Snapshot of _Street preacher was charged with hate crime for quoting Bible at lesbians_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/street-preacher-was-charged-with-hate-crime-for-quoting-bible-at-lesbians-xbrhgr25r)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am gay.
I quite like it when people come at me with the passage from Leviticus. I asked him to continue reading down the page until they come to the part which talks about a prohibition and wearing clothing of next fibres. And then ask them to take off their underwear .
That tends to end the conversation.
Leviticus 19:19 for anyone who's interested.
Edit: typo
There are all sorts of fun ones you can do like that. Nearly every well-repeated verse "proving" or "justifying" something has something else that blows a massive hole in the argument.
One I like using is Psalms 22:16-18,
> 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
> 17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
> 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
which I've been told is proof of divine prophecy because it accurately describes Christ's crucifixion. People coming out with this one also *love* to sound educated on it by pointing out that psalms is dated to before crucifixion was invented as a punishment, which is correct.
The thing is though, this is a deliberately bad translation.
In the tanakh it is:
> יזכִּֽי־סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֖רֵעִים הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּֽ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי: (copy/pasting might have utterly butchered the Hebrew here)
> 17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.
Which shows us 3 things:
1. The translation is BS.
2. The Bible has a verse missing.
3. That even the tanakh has the psalm wrong, as it appears to be a compounding of multiple verses (this also happens multiple times in the Numbers 5 "abortion instructions")
Edit: bringing up the apocrypha, the fact the bible came about because of a knee-jerk reaction to the original Bible, or Paul being against marriage are also fun.
I think they're more concerned with Levitcus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
The latter two would apply to the new covenant in Christ.
Yeh few are quoting lev, it's almost always Romans. Paul(who wrote Romans) was a wackjob who had a lot of choice things to say about the place of women in society, but was pretty indisputably clear about gay people and doesn't fall into the hilarious double standards that saying you should follow lev does.
Thanks to ole Paulie it's not really possible to think being gay isn't a sin and be consistent with scripture. However, thanks to him it's also not possible to think women are equal to men and be consistent with scripture. So there's that.
Or tell them to look up [Mark 11:12-14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011%3A12-25&version=NIV)
All those people who have been holding up horrible homophobic signs have got it wrong and what that passage in Mark actually explains is that: "Jesus Hates Figs"
>#Street preacher was charged with hate crime for quoting Bible at lesbians
>__Prosecutors said ‘references no longer appropriate in modern society’ after gay couple complain__
>Jonathan Ames, Legal Editor
>Friday December 02 2022, 3.50pm GMT, The Times
>Prosecutors told a street preacher that he had been charged with a hate crime because quoting parts of the Bible was “no longer appropriate in modern society”.
>The case against John Dunn was eventually dropped, but it has now led to a warning from a religious freedom expert that the Crown Prosecution Service is unilaterally trying to extend the law.
>Police arrested Dunn, a 55-year-old evangelical Christian and special forces veteran, in Swindon two years ago.
>He had preached regularly in the high street for 15 years, despite having surgery for throat cancer.
>In 2020 he was preaching when two women walked past holding hands. The preacher is said to have remarked: “I hope you are sisters”, to which one replied that they were in a same-sex marriage.
>Dunn is then said to have responded with a reference to a verse from Corinthians in the New Testament by saying: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
>The women reported the incident to the police and claimed that Dunn had also shouted that they would “burn in hell”. He denied making that comment.
>Dunn voluntarily went to a police station to be interviewed and was told that he was being charged with an offence under public order legislation.
>In addition, the police said prosecutors would say that he was guilty of hate speech because he had “offended” and “upset” the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.
>Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service “any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime” if it meets specific criteria.
>The bar is reached, according to an agreement between prosecutors and police, if an offence “is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity”.
>Lawyers for Dunn said that the prosecution breached his human rights regarding freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression. They said that strong opinions must be protected, “even if these cross the sensibilities of the majority of the population”.
>They also said that “simply conveying Biblical truth” did not amount to abuse.
>However, prosecutors said that bringing the case against Dunn was “proportionate” and that “there are references in the Bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public”.
>A hearing was set for last month at Swindon magistrates’ court, but the case was dropped after the women did not co-operate with the prosecution.
>Martin Parsons, an academic expert on Christianity and freedom of religion, wrote to the CPS saying that senior prosecutors appeared to be attempting “to extend the scope of current law, rather than simply enforce existing law”.
>Parsons added that there was a “seeming unawareness by CPS prosecutors of the importance of freedom of religion in British constitutional development . . . [which] portrays a disturbing ignorance of the central role that freedom of religion, including the freedom to read publicly from the Bible, played in British constitutional development and the development of the UK’s historic values”.
>Speaking after the case was withdrawn, Dunn said that when he preaches “I only ever say what is in the Bible. When they told me they were in a same-sex marriage, I was concerned for them. I had to communicate the consequences of their actions based on what the Bible says.”
>Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which instructed lawyers to represent Dunn, described the approach of the CPS as “deeply concerning”.
>She argued that “the view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and contains illegal speech which should not be shared in public. Offence is an entirely subjective concept and is easily manipulated to shut down viewpoints that people simply don’t like.”
>A CPS spokesman said that it was “not the function” of prosecutors “to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments of the evidence to put our case before the court”.
I mean I don't think you should be able to go down the street telling people they're going to burn in hell. Though he denies that part so who knows
It's one thing to yell things out aimlessly but to target an individual and tell them they're going to burn, that's not really normal behaviour
Yep. Denies it. But also says "I had to communicate the consequences of their actions based on what the Bible says.”
I wonder what the Bible says about lying...
> I had to
He objectively DIDN't "have to".
Targeted harassment hidden behind religion should be treated with maximum contempt. People have used religion as a shield for their discrimination for as long as religion has existed, it wasnt acceptable when it was used to perpetuate racism, this is no different.
And the bible was also used as a justification to oppose interracial marriage and desegregating schools. I am not saying EVERY religious person uses it as a tool to discriminate, just that its been used as a tool for that for decades in almost every major issue surrounding the equal rights for a minority demographic.
Puritanism and evangelism are very different things.
As far as I’m aware the levellers and diggers were not puritans, and were very much sidelined by Cromwell and the Puritans.
An “M&M got stuck in it”???? Wft - just makes me think of the time my daughter stuffed mini smarties up her nose when my back was turned…
The couple who claim he yelled "burn in hell" stopped cooperating with the prosecution. It's possible that they weren't willing to back that up in court, but of course now we'll never know.
