this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
613 points (96.2% liked)

Atheism

4065 readers
56 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 52 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I've been getting into some early Christian / Biblical textual analysis and history and apparently the people who wrote the Sodom story would not have understood the concept of homosexuality as an orientation, their conception was entirely act-based and focused on penetrator vs penetrated.

So this story, the primary anti-gay biblical story, is better understood as showing the Sodomites violating Guest Right, and Lot being such a good host that he expends resources (gives away his daughters to be raped) to keep his guests safe.

Just goes to show how cultural context is important in reading texts.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The preceding chapter is all about Abraham badgering God over the destruction of a city. He starts by saying "Okay, but would you destroy the city if fifty of its inhabitants didn't deserve it? What about forty-five? Forty? Thirty? Ten, even?" And in the end, God sends Angels down to pull the last righteous man in Sodom out of town before its destroyed.

The guest right passage is intended to illustrate him as a self-less man who would stand at the door before an angry mob to protect his new friends.

[–] s_s@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

apparently the people who wrote the Sodom story would not have understood the concept of homosexuality as an orientation, their conception was entirely act-based and focused on penetrator vs penetrated.

This is true for every culture except the current postmodern context in which we find ourselves.

The development of our current understanding of sexuality is a byproduct of the Green Revolution and the massive abundance of food in the western world. When you're hungry or in fear of being hungry, sex occupies less of your mind.

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

The story of Lut in Quran is explicitly about homosexuality. Idk how well they understood homosexuality but they were at least aware of it well before the green revolution

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] s_s@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Have you ever tried to get frisky with a girl who's hangry?

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Low blood sugar makes me lose my erection.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago

I love that it's an anti-gay story, and it was completely made up. Sodom and Gomorrah were not real places. The guy who wrote Genesis literally couldn't think of a real world reason why homosexuality or just sodomy was immoral so he made up a fairy tale.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Maybe it's the primary anti-gay story, but aren't there verses about "not lying with a man as with a woman"? And the punishment for that is to be stoned to death?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago

There is, but the translation is not perfect and I have seen the argument that the Hebrew translates closer to "you shall not lie with a close male relative as you would your wife" since there is a lot of incest mentioned in the list of prohibitions, or I've also seen it argued that it's implying "male sex worker", the word for "man" in that passage is not the normal word for "man" used in the rest of the Bible.

And I have also heard the context of the entire section being about priestly purity, so it's more like you wouldn't be able to perform rituals after having the wrong type of sex until you are purified, but it's on the same level as women being unclean when they are menstruating.

But the better argument to me is that Leviticus is specifically part of the Jewish Law, and people since the Apostle Paul have been saying you can't keep the Jewish Law and be a good Christian, because Jesus replaced all those rules. So it's actually a sin if you're Christian and insisting people abide by the rules in Levitivus.

(This is why I think this stuff is interesting)

[–] gastationsushi@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But married heteros doing oral, anal, mutual masturbation, or sex during a period is all forbidden. Yet all queer hating Christians don't speak out against any of that hetero/married sin.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I'm sure if the killjoys managed to outlaw homosexuality again they would come for those things next.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

It'd definitely be 'oral for me, but not for thee'