Which part of the Old Testament is that in again? Because if it’s in Leviticus I don’t think you need me to throw a handful of other inane rules that book has that nobody follows and I don’t think even apply to Christians anymore.
And no one follows the book anymore thus the problems that we have. How to live a decent life was laid out in Exodus. Some of those rules included: not fucking animals not fucking men, not fucking your sister, or your mother and don't eat a person either. All things that make sense to have a successful society don't you agree?
I don't, but they did. That's why it was written down. Times were very different back then. God was trying to make the jews into a functioning society, a civilization. If you've got some time either read or listen to the Bible and they talk about all these rules. It's fascinating stuff.
Nope, I do wear those. I dont eat shellfish though, not because of leviticus but because I find it gross. You asked about the old testament so I just provided you the texts that call out homosexuality there. If you want to look further into it, the new testament (which most christian denominations believe stablishes the current contract between god and his church) explicitly lists homosexuality as a sin too: https://www.bibleref.com/1-Corinthians/6/1-Corinthians-6-9.html
I didn't write it and I personally don't care what way people swing, but I think putting a openly gay person in a position of priesthood is not good for anyone -- you are forcing that person into a conflict of interest between his own sexual orientation and what your organization is supposed to uphold. Imagine the KKK considering a black person for a leadership position (shoutout dave chappelle lol) It doesnt make sense for anyone: Racist klansmen wont be happy, and the black person for sure shouldnt be happy being part of an organization that by definition does not agree with what he is . It is a lose lose situation for everyone
The Corinthians argument is fundamentally flawed, based on a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the greek, "arsenokoitai," which in context referred to married men engaging in pederasty with their slaves.
Unfortunately the whole “it’s about pedophiles not homosexuality” is bad scholarship at best and intentional misrepresentation at worst.
This argument has been developed recently (I have been unable to find any evidence or claim prior to roughly a 2020 paper) and is primarily used as an argument by people and in circles specifically to bash Christianity and it’s just not accurate.
Arsenokoitai is a hybrid word for man bedding. Man in the sense of male and bedding in the sense of banging.
The word arsenokotai is also not even used in the verse most frequently quoted (Leviticus 18:22).
Leviticus was originally in Hebrew and it breaks the elements up instead of using a single word. It reads trans literally as V’et-zakar Lo tis-kab v’et mishkabe ishah towabah hi.
Or “with a male (negative) you lie down in the act of lying down sexually as lying (with) a wife an abomination that (is).”
All standard words for male, same word used to distinguish between male and female animals.
There was a Greek translation done years later called the Septuigint which many modern Bible translations are based on. It also doesn’t use the word arsenokotai.
Because the Hebrew doesn’t smush it together, neither does the Greek, which reads
“Kai meta arsenos ou koimAthAsA koitAn gunaikos bdelugma gar estin” which means
“And with a male (not) you shall sleep sexually as with a woman, detestable that is.”
As for why Paul uses arsenokotai in the New Testament, it’s likely because because this term can be found separated in the septuigint translation (LXX) as arsenos koitAn in Leviticus 20:13 which reads “And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.” Paul appears to be directly referencing this verse by word choice.
I’m not Christian but this is really interesting to see, the clash of progressive values with traditional beliefs. I’m from a Muslim background (not practicing) and I know we’re a lot more stringent (or westerners prefer backwards) in terms of LGBT but I truly believe that we will face these same issues after several decades and societal development in the Muslim world.
Watching how the Vatican handles this will provide learnings for when other religions begins dealing with this.
Aren't they basically acknowledging the fact that, yeah, it's been centuries we got gay men in the clergy, but always in the closet or lying to themselves. Nowadays we have a vocational crisis on our shoulders, so why forbid people who want to become priests but are conscious of their own homosexuality.
Imo, it's better than seminarians lying about their sexual orientation. Anyway the Church is nowhere near scrapping the celibacy requirements, so who really cares if the priest is heterosexual, gay, bi or ace, honestly?
Even if you are not actively living with another man (as the celibacy would imply), you would need to be able to still preach the biblical position about homosexuality being a sin. By definition we are all sinners so the problem wouldnt be if the priests are gay or not, but wether or not a gay priest would not have issue aligning themselves with the biblical position on homosexuality.
Why do they still have a say in what guideline individual churches should follow with. Couldn’t they be a symbolic thing just to draw a line from Protestantism?
Wow, amazing, i can hardly imagine the gigantic change this will make in the ranks of the clergy. Gay men becoming priests? I never thought i would live to see the day!
babycart_of_sherdog@reddit
Amazing
The Old Testament had strict prohibitions against homosexuality
The New Testament had strict qualifications for bishops to be married men with a good family life
The Vatican doesn't give a fuck about both
ScotsDale213@reddit
Which part of the Old Testament is that in again? Because if it’s in Leviticus I don’t think you need me to throw a handful of other inane rules that book has that nobody follows and I don’t think even apply to Christians anymore.
buffalo_Fart@reddit
And no one follows the book anymore thus the problems that we have. How to live a decent life was laid out in Exodus. Some of those rules included: not fucking animals not fucking men, not fucking your sister, or your mother and don't eat a person either. All things that make sense to have a successful society don't you agree?
Interesting_Injury_9@reddit
Do you really need anyone writing down “dont fuck animals” for you though?
buffalo_Fart@reddit
I don't, but they did. That's why it was written down. Times were very different back then. God was trying to make the jews into a functioning society, a civilization. If you've got some time either read or listen to the Bible and they talk about all these rules. It's fascinating stuff.