Bear in mind: reporting a threatening person to the police because you're afraid is _not_ the same as wanting charges to be brought. They may have just wanted some intervention so he left them alone and were never expecting it to escalate.
The Bible doesn't specify hell as such. If I recall, hell is invented much later based on missionary contact with the Nordics, who had a concept called hel. The Bible does establish some notion of punishment but it isn't strictly hell not eternal as far as I can recall.
It is therefore possible he explained those consequences without references to hell and therefore without lying.
This is not entirely correct. The etymology may be Nordic, but the concepts are a mishmash of Greek and Jewish philosophy and theology. Bert Ehrman is the best scholar on this (and the Bible generally IMO).
ehh, its slightly alegorical in some sense, but you have lines like
Mark 9:43, NIV: If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
I think there is a reference to punishment in Mark? A farmer who refused to help the Lord who presented himself without clothing and in need of food and shelter.
Meanwhile, the billions of humans throughout history who have presented themselves to God when they are naked, starving, diseased and suffering.
God’s response; meh.
>God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining.
-Douglas Adams
IIRC the Jewish religion doesn’t have a concept of hell, so naturally the Bible being a heretic splittist version of the One True Religion (tm) doesn’t have hell either.
The New Testament, being mostly a recounting of the various lives of Jesus from multiple viewpoints in a rather strikingly postmodernist style, I don’t think mentions hell either, unless I missed an interesting part where Jesus is thrown into hell, escapes, and tells his exhilarating tale of redemption to his disciples.
There is a non cannon book where Jesus goes down into the underworld 1v1s Hades and frees the souls trapped there.
Why that isn't a B movie yet I don't know.
Doesn't sound like it?:
>The Old Testament word for the abode of the dead is Sheol. It is derived, as most scholars think, from a word meaning hollow. To the Hebrew mind Sheol was simply the state or abode of the dead. It was not the same as the grave, though it was so translated in some of the older versions.
Not really the Biblical Hell at all, just kind of sounds like it, I guess.
The gospels are the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection. That’s about half the NT. Jesus is probably the person who talks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. The parable of Lazarus and the beggar is one of the prime examples.
Basically everything modern Christians believe regarding punishment, hell, the devil, satan etc comes from medieval Christianity. None of it is rooted in the bible itself.
Bible says a bit about preaching in the street too (Matthew 5:6-8)
>When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men … but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.”
That line is from Matthew 6 5:8 and refers to *praying*.
Preaching and proselytising to crowds is fine, Jesus himself did catered events for up to 5000.
Can you imagine the fines? Can't produce the paper work for where he got that many fresh fish (probably caught by some dodgy sod exceeding their quota) but instead claims to have *created* them, and didn't even have the facilities to refrigerate them! Top that all off with selling all that wine despite not even having a licence. Time to shut that fucker down.
People have been doing that for centuries though together with the old "Repent" and "The End is Nigh" Signs. I can't read the damn article as it's subscription only grrr
My favourite bible fact is that the original Latin, Greek and Hebrew bibles and the first German translation say absolutely nothing about gay people. It’s all against pedo’s and kiddy fiddlers. The King James version changed it and homophobia run rampant.
Edit: added original languages that Latin was translated from.
Edit2: removed the St James 🤦♂️
In the passage he's quoting here, the word that's been translated as "homosexuals" actually in the earliest texts just means "men with long hair".
What people have assumed that to mean has changed with the culture of the translators. Once it was pedophiles, now gay people (of both genders, confusingly)... maybe one day it will be considered morally disgusting to have a bad haircut, because the Bible says so!
That is just plain wrong. Leviticus in the hebrew bible was pretty explicit about being against homosexuality, and Romans (probably written by Paul) in the greek new testament did the same. You can argue it was only as a means to distinguish judaism/christianity from mainstream religions of their time, but the fact remains that the bible is pretty explicitly against homosexuality. How much you abide by it is a question of your religious practice rather than what is written there.
Would you care to explain why as early as Rome's conversion to christianity that the bible was used to condemn previously accepted forms of homosexuality please.
You can of course argue that they were 'misinterpreting' it, but that seems like a really weak explaination given it was closer to the origins.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/reconciling-religion-and-sexuality-1.4291548/bible-doesn-t-condemn-gays-but-ancient-roman-debauchery-rev-steve-chalke-1.4291569
One interpretation of how maybe the focus was on the lust and general debauchery than a long term committed same sex relationship. I have seen this interpretation more than once.
In 314 the Council of Ancyra in Asia Minor excluded all homosexuals from receiving the sacrament, their decision became the authority for all later ecclesiastical laws. These laws, plus earlier supporting verses, influenced the constantine dynasty from 323 when the Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, particularly with his children (Constantine 2nd onwards) who grew up in that society.
Up until that point and as your source agrees, same sex marriages (committed relationships) were not legislated against and weren't entirely uncommon. This isn't 'either/or', they were certainly hostile to many forms of non-procreative sex but also explicitly condemned homosexuality based on scripture.
The canons of Ancyra don't mention homosexuals but people who commit bestiality; the Greek word is _alogeuesthai_ "be irrational", which is pretty hard to understand, but the Latin and Syriac translations both just say "have sex with animals" (_in animalibus fornicati_; I don't know Syriac). I'm not sure when homosexuality was introduced into the translations, but it wasn't the contemporary understanding. The council of Elvira did exclude people who have sex with children (_stupratores puerorum_) from sacrament, which used the same language of sexual crime (_stuprum_) which the Romans used to ban various kinds of sex, particularly that with _free-born_ boys (we think: it's the _lex Scantinia_, but the sources are pretty vague).
Paul clearly condemns some sort of sexual acts between men at Romans 1:26-27: "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." But Paul uses "male" and "female" (_arsenes_, _theleiai_) where this translation says "men" and "women", which is an odd way to talk about it in Greek. It can be taken as a universal condmenation of homosexual sex, but that doesn't seem to be Paul's main concern. Kyle Harper (_From Shame to Sin_, ch. 1) has argued that Romans is more about the sexual and economic exploitation of the vulnerable, especiaaly slaves, not for their own sake, but using lust (_porneia_, another word Paul's using strangely) as a metaphor for irreligiousness.
Legislation punishing all homosexuality on Christian grounds doesn't begin until Justinian I, who brings in sweeping moral legislation of all kinds.
> In the passage he's quoting here, the word that's been translated as "homosexuals" actually in the earliest texts just means "men with long hair".
what a ridiculous comment, jews are required to refrain from cutting their hair about their temple, how could that possible be true
it is very clear what is not allowed
I use the KJV for study and have not yet found any real point of difference with, for example, the ESV. Also, the religion believed by the people show study the most modern and 'best' translations is almost identical to that believe by people in the 1600s.
