, a version potentially about not engaging in CSAM, and one that might be about not fucking somebody in another person's bed.
King David, one of God's anointed, had something like 32 wives and a friend who "loved him in a way that no woman ever could."
One of the people that Jesus heals is the slave of a Roman soldier. In the original Latin text, the word used is for a specific type of slave. A male slave commonly kept as a lover.
And we could have a field day on Biblically accurate angels, "Be not afraid," and the Renaissance era redefining what an angel is.
And then there's also the fact that the Bible was written by multiple different people across several hundred years, at least. The later parts of the New Testament were written by people who lived 300 years after the death of Christ and claimed to know him and what he wanted better than his apostles did. Some of whom who said that the Old Testament and original sin still counted despite the nullification of the Old Testament and the cleansing of original sin being one of the reasons that Christ supposedly sacrificed himself for.
There are significant scholars who agree that David was gay. FWIW
A) They can't acknowledge the Bible was wrong about anything. The whole point of their religion is that the Bible is God's words written down by man. Even when you know about the conclave that decided which of the hundreds of "biblical" stories were apocryphal and which were true, hundreds of years after the events of those stories supposedly happened, they will still say that God was guiding that conclave. Bringing up a bad translation also doesn't help, since King James was guided by God to create his translation. The Bible CANNOT be wrong (according to Christians), since it is the word of God.
B) Historical context is important if you want to try interpreting God's words instead of taking them literally. Romans had a very different lifestyle and view of sex and the role of men and women. It could be that God's word was that the TYPE of male relationships the Romans had was not what God wanted, but just two dudes banging was fine.
When I showed you evidence of the Iron River getting thousands of Mexicans killed under American-made guns, 30,000+ of them every year plus another 20,000+ if you count the depression, misery and poverty an environment like that causes, the cardiovascular and neurological diseases it causes on the poorest and most vulnerable, and how angry I was at that injustice, and the fact you have killed my family in the Middle East and Mexico, you kept gaslighting and then replied with this:
Why should anyone give a MAGA like you raw data? You are a piece of shit who denies reality and ignores the deaths of minorities.