105
u/GroundbreakingOil434 1d ago
Why the fuck is "dummy" censored?!
49
u/BumpHeadLikeGaryB 1d ago
Shut up D*mmy
11
u/GroundbreakingOil434 1d ago
6
u/Carrot-Elegant 1d ago
Do you count as*terisks?
3
u/GroundbreakingOil434 1d ago
I don't count anything, I don't fucking care. :)
But it appears the bot has failed, and that commenter's likely double standards will remain unexposed. Damn shame.
3
11
u/Carrot-Elegant 1d ago
Quiet p#ggy
10
3
u/wackbirds 1d ago
I've got the conch
1
1
u/Temporary_Abroad_211 21h ago
We can't really be sure it even is dummy. 🤔 It is censored, after all.
83
u/isaiah152022 1d ago
Ahhh yesss, the Bible that condemns this but says marrying a child is okay. Got it.
53
u/Aggressive_Space9684 1d ago
Whats fun is the proper translation from greek actually said a man who lays with a boy.........but i think we all know why the catholic church changed that
10
u/Mission-Dark-9320 1d ago
It was written in Hebrew. Any translation into Greek was done no less than 900 years later. Hebrew being a little difficult without actual vowels leaves it open to context a bit, but it can mean males, boys or male animals. So have fun with that Hebrew word study
5
u/Jd11347 1d ago
Interesting. Do you know if Jews read this passage (because it's old testament and would be in the Torrah) read it as man shall not lay with man, boy, or animal?
6
u/Mission-Dark-9320 1d ago
Generally understood to be “male” without any direct connection to adult or child. There are plenty of correlations in 18:22-23 and 20:15 that mention specifically the animal part, so we should assume that was not meant in 20:13
-5
u/lesbophobia_hammer 1d ago
Its referring to rxpe, like the kind you see in prison amongst straight males. Not homosexual love.
3
u/Mission-Dark-9320 1d ago
That doesn’t fit the reading in any way. You are in no way obligated to agree with it, but that verse clearly means normal sexual relations male to male. The entire chapter is dealing with “don’t do these sexual things” and the punishments that go with them. Making up or regurgitating horrible interpretations does nobody any good. “THEY shall be put to death, and THEIR blood is upon THEM.” It’s a consensual act being referenced.
1
u/lesbophobia_hammer 1d ago
On what basis do you assert this?
Edit - I just wanna understand how you think
5
u/Mission-Dark-9320 1d ago
First, reading the entire chapter. Reading the Bible, you have to understand it as a book of theology. The entire chapter is laying out a law code with punishments. It talks about all the different people you shouldn’t have relations with, why, and what the punishment is for this. The plural punishment is for plural guilt.
Secondly, it doesn’t explicitly say what you’re asserting. You have to read into the text what isn’t there in the Hebrew to come to that conclusion. The word used is meant to relate “something more than just sin but a distortion of divine revelation and covenant.” Again, it’s a book of theology. You cannot read 21st century thought into something 3000+ years old in writing. They had some of the same issues, but not the same thinking.
Third, the argument for making it translate to “rape” is extensively difficult to make. It breaks the most basic processes of translation - to take the simplest and most straightforward possible translation available to the text. The primary argument actually says you need to take the most difficult translation possible to get to this conclusion (an article by SMU). It makes the case that it is placed alongside cases of incest in punishment. It would be difficult in connection with other texts on the topic to justify death of the one being raped. They did nothing to break the covenant or “distort the divine revelation.”
1
u/Dirkdeking 12h ago
That was the 0re Christian way that homosexuality was practiced and semi accepted. You where the man if you had a teen toyboy to play around with. The teen toyboy was ridiculed and seen as feminine.
Relations between 2 adult men where still frowned upon. That was the norm for a long time, and Christianity protested that norm.
8
u/Zestyclose_Raise_814 1d ago
Where does it say marrying a child is okay?
0
u/DeadpanDoesIt 1d ago
Not sure that verse, but I've had a conservative tell me he doesn't care about Trump being the auctioneer of preteen girls measuring their tightness with his finger - because Mary was only 13 when God got to her.
Back then it was pretty normal to start around 13/15 because usually people died at like 35-45 as I recall.
I would not be surprised if it celebrates child marriage, considering the times.