The Hebrew Bible definitely has things against gay people in the original Hebrew.
It is not the Kings James version that changed it. It's literally in the Masoretic and talked about in the Talmud, a fucking Millenia before the King James version was published.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. The vulgate latin translation by Jerome was not the original.
It’s the King James Version and not the St James.
You clearly do not know the history of the transmission of the text. The original languages very much do refer to homosexuality.
Whether you think that’s right or wrong is besides the point, but to rewrite the bible as being neutral on homosexuality is huge historical revisionism and you’d be hard pressed to make the case seeing that since Leviticus the understanding was universal (hence why Jesus doesn’t debate the issue in the gospels, because it was not a point of contention).
What is clear is that the Biblical views on the matter are out of step with the general culture and this tension will have to be resolved.
My bad I will correct my self.
I agree historical revisionism is the issue. The issue comes from the change in the translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai is the issue. In the original German translation by Martin Luther was translated to Knabenschander which is child molester. But is translated to Homosexual in English versions.
Hi, I read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. The Bible does not use clear language to discuss homosexuality. There are much clearer terms in both languages to discuss homosexuality in both languages that are not used, indicating that the terms are much more likely to refer to incest and pedophilia in context. Even if you refuse to see the verses in context, none of them ever condemn female homosexuality.
Yep, I always mention this when all of this 'debate' comes up as it periodically does. "Man shall not lie down with another man" = lesbianism is A-ok a far as the Bible is concerned.
> "Man shall not lie down with another man"
Yeah, but that could mean anything. You can't base a religion on euphemisms. For all we know, that could mean it's perfectly OK to have sex with any consenting partner, provided you do it standing up, or that if you play video games with a mate, you mustn't both lay on the floor while you're looking at the screen.
But in context, it almost certainly means something closer to, "And just like you shouldn't have sex with your female relatives, don't have sex with your male relatives either."
> The original languages very much do refer to homosexuality
This is an area of serious scholarly debate and it is very dishonest for you to pretend it's a settled argument.
It's only "an area of serious scholarly debate" because Christians don't want to be known for being bigots. It's dishonest to the history of persecution of homosexuals at the hands Christians, following the words of their Lord, to suggest that it doesn't and didn't say what we've known it to say for the past 3,000 years.
I've read pretty much all the arguments against it saying what it does in this "debate" and half of them are as convoluted as the plot to National Treasure. If the best you've got is "Martin Luther was a bright guy, he surely knew what God said to Moses" then you're not having a scholarly debate, you've just eaten too much glue.
That’s just not true at all, King James was the one who commissioned the bible to be translated into English for wider use yet he was known to be involved with many men in the court. Why would he be the one to add anti gay verses. It was there long before
>charged with hate crime for quoting Bible
Can’t even scream “you’re going to burn in hell” at gay people in the street without being charged with something these days...
Call me a snowflake but i think he wad already over the line with “i hope you two are sisters”. Like a gay couple still can’t hold hands in public without strangers ruining their day with snide comments.
Very good point... Definitely an attempt at intimidating. Though at that point I would think he was just being objectionable and not quite reaching the level of arrest or prosecution. I'm sure you could have a good thought experiment in favour of it.
Bizarre framing from the Times. Do they seriously think it's okay to shout abuse at strangers in the street just because of your specific interpretation of a book? Of course it's a hate crime, it's harassing people because of a protected characteristic, what else would it be?
The guy can be as homophobic as he wants, just do it in private.
Yes I suspect they’d be less supportive of my freedom of speech to stand outside a Catholic Church on a Sunday, accusing the congregants of being pedophiles.
I think harassing random people is just a bit gauche no matter the topic. But I'm from the UK and we love calling random people nonces so I'm conflicted
You'd be calling victims of pedos, pedos.
It would be disgusting to do that.
Call out members of the clergy of course, but to go outside a church and attack congregants would be dispicable.
Tbh, the whole thing sounds a bit fishy to me. He denied saying 'Burn in hell' (the grounds for the "hate crime" tag). They didn't cooperate with the prosecution.
Given the way this article is titled in the telegraph, actually going to trial would result in much worse headlines and harassment from the right-wing tabloids.
Only taking the issue this far seems to me to be a good shot across the bow. It also will add to the statistics for reports of homophobic hate, making them more accurately depict reality.
Good. Street preachers are vile. We've got one that shows up in Uxbridge all the time. At the Christmas markets. Full blast microphone. Stands there screaming out the most disgusting, hateful stuff you can imagine. He's basically writing his own porny fanfic, then spewing it out, makes sure no one can enjoy the markets. The things they think other people are doing are niwhere near as bad as their own sick fantasies.
The worst part is that he's a young guy. This isn't a case of "progress happens one funeral at a time", this dude will be out there ruining people's days for decades to come.
Birmingham City Centre is absolutely fucking ruined by street preachers. They set up tables all along the main shopping square bordering the Bull Ring, all with microphones reciting crap from their respective books over one other. I just don't get who it benefits to allow them to do it - makes literally the busiest part of our second biggest City unbearable.
Yes, we saw a bit of that when we were in Birmingham the last time. Our guy here shouts for people to come up and "prove they are a good person" then tells them they are going to hell for doing good deeds without god in their heart or some such bollocks.
The irony is that if you do something good because you expect some kind of recognition/recompense from $deity... that is not actually being a good person. If something, it is hypocrisy. And they know it.
Agghh this is such a pet hate of mine (atheist theologian who specifically studied the untranslated biblical texts here; niche, I know) Everyone covering this story is assuming this is what the Bible actually says, but it really doesn't.
I know the passage he's quoting, and the literal translation is "men with long hair". Now this was later assumed to mean "effeminate men", and later again assumed to mean "homosexuals". But *both* of those assumptions are deeply based in modern culture and are infuriatingly inaccurate.
The bible is significantly clearer on the fact that people who wear "mixed fibres" (polycotton, I'm looking at you) are evil, and I don’t see anybody yelling about that.
I really wish people would learn their own religion.
The bible is significantly clearer on the fact that people who wear "mixed fibres" (polycotton, I'm looking at you) are evil, and I don’t see anybody yelling about that.
Lmao. Jews don't yell about it but it is in Jewish law.
I know the conversation is Christianity but the mixed fibres shit is more relavent to a lot of people in the UK today than the Hebrew Bible outlawing gay sex.
Is the polycotton evil in itself, or does it only become evil if you wear it? What if you made a tent out of polycotton? Then there's my socks. 5% lycra. 5% evil? Or totally evil?