Shady_bookworm51@reddit
yea i asked the same thing to someone and yea they cited Leviticus.
mahanian@reddit
There is no such qualification in the New Testament. Paul himself was celibate.
Shady_bookworm51@reddit
which part of the old testament was that again?
irteris@reddit
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the most prominent ones.
Shady_bookworm51@reddit
so i assume you also dont wear mixed fabrics or eat shellfish then either right? though are also in Leviticus
irteris@reddit
Nope, I do wear those. I dont eat shellfish though, not because of leviticus but because I find it gross. You asked about the old testament so I just provided you the texts that call out homosexuality there. If you want to look further into it, the new testament (which most christian denominations believe stablishes the current contract between god and his church) explicitly lists homosexuality as a sin too: https://www.bibleref.com/1-Corinthians/6/1-Corinthians-6-9.html
I didn't write it and I personally don't care what way people swing, but I think putting a openly gay person in a position of priesthood is not good for anyone -- you are forcing that person into a conflict of interest between his own sexual orientation and what your organization is supposed to uphold. Imagine the KKK considering a black person for a leadership position (shoutout dave chappelle lol) It doesnt make sense for anyone: Racist klansmen wont be happy, and the black person for sure shouldnt be happy being part of an organization that by definition does not agree with what he is . It is a lose lose situation for everyone
deadlizardqueen@reddit
The Corinthians argument is fundamentally flawed, based on a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the greek, "arsenokoitai," which in context referred to married men engaging in pederasty with their slaves.
Chewbacca_The_Wookie@reddit
Unfortunately the whole “it’s about pedophiles not homosexuality” is bad scholarship at best and intentional misrepresentation at worst.
This argument has been developed recently (I have been unable to find any evidence or claim prior to roughly a 2020 paper) and is primarily used as an argument by people and in circles specifically to bash Christianity and it’s just not accurate.
Arsenokoitai is a hybrid word for man bedding. Man in the sense of male and bedding in the sense of banging.
The word arsenokotai is also not even used in the verse most frequently quoted (Leviticus 18:22).
Leviticus was originally in Hebrew and it breaks the elements up instead of using a single word. It reads trans literally as V’et-zakar Lo tis-kab v’et mishkabe ishah towabah hi.
Or “with a male (negative) you lie down in the act of lying down sexually as lying (with) a wife an abomination that (is).”
All standard words for male, same word used to distinguish between male and female animals.
There was a Greek translation done years later called the Septuigint which many modern Bible translations are based on. It also doesn’t use the word arsenokotai.
Because the Hebrew doesn’t smush it together, neither does the Greek, which reads
“Kai meta arsenos ou koimAthAsA koitAn gunaikos bdelugma gar estin” which means
“And with a male (not) you shall sleep sexually as with a woman, detestable that is.”
As for why Paul uses arsenokotai in the New Testament, it’s likely because because this term can be found separated in the septuigint translation (LXX) as arsenos koitAn in Leviticus 20:13 which reads “And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.” Paul appears to be directly referencing this verse by word choice.
EmptyJackfruit9353@reddit
Why would you want to be a priest if you find the holy books so repelling?
I am sure those gay men would understand.
Unless, of course, they find some thing particular appeasing about living in the monastery.
pm-me-nothing-okay@reddit
Why do you assume this user is even christian?
S1M0666@reddit
New Testament said what?
ParagonRenegade@reddit
good lol
Zellgun@reddit
I’m not Christian but this is really interesting to see, the clash of progressive values with traditional beliefs. I’m from a Muslim background (not practicing) and I know we’re a lot more stringent (or westerners prefer backwards) in terms of LGBT but I truly believe that we will face these same issues after several decades and societal development in the Muslim world.
Watching how the Vatican handles this will provide learnings for when other religions begins dealing with this.
Crouteauxpommes@reddit
Aren't they basically acknowledging the fact that, yeah, it's been centuries we got gay men in the clergy, but always in the closet or lying to themselves. Nowadays we have a vocational crisis on our shoulders, so why forbid people who want to become priests but are conscious of their own homosexuality.
Imo, it's better than seminarians lying about their sexual orientation. Anyway the Church is nowhere near scrapping the celibacy requirements, so who really cares if the priest is heterosexual, gay, bi or ace, honestly?
Rad-eco@reddit
Because gay men are less likely to abuse children.
le-o@reddit
What makes you say that?
irteris@reddit
Even if you are not actively living with another man (as the celibacy would imply), you would need to be able to still preach the biblical position about homosexuality being a sin. By definition we are all sinners so the problem wouldnt be if the priests are gay or not, but wether or not a gay priest would not have issue aligning themselves with the biblical position on homosexuality.
Dveralazo@reddit
For one side,LMAO their god condemns homosexuality!
For the other side,well they are supposed to be celibe,no? It's not like they can practice the sin anyway.
However,it says clearly that the leader of the church must me a married man,so from the start they were already fuckin up things. Again, LMFAO.
Potential-Main-8964@reddit
Why do they still have a say in what guideline individual churches should follow with. Couldn’t they be a symbolic thing just to draw a line from Protestantism?
MrCookie2099@reddit
Why would the Catholic Church ever allow churches autonomy?
smokeyleo13@reddit
You act like the church hasn't schismed before
MrCookie2099@reddit
It's not something they want to repeat or even give the hint of legitimacy towards. Again, why would they allow for MORE decentralization?
Prestigious_Win_7408@reddit
The west has fallen, billions must die
Antique-Resort6160@reddit
Wow, amazing, i can hardly imagine the gigantic change this will make in the ranks of the clergy. Gay men becoming priests? I never thought i would live to see the day!
DoubleDrummer@reddit
This is the funniest thing I have read today.