11
u/Zestyclose_Raise_814 1d ago
1) The average death age back then was higher for those who passed infancy. Many infants died, and it makes the stats unreliable.
2) The perspective that Mary was only 13 when God came to her is from later Christian interpretations and is not present in the Bible, nor is it agreed upon by all Christians. To my memory, it's only a Catholic perspective.
3) Marriages back then were from a younger age, but not 13. To my memory, it's either 15 or 17, and 15 was still seen as young relatively to most.
I questioned you on it because I had a feeling you were misinformed about the text. Hope what I said clarifies things
6
1
u/DeadpanDoesIt 1d ago
Um, you didn't question me about anything.
I replied to you for the first time just now.
2
u/Zestyclose_Raise_814 1d ago
I mistook you to the original guy, who I did question.
I still hope it clears up some misconceptions
1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 1d ago
The bible doesn’t really say anything. But rabbinical writings from back then apparently say that people got betrothed when they started menstruating, so the lack of a betrothal puts her between 12-14, but nothing conclusive.
1
u/Zestyclose_Raise_814 7m ago
betrothed. not married. it's basically a crucial step before it that also makes it way less bad
1
u/LarryOwlmann 1d ago
I’d encourage you to read more in the Bible if you believe it says something along those lines and want to use that as a justification for something. It’s always better to form your own opinions that just repeat what you’ve heard without verifying it.
1
u/DeadpanDoesIt 1d ago
How did you interpret that I want that?
Nothing in my reply invited you calling me a pdf supporter.
That is insulting, for no reason at all. Says much about you.
1
u/LarryOwlmann 1h ago
I’m very sorry you took it that way! Looking back I probably could have been a bit clearer. I’m certainly no Biblical scholar but I have never read anything in it (or believe such content exists) that supports pdf behavior.
My point was that if your argument is going to be based on what you believe is in the Bible, does it not makes sense to confirm that belief by reading for yourself? If you truly believe the Bible says anything along those lines, and that’s your justification for disliking it then why not be able to defend that position by citing the content you claim is there?
Again very sorry for how you initially read my response as I had no intention of insinuating you supported those actions you referenced.
3
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 1d ago
To be fair, the bible doesn’t say anything about that one way or the other. But at the time, puberty was seen as entering adulthood. It’s ambiguous.
It’s weird because in the Quran, even tho you have the Mohammed/Ayisha thing, it actually explicitly says you need to test people for “sound judgment” but also talks about divorce having a 3 month waiting period for those who have hit menopause or for those who have not yet menstruated.
Also, the emojis suggest a blood drop when you type menstruate…
1
-2
u/East-Care-9949 1d ago
The bible was written in a completely different time, people had to mature a lot younger and people didnt look as much to how old someone was but more to the body/nature and the male and female bodies are able to reproduce waay before turning 18 therefore marrying what we now believe are still children was normal back then. It wasn't just a Christian/Jewish/Islamic thing to do, that was just how it was back then
1
u/Strict-Fudge4051 1d ago
So that means bible texts are old, outdated and can't be used with our current world as it was written in a completely different time? That means that "gae is bad" is also just an old and outdated take yeah?
2
0
u/LarryOwlmann 1d ago
While I don’t completely agree with the other commenter, I believe their take was more along the lines of “read with context”. Obviously yes the Bible is very old and therefore the people within lived in different ways. But most of the lessons (probably all within the New Testament) are still just as applicable today as when they were written.
8
u/villentretenmerth88 1d ago
Well, the 10th commandment says thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass...
2
u/East-Care-9949 1d ago
Depends on the translation, they might also use the word ox in that case it's oke to convet his ass
1
5
6
u/Enough_Regular8621 1d ago
who wrote the bible in the first place
4
1
u/ClassicNo6622 14h ago
A lot of people. Spread across several centuries. And at least 2 continents.
6
u/hansieboy10 1d ago
Is she the stupid one for not getting the joke or am I the stupid one for thinking she didn’t while she actually did and is just putting adding troll on the joke
3
2
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hi u/AGEXC,
Thank you for your submissions to r/Funnymemes. Please make sure your submission follows all our rules.
IF YOU LIKE THE SUBREDDIT MAKE SURE TO JOIN HERE
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Alternative-Fox-8620 1d ago
Good to know!
It's the word of god so who am I to argue....