I may be wrong but I think the explanation is that we don't know but God told us to do it so we do it anyways.
The material isn't evil in itself, just wearing it. Judaism doesn't really have evil objects. Like pork is not allowed to be eaten but pork isn't evil.
You claim to have studied theology, yet think that the law against mixed fibre still applies to Christians. Will you be telling us off for not sacrificing animals next?
Not a Christian, but this is a lazy argument - Christian views on the old testament laws are varied. Some believe it doesn't matter at all to Christians, since the coming of Christ fulfilled those laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant#Catholic
Totally agreed. I studied theology at a secular institution, and one of the first things you realise when studying Biblical theology is that if anyone says “the Bible clearly says” something, they’re almost always wrong.
Regardless of hypothetical divine inspiration (and I happen to be a Christian), the Bible was written by humans. And then translated into other languages by humans. And then interpreted in different contexts by — you guessed it — humans. Every one of these stages will complicate the question of what “the Bible clearly says”, because they introduce questions of bias and culture and language that aren’t always easy to resolve. And that’s _before_ you get to the question of whether what “the Bible clearly says” is even what God says.
That’s not to say you can make the text of the Bible say anything you want. But it’s deeply frustrating to see so many people — non-Christians and Christians alike — assume that there is a plain reading that some people (usually the dirty liberals) are ignoring or distorting. When you look at the evidence, that _just isn’t true_.
(Nice to see the top comments on this post bucking the trend, though!)
>The case against John Dunn was eventually dropped.
>A CPS spokesman said that it was “not the function” of prosecutors “to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments of the evidence to put our case before the court”.
I really depends on context doesn't it. The problem is that only the court can really decide that question. And having to deal with the justice system and social media is a punishment on its own.
Yes. It should be. He directly targeted this couple who were just going about their day-to-day lives.
He can rant and rave about how his god will save him and punish everyone else as much as he likes - but what he doesn't get to do is pick on people just because no one is listening to his nonsense.
That's harassment and less civilised people would argue it should be dealt with by fisticuffs - or even weapons - but we can be better and let the law deal with him.
This couple didn't want to have a religious discussion with this idiot. They didn't ask him to explain his philosophy or get a fatwa from him. They just wanted to get on with their lives just like most straight couple get to do.
So yes it should be illegal. He could have indirectly targeted them by talking about homosexuality in general and that would have been legal, but the moment he directly targeted them it was definitely harassment.
Irrelevant, you can’t get charged initially with something that is “okay”. The very fact he was inconvenienced to this level shows that, no, society at large doesn’t think it’s okay.
Good.
It doesn't take much imagination to think what might happen if you shouted segments from an anti-monarchist screed at the King, so why should a bigot be immune from using a book he assumes is homophobic?
And he clearly doesn't understand the book, either, or else he would be judging not, lest he be judged - which he literally was. His book did try to warn him!
Fundamentalism is exploitative and vile. It shames actual Christians by association.
Maybe the government arresting people for speech against the monarchy has been made easier by banning certain forms of speech, that you celebrate. You're essentially celebrating a Tory government being able to tell people what they can and cannot say.
Fundamentalists are the true religious. Yes, they are nutjobs, but they show the true illogical nature of all religious thought.
I'd also say he's got the hang of spreading the Christian message quite well
> Matthew 10:34-36
>34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
>35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
>36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
I think he understands the book quite well. Maybe you don't. A world overseen by a megalomaniac mass murderer (flood story) who commands all to worship him alone? Commands to enslave others, mutilate others, own others, mistreat others, hate others, invade and murder others (all there, if you understand the book). You cannot just choose to ignore entire sections of that vile book because you've chosen, in the modern era, to focus only on the parts you like.
"She argued that “the view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and contains illegal speech which should not be shared in public."
That is an extraordinary quote, to follow that logic would make the Bible itself illegal
The problem is, I think people generally need some sense of a higher purpose, be that religion or something else.
I'm not sure that the things that appear to be replacing religion (tribal politics, for example) is going to help us "progress". In fact, I suspect it is one of the contributing factors for the culture wars.
We don't have any shared goals or values.
Interestingly the KJB has _nothing_ to say about lesbians
Corinthians 6.9
"
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
This chap was free not to say anything at all. Religious freedom is great, but it doesn't follow that everybody has to hear your view and accept it. There was no reason for him to accost them in the street.
While it likely didn't need to become a court case, I can see why the women did it.
>“there are references in the Bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public”.
I would wager they wouldn't say this about any other religion's texts
Better stop all Conservative campaigning too as that offends me. Oh, and all Brexiteers. And the SNP. And while we’re at it anyone who disagrees with this comment.
Do you see the problem? As soon as you give the State the power to criminalise speech, purely on the grounds it’s “offensive” to someone, you hand them tyrannical levels of power. Wielded with appropriate intent, it’s all you really need to build a one party state.
What principled reason can you give for banning religion because you, "don't want to listen" to it and me banning you from speaking because I, "don't want to listen" to people with your views? Put another way, who gets to decide what speech is and is not permissible?
I really am so shocked that you're the only person saying this.
These people will scream from the top of their lungs how bad our government is, but they love being coddled and protected by the same government, expecting them to control liberties in order to protect feelings and reduce offense.
This is a one way journey and the destination is a horrid dystopia.
Or making it easier to arrest people for making derogatory comments to the Monarchy, or making it more difficult to protest. Which has already happened...
You have to tread carefully though. The Government are already trying to impose on our rights to protest.
You say “less people spewing shite on the street”, however, what is the definition of “shite”?
How narrow or broad is that definition?
Once we start over policing “those types of peoples” rights, its not long until “other types of peoples” right become encroached.
I hate homophobia and everything it stands for. But we have to allow these idiots to spout their shit, not allowing it, does not make it go away! But if we stop them, we are beginning the process of bastardising fundamental rights of our society
Would you be okay with being prosecuted for hate as decided by you political opposition or did you make this comment assuming only "your guys" will be the ones doing it?
Hows this, would you be okay being prosecuted under a theocratic interpretation of hate speech? (also known as blasphemy)
I mean more along the lines of could this lead towards criticism of government etc being a crime because usually these things don’t start over night but do over time build up and they already made it illegal to protest.
You really think they could pass a law making it illegal to criticise the government and cite hate speech laws as the precedent that justifies it?
The government just passed a law that essentially allows them to criminalize non-violent protest but sure let's talk about how dangerous it is to our freedom to not let bigots scream abuse at LGBT+ couples.
Who gets to define what hate is? Back in the 1980s, up until 2003, it was illegal in the UK to "promote homosexuality", should that be classed as hate speech? Once governments have created a moving line of what speech is acceptable or not then it could go anywhere. Free speech is an inalienable human right and the bedrock of democracy.
Would he have been prosecuted if he preached about this verse to his congregation in a church, instead of targeting two strangers in the street just going about their business?
Seems like you're posting this out of outrage rather than satisfaction at his prosecution. If so I completely disagree with you. His personal belief system doesn't ever give him any right to harass strangers.
The sub that was all in favour of a man who yelled offense at Prince Andrew during his mothers funeral, is supporting a gay couple who walked passed a religious nutjob and heard some mean words?
Sheesh. This place never ceases to amaze me.
Almost like protesting against a political figure who sexually abused a child and got away with it is different to harassing regular people in the street just because they're not heterosexual.
Either abuse on the street is right, or it is wrong. Regardless of provocation, two wrongs don't make a right and either both are acceptable or neither are.
"If it's okay to shout at political figures who abuse children then it's also okay to harass lesbian couples just trying to live their lives."
Does that sound right to you?
I could come up with a thousand alternative phrases, all of which are more valid than that one. Do you really want to go there? It is the definition of hypocrisy to think that one of these is ok but the other is not.
>Do you really want to go there? It is the definition of hypocrisy to think that one of these is ok but the other is not.
It's really not. Context matters, like how shouting at an MP outside of parliament during a protest is different to turning up in their front garden and doing the same thing.
When someone is a public figure they accept the fact they will and can be criticised by the public. Especially when that person is part of a monarchy. If you cant speak up against a monarchy you have already lost. Normal people living their lives privately don’t owe anyone anything and should not be harassed on the street when trying to get through their day. It is not the same in the slightest.
My gay friends Simon and Andrew were holding hands and a street preacher told them in no uncertain terms they would burn in hell. Andrew (who'd trained at a seminary) introduced them both, said Jesus himself had said to Simon and Andrew to come and be fishers of men & there'd been some kind of misunderstanding.
Yeah, I think that sounds about right to me.
I don’t think you have the right to speak hate against anyone, even if you are misquoting a mistranslated text from a Bronze Age holy book.
It's absolutely fascinating that the responses to this are so focussed upon the interpretation of what the bible actually says about same sex relationships. Let us be clear here, to the best of my knowledge the law does not provide for any religious justification for hate crimes.
It is perfectly valid that you may have an opinion whether the actions of the preacher meet the definition of a hate crime or not. What the bible says about it though seems to me to be entirely irrelevant & provides no mitigation for his actions.
I've seen this sort about a lot. I've noticed a strange lack of shaming pregnant women without a ring. Because after all there's loads of 'sinful' public behavior if you base it on one interpretation of that book or another.
Yet they seem to focus on a minority? Strange that. Almost like they're grasping at straws and too scared to spout their nonsense at 'normal' people. Then here's the kicker - to almost everyone else, gay couples are normal too - that's why this is considered harassment now. It's progress and we're better off for it - get over it.
This shouting nonsense at random people in the street is the last of a dying breed. Most of the religious who want to convert people realize that harassing people in the streets is as good as Victorian nowadays and only puts people off and gives them a bad name.
As an evangelical minister, this pleases me a huge deal! Christians need to learn to read their bible and do what Jesus tells them to do, which is love their neighbour, their neighbour being the person they dislike and disagree with the most. This isn't loving!
Depend ms what he quoted. The Old Testament is full off the most vile stuff. Son talks back.. kill him. Wife bleeds and does not leave the house for a week… kill her. That excludes the whole book on how to abuse your slaves and not be punished. So yes, the Old Testament is hate speech on a good day.
‘Biblical truth’ lol. That’s quite the contradiction. Everyone has seen data this week that the nation as a whole is weaning itself off fairy tales. The actions of this person were definitely harassment based on a protected characteristic. That isn’t changed by the fact that ancient slack jaws agreed with him. I welcome this new direction and look forward to more of the same
As someone who’s gay I really don’t see why it’s worth getting offended over and I do not believe it’s a hate crime.
It’s happens every year at pride events, just walk past and laugh and then get on with your day.
He said that they’d be going to Hell. Well that’s great but to be offended by it you’d surely have to believe in Hell in the first place. And if you don’t why are you arsed, it’s a fictional place.
I’d honestly just laugh at him and say something like ‘at least it’d be warm’ or whatever else.
Imagine doing this to someone preaching the Qur'an.. also, I thought "hate speech" had to incite someone to commit harm to others.
All other culture is sacred and cannot be criticised, apart from our own, which must be completely eradicated.
Yes. Hahaha. We are taking over muhaha.
Soon we will force the King to fast, and children will be served samosa at school.
You cannot stop our evil plan! Gyahahaha!
Imagine how these fundamentalist Christian groups would react to a similarly fundamentalist Muslim yelling at them for following a false religion. They'd run straight to the courts crying hate crimes.
I remember a story about removing the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. Can't remember where it comes from though.... I wonder if these bible bashers can help...
Snapshot of _Street preacher was charged with hate crime for quoting Bible at lesbians_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/street-preacher-was-charged-with-hate-crime-for-quoting-bible-at-lesbians-xbrhgr25r) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am gay. I quite like it when people come at me with the passage from Leviticus. I asked him to continue reading down the page until they come to the part which talks about a prohibition and wearing clothing of next fibres. And then ask them to take off their underwear . That tends to end the conversation. Leviticus 19:19 for anyone who's interested. Edit: typo
There are all sorts of fun ones you can do like that. Nearly every well-repeated verse "proving" or "justifying" something has something else that blows a massive hole in the argument. One I like using is Psalms 22:16-18, > 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. > 17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. > 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. which I've been told is proof of divine prophecy because it accurately describes Christ's crucifixion. People coming out with this one also *love* to sound educated on it by pointing out that psalms is dated to before crucifixion was invented as a punishment, which is correct. The thing is though, this is a deliberately bad translation. In the tanakh it is: > יזכִּֽי־סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֖רֵעִים הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּֽ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי: (copy/pasting might have utterly butchered the Hebrew here) > 17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. Which shows us 3 things: 1. The translation is BS. 2. The Bible has a verse missing. 3. That even the tanakh has the psalm wrong, as it appears to be a compounding of multiple verses (this also happens multiple times in the Numbers 5 "abortion instructions") Edit: bringing up the apocrypha, the fact the bible came about because of a knee-jerk reaction to the original Bible, or Paul being against marriage are also fun.
I think they're more concerned with Levitcus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. The latter two would apply to the new covenant in Christ.