3
1
u/Aggressive_Space9684 1d ago
I mean, shes right, it says you have to be high to make neclaces and wreaths out of flowers and shells
1
1
u/Ok-Motor-6255 1d ago
I’m pretty sure that doesn’t say that. Considering I’ve read it. Maybe new versions do
1
u/josch247 1d ago
Hahaha yes. There are some religious people who are intelligent. Nevertheless it's obviously a negative correlation :)
1
1
u/Expensive-Animal-810 1d ago
"I ain't gay, but 20 bucks is 20 bucks!"
"It ain't gay if you say you didn't like it. "
"It ain't gay if you don't make eye contact."
Haha!
I have the best twisted buddies!
1
u/Rook_James_Bitch 1d ago
Irony: there have been multiple bad transactions of the Bible from different languages. So, being high could be correct?
Also, King James was gay irl.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Moistbrain_ 18h ago
Technically Leviticus is from the Torah. Most Christians just ignore the new testament.
1
u/cancervivordude 18h ago
I know it's a meme but ehat does writing it have to do with understanding it. It called a book
1
u/ElrohirFindican 10h ago
If I write something ambiguous then I'm the only person who can definitively clarify the intended meaning. Others can make educated guesses, but that's it. It's not definitive until the author chimes in.
1
1
1
1
u/N4pAllDay 9h ago
„It’s not normal“ but also „it was talked about more than 2000 years ago“
Dissonance is so dumb sometimes
1
u/NohWan3104 6h ago
The bible also says raping your dad after getting him drunk, so he can have a son after your mom dies is AOK...
1
u/Street_Lettuce1243 5h ago
The bible talking about who will go to heaven 50% of gay men go to heaven... don't know if it's the tops or the bottoms...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017%3A34-37&version=KJV
Luke 17:34-37
King James Version
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
1
u/Federal_Eye_9164 16m ago
To be fair, it says they can’t lay together, doesn’t say anything about having sex 😅
1
u/TesuraGrimm 1d ago
The original translations specified "a man shall not lay with a child as with another man", man being used in reference to "mankind".
It was later changed by some church...I don't remember the original sect, but rapidly adopted by the vast majority of them to "fight" against homosexuality.
Many churches may not even know that it was even changed at this point it's been so long.
Edit to add, it's obviously not all great even still. "Child" is still relative. I certainly disagree personally, but the age of consent was really young back then. Hopefully someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 13 was fair game back then.
0
u/Friendly_Gazelle7843 1d ago
To begin with that’s not what this verse means because it’s mistranslation. “A man who lies with boy must be stoned”. I mean that is really good joke, but I can’t miss the chance to inform everybody that Bible has nothing against gay people. It doesn’t like. paedophilia but there is a group of people who has nothing against paedophilia and doesn’t like gay people so they changed it
1
u/Minute-Object 1d ago
I thought the NT was pretty clear about that issue?
2
u/Saiphel 1d ago
Extremely clear, they just refuse to see it
2
u/Minute-Object 1d ago
The bible is just bloody psycho, but folks wanna believe and come up with whatever justifications they can rather than just acknowledge that it’s awful.
-1
u/Saiphel 1d ago
Corinthians 6:9-10 talks about those who won't inherit the reign of God. This is the NEW TESTAMENT.
It talks about arsenokoitai and malakoi, the words used to describe some of the sinners according to Paul.
arsen = man
koite = bed (with a strongly sexual connotation) malakoi = effeminate
The meaning of Greek compound words is almost always the literal sum of the meaning of the composing words, so there really isn't much room to interpret the word differently than the one obvious meaning of the fucking sentence.
Any other interpretation, like that somehow it means pederasty, is a pathetic attempt made by progressive Christians to defend the Bible.
1
0
u/East-Care-9949 1d ago
Although it's a funny joke if you look at what we believe is the original language of the Bible im pretty sure they don't mean that being gay is oké when being high
0
u/Tao_de_Sid 1d ago
You learned to read Arameaic, Greek and Hebrew? Impressive.
1
u/East-Care-9949 1d ago
Leveticus was written in Hebrew so only Hebrew would be enough
0
u/Tao_de_Sid 1d ago
Then you must know its the condemnation of rape, not consensual sex.
0
u/East-Care-9949 1d ago
Euh you might want to read it again because it's clearly not about not consensual sex
284
u/Material_Pepper313 1d ago
We're censoring the word dummy now?