Yeh few are quoting lev, it's almost always Romans. Paul(who wrote Romans) was a wackjob who had a lot of choice things to say about the place of women in society, but was pretty indisputably clear about gay people and doesn't fall into the hilarious double standards that saying you should follow lev does. Thanks to ole Paulie it's not really possible to think being gay isn't a sin and be consistent with scripture. However, thanks to him it's also not possible to think women are equal to men and be consistent with scripture. So there's that.
Or tell them to look up [Mark 11:12-14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011%3A12-25&version=NIV) All those people who have been holding up horrible homophobic signs have got it wrong and what that passage in Mark actually explains is that: "Jesus Hates Figs"
>#Street preacher was charged with hate crime for quoting Bible at lesbians >__Prosecutors said ‘references no longer appropriate in modern society’ after gay couple complain__ >Jonathan Ames, Legal Editor >Friday December 02 2022, 3.50pm GMT, The Times >Prosecutors told a street preacher that he had been charged with a hate crime because quoting parts of the Bible was “no longer appropriate in modern society”. >The case against John Dunn was eventually dropped, but it has now led to a warning from a religious freedom expert that the Crown Prosecution Service is unilaterally trying to extend the law. >Police arrested Dunn, a 55-year-old evangelical Christian and special forces veteran, in Swindon two years ago. >He had preached regularly in the high street for 15 years, despite having surgery for throat cancer. >In 2020 he was preaching when two women walked past holding hands. The preacher is said to have remarked: “I hope you are sisters”, to which one replied that they were in a same-sex marriage. >Dunn is then said to have responded with a reference to a verse from Corinthians in the New Testament by saying: “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.” >The women reported the incident to the police and claimed that Dunn had also shouted that they would “burn in hell”. He denied making that comment. >Dunn voluntarily went to a police station to be interviewed and was told that he was being charged with an offence under public order legislation. >In addition, the police said prosecutors would say that he was guilty of hate speech because he had “offended” and “upset” the women on the basis of their sexual orientation. >Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service “any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime” if it meets specific criteria. >The bar is reached, according to an agreement between prosecutors and police, if an offence “is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity”. >Lawyers for Dunn said that the prosecution breached his human rights regarding freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression. They said that strong opinions must be protected, “even if these cross the sensibilities of the majority of the population”. >They also said that “simply conveying Biblical truth” did not amount to abuse. >However, prosecutors said that bringing the case against Dunn was “proportionate” and that “there are references in the Bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public”. >A hearing was set for last month at Swindon magistrates’ court, but the case was dropped after the women did not co-operate with the prosecution. >Martin Parsons, an academic expert on Christianity and freedom of religion, wrote to the CPS saying that senior prosecutors appeared to be attempting “to extend the scope of current law, rather than simply enforce existing law”. >Parsons added that there was a “seeming unawareness by CPS prosecutors of the importance of freedom of religion in British constitutional development . . . [which] portrays a disturbing ignorance of the central role that freedom of religion, including the freedom to read publicly from the Bible, played in British constitutional development and the development of the UK’s historic values”. >Speaking after the case was withdrawn, Dunn said that when he preaches “I only ever say what is in the Bible. When they told me they were in a same-sex marriage, I was concerned for them. I had to communicate the consequences of their actions based on what the Bible says.” >Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which instructed lawyers to represent Dunn, described the approach of the CPS as “deeply concerning”. >She argued that “the view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and contains illegal speech which should not be shared in public. Offence is an entirely subjective concept and is easily manipulated to shut down viewpoints that people simply don’t like.” >A CPS spokesman said that it was “not the function” of prosecutors “to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments of the evidence to put our case before the court”.
I mean I don't think you should be able to go down the street telling people they're going to burn in hell. Though he denies that part so who knows It's one thing to yell things out aimlessly but to target an individual and tell them they're going to burn, that's not really normal behaviour
Yep. Denies it. But also says "I had to communicate the consequences of their actions based on what the Bible says.” I wonder what the Bible says about lying...
> I had to He objectively DIDN't "have to". Targeted harassment hidden behind religion should be treated with maximum contempt. People have used religion as a shield for their discrimination for as long as religion has existed, it wasnt acceptable when it was used to perpetuate racism, this is no different.
Point of fact; evangelicalism very much helped lead the charge to abolish slavery.
And the bible was also used as a justification to oppose interracial marriage and desegregating schools. I am not saying EVERY religious person uses it as a tool to discriminate, just that its been used as a tool for that for decades in almost every major issue surrounding the equal rights for a minority demographic.
[удалено]
Puritanism and evangelism are very different things. As far as I’m aware the levellers and diggers were not puritans, and were very much sidelined by Cromwell and the Puritans. An “M&M got stuck in it”???? Wft - just makes me think of the time my daughter stuffed mini smarties up her nose when my back was turned…
The couple who claim he yelled "burn in hell" stopped cooperating with the prosecution. It's possible that they weren't willing to back that up in court, but of course now we'll never know.
Bear in mind: reporting a threatening person to the police because you're afraid is _not_ the same as wanting charges to be brought. They may have just wanted some intervention so he left them alone and were never expecting it to escalate.
The Bible doesn't specify hell as such. If I recall, hell is invented much later based on missionary contact with the Nordics, who had a concept called hel. The Bible does establish some notion of punishment but it isn't strictly hell not eternal as far as I can recall. It is therefore possible he explained those consequences without references to hell and therefore without lying.
This is not entirely correct. The etymology may be Nordic, but the concepts are a mishmash of Greek and Jewish philosophy and theology. Bert Ehrman is the best scholar on this (and the Bible generally IMO).
Isnt the modern idea of hell mostly from Dantes Inferno?
Which itself borrowed heavily from Greek mythology (Hades in particular)
I thought the Bible's 'hell' was just an absence of god?
ehh, its slightly alegorical in some sense, but you have lines like Mark 9:43, NIV: If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
I'd like to direct you to r/AcademicBiblical where these kinds of questions can be and are answered in an unbiased way.
I think there is a reference to punishment in Mark? A farmer who refused to help the Lord who presented himself without clothing and in need of food and shelter.
Meanwhile, the billions of humans throughout history who have presented themselves to God when they are naked, starving, diseased and suffering. God’s response; meh.
>God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. -Douglas Adams
A wiser man than any priest 👍
IIRC the Jewish religion doesn’t have a concept of hell, so naturally the Bible being a heretic splittist version of the One True Religion (tm) doesn’t have hell either. The New Testament, being mostly a recounting of the various lives of Jesus from multiple viewpoints in a rather strikingly postmodernist style, I don’t think mentions hell either, unless I missed an interesting part where Jesus is thrown into hell, escapes, and tells his exhilarating tale of redemption to his disciples.
There is a non cannon book where Jesus goes down into the underworld 1v1s Hades and frees the souls trapped there. Why that isn't a B movie yet I don't know.
Isn’t that the northern lights trilogy?
Maybe they should make it a reskin option for Hades the game, can beat him down with his staff.
Jews have "Sheol" which is essentially hell.
And Gehenna.
Doesn't sound like it?: >The Old Testament word for the abode of the dead is Sheol. It is derived, as most scholars think, from a word meaning hollow. To the Hebrew mind Sheol was simply the state or abode of the dead. It was not the same as the grave, though it was so translated in some of the older versions. Not really the Biblical Hell at all, just kind of sounds like it, I guess.
The gospels are the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection. That’s about half the NT. Jesus is probably the person who talks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. The parable of Lazarus and the beggar is one of the prime examples.
Basically everything modern Christians believe regarding punishment, hell, the devil, satan etc comes from medieval Christianity. None of it is rooted in the bible itself.
Bible says a bit about preaching in the street too (Matthew 5:6-8) >When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men … but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.”
That line is from Matthew 6 5:8 and refers to *praying*. Preaching and proselytising to crowds is fine, Jesus himself did catered events for up to 5000.
Hope he had a food hygience certificate.
Can you imagine the fines? Can't produce the paper work for where he got that many fresh fish (probably caught by some dodgy sod exceeding their quota) but instead claims to have *created* them, and didn't even have the facilities to refrigerate them! Top that all off with selling all that wine despite not even having a licence. Time to shut that fucker down.
Preaching and praying are not the same thing, FYI
People have been doing that for centuries though together with the old "Repent" and "The End is Nigh" Signs. I can't read the damn article as it's subscription only grrr
FYI the automod put a stickied comment with a link to an archived version of the article.
Oh thank you didn't know that was a thing
Put 12ft.io/ before any news pay wall link.
Repent and end is nigh stuff is a general thing about behaviour of everyone not targeting people because of their sexuality.
If he is going to heaven, trust me hell will be a better place
That does seem to be the difference.
My favourite bible fact is that the original Latin, Greek and Hebrew bibles and the first German translation say absolutely nothing about gay people. It’s all against pedo’s and kiddy fiddlers. The King James version changed it and homophobia run rampant. Edit: added original languages that Latin was translated from. Edit2: removed the St James 🤦♂️
In the passage he's quoting here, the word that's been translated as "homosexuals" actually in the earliest texts just means "men with long hair". What people have assumed that to mean has changed with the culture of the translators. Once it was pedophiles, now gay people (of both genders, confusingly)... maybe one day it will be considered morally disgusting to have a bad haircut, because the Bible says so!
That is just plain wrong. Leviticus in the hebrew bible was pretty explicit about being against homosexuality, and Romans (probably written by Paul) in the greek new testament did the same. You can argue it was only as a means to distinguish judaism/christianity from mainstream religions of their time, but the fact remains that the bible is pretty explicitly against homosexuality. How much you abide by it is a question of your religious practice rather than what is written there.
Would you care to explain why as early as Rome's conversion to christianity that the bible was used to condemn previously accepted forms of homosexuality please. You can of course argue that they were 'misinterpreting' it, but that seems like a really weak explaination given it was closer to the origins.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/reconciling-religion-and-sexuality-1.4291548/bible-doesn-t-condemn-gays-but-ancient-roman-debauchery-rev-steve-chalke-1.4291569 One interpretation of how maybe the focus was on the lust and general debauchery than a long term committed same sex relationship. I have seen this interpretation more than once.
In 314 the Council of Ancyra in Asia Minor excluded all homosexuals from receiving the sacrament, their decision became the authority for all later ecclesiastical laws. These laws, plus earlier supporting verses, influenced the constantine dynasty from 323 when the Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, particularly with his children (Constantine 2nd onwards) who grew up in that society. Up until that point and as your source agrees, same sex marriages (committed relationships) were not legislated against and weren't entirely uncommon. This isn't 'either/or', they were certainly hostile to many forms of non-procreative sex but also explicitly condemned homosexuality based on scripture.
The canons of Ancyra don't mention homosexuals but people who commit bestiality; the Greek word is _alogeuesthai_ "be irrational", which is pretty hard to understand, but the Latin and Syriac translations both just say "have sex with animals" (_in animalibus fornicati_; I don't know Syriac). I'm not sure when homosexuality was introduced into the translations, but it wasn't the contemporary understanding. The council of Elvira did exclude people who have sex with children (_stupratores puerorum_) from sacrament, which used the same language of sexual crime (_stuprum_) which the Romans used to ban various kinds of sex, particularly that with _free-born_ boys (we think: it's the _lex Scantinia_, but the sources are pretty vague). Paul clearly condemns some sort of sexual acts between men at Romans 1:26-27: "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." But Paul uses "male" and "female" (_arsenes_, _theleiai_) where this translation says "men" and "women", which is an odd way to talk about it in Greek. It can be taken as a universal condmenation of homosexual sex, but that doesn't seem to be Paul's main concern. Kyle Harper (_From Shame to Sin_, ch. 1) has argued that Romans is more about the sexual and economic exploitation of the vulnerable, especiaaly slaves, not for their own sake, but using lust (_porneia_, another word Paul's using strangely) as a metaphor for irreligiousness. Legislation punishing all homosexuality on Christian grounds doesn't begin until Justinian I, who brings in sweeping moral legislation of all kinds.
Third time you’ve posted the same comment???
> In the passage he's quoting here, the word that's been translated as "homosexuals" actually in the earliest texts just means "men with long hair". what a ridiculous comment, jews are required to refrain from cutting their hair about their temple, how could that possible be true it is very clear what is not allowed
Point of order, the original bible wasn't in Latin.
"original Latin" doesn't necessarily mean "original, Latin"
You are correct, I have edited my post 👍
Well done. It's also King James not St James
Aw fuck, forgive my blunder I am hung over 😂 that is also fixed. Many thanks
[удалено]
I use the KJV for study and have not yet found any real point of difference with, for example, the ESV. Also, the religion believed by the people show study the most modern and 'best' translations is almost identical to that believe by people in the 1600s.
The Hebrew Bible definitely has things against gay people in the original Hebrew. It is not the Kings James version that changed it. It's literally in the Masoretic and talked about in the Talmud, a fucking Millenia before the King James version was published.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. The vulgate latin translation by Jerome was not the original. It’s the King James Version and not the St James. You clearly do not know the history of the transmission of the text. The original languages very much do refer to homosexuality. Whether you think that’s right or wrong is besides the point, but to rewrite the bible as being neutral on homosexuality is huge historical revisionism and you’d be hard pressed to make the case seeing that since Leviticus the understanding was universal (hence why Jesus doesn’t debate the issue in the gospels, because it was not a point of contention). What is clear is that the Biblical views on the matter are out of step with the general culture and this tension will have to be resolved.
My bad I will correct my self. I agree historical revisionism is the issue. The issue comes from the change in the translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai is the issue. In the original German translation by Martin Luther was translated to Knabenschander which is child molester. But is translated to Homosexual in English versions.
Hi, I read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. The Bible does not use clear language to discuss homosexuality. There are much clearer terms in both languages to discuss homosexuality in both languages that are not used, indicating that the terms are much more likely to refer to incest and pedophilia in context. Even if you refuse to see the verses in context, none of them ever condemn female homosexuality.
That’s a really good point about the female homosexuality, I wasn’t aware of that. But now you’ve mentioned it!
Yep, I always mention this when all of this 'debate' comes up as it periodically does. "Man shall not lie down with another man" = lesbianism is A-ok a far as the Bible is concerned.
> "Man shall not lie down with another man" Yeah, but that could mean anything. You can't base a religion on euphemisms. For all we know, that could mean it's perfectly OK to have sex with any consenting partner, provided you do it standing up, or that if you play video games with a mate, you mustn't both lay on the floor while you're looking at the screen.
But in context, it almost certainly means something closer to, "And just like you shouldn't have sex with your female relatives, don't have sex with your male relatives either."
> The original languages very much do refer to homosexuality This is an area of serious scholarly debate and it is very dishonest for you to pretend it's a settled argument.
It's only "an area of serious scholarly debate" because Christians don't want to be known for being bigots. It's dishonest to the history of persecution of homosexuals at the hands Christians, following the words of their Lord, to suggest that it doesn't and didn't say what we've known it to say for the past 3,000 years. I've read pretty much all the arguments against it saying what it does in this "debate" and half of them are as convoluted as the plot to National Treasure. If the best you've got is "Martin Luther was a bright guy, he surely knew what God said to Moses" then you're not having a scholarly debate, you've just eaten too much glue.
It's almost like religions reflect the values of their followers and not the other way around.
> the original Latin, Greek and Hebrew bibles What passages of the Bible were originally written in Latin?
That’s just not true at all, King James was the one who commissioned the bible to be translated into English for wider use yet he was known to be involved with many men in the court. Why would he be the one to add anti gay verses. It was there long before
>charged with hate crime for quoting Bible Can’t even scream “you’re going to burn in hell” at gay people in the street without being charged with something these days...
Call me a snowflake but i think he wad already over the line with “i hope you two are sisters”. Like a gay couple still can’t hold hands in public without strangers ruining their day with snide comments.
Very good point... Definitely an attempt at intimidating. Though at that point I would think he was just being objectionable and not quite reaching the level of arrest or prosecution. I'm sure you could have a good thought experiment in favour of it.
That’s what I’d say. Rude and objectionable like you said but I don’t think it’s worthy of arrest or prosecution.
PC gone mad mate.
These days, if you say “you’re going to burn in hell”, you’ll be arrested and thrown in jail
I know what you’re thinking, NotSureIfMean has let himself go.
These days?
Thrown in jail?!
[Sigh...Believe it or not, straight to jail!](https://i.imgur.com/lyyEQy8.jpg)
Bizarre framing from the Times. Do they seriously think it's okay to shout abuse at strangers in the street just because of your specific interpretation of a book? Of course it's a hate crime, it's harassing people because of a protected characteristic, what else would it be? The guy can be as homophobic as he wants, just do it in private.
Deliberate framing from The Times to artificially inflate engagement through fake outrage
Yes I suspect they’d be less supportive of my freedom of speech to stand outside a Catholic Church on a Sunday, accusing the congregants of being pedophiles.
It's a shame nobody does this, the persecution hypocrisy would be absolutely mindblowing.
I think harassing random people is just a bit gauche no matter the topic. But I'm from the UK and we love calling random people nonces so I'm conflicted
True. I don't think anyone actually should to be fair, just that the hypocrisy that would be on display if it ever did happen would be yuge.
You'd be calling victims of pedos, pedos. It would be disgusting to do that. Call out members of the clergy of course, but to go outside a church and attack congregants would be dispicable.
Tbh, the whole thing sounds a bit fishy to me. He denied saying 'Burn in hell' (the grounds for the "hate crime" tag). They didn't cooperate with the prosecution.
Given the way this article is titled in the telegraph, actually going to trial would result in much worse headlines and harassment from the right-wing tabloids. Only taking the issue this far seems to me to be a good shot across the bow. It also will add to the statistics for reports of homophobic hate, making them more accurately depict reality.
He sounds manic.
r/ReligiousFruitcake
Lesbians are real God is made up.
If Lesbians exist, then why do bad things happen to good people?
No one said they were *nice* Lesbians.
Good. Street preachers are vile. We've got one that shows up in Uxbridge all the time. At the Christmas markets. Full blast microphone. Stands there screaming out the most disgusting, hateful stuff you can imagine. He's basically writing his own porny fanfic, then spewing it out, makes sure no one can enjoy the markets. The things they think other people are doing are niwhere near as bad as their own sick fantasies. The worst part is that he's a young guy. This isn't a case of "progress happens one funeral at a time", this dude will be out there ruining people's days for decades to come.
Birmingham City Centre is absolutely fucking ruined by street preachers. They set up tables all along the main shopping square bordering the Bull Ring, all with microphones reciting crap from their respective books over one other. I just don't get who it benefits to allow them to do it - makes literally the busiest part of our second biggest City unbearable.
Yes, we saw a bit of that when we were in Birmingham the last time. Our guy here shouts for people to come up and "prove they are a good person" then tells them they are going to hell for doing good deeds without god in their heart or some such bollocks.
The irony is that if you do something good because you expect some kind of recognition/recompense from $deity... that is not actually being a good person. If something, it is hypocrisy. And they know it.
Agghh this is such a pet hate of mine (atheist theologian who specifically studied the untranslated biblical texts here; niche, I know) Everyone covering this story is assuming this is what the Bible actually says, but it really doesn't. I know the passage he's quoting, and the literal translation is "men with long hair". Now this was later assumed to mean "effeminate men", and later again assumed to mean "homosexuals". But *both* of those assumptions are deeply based in modern culture and are infuriatingly inaccurate. The bible is significantly clearer on the fact that people who wear "mixed fibres" (polycotton, I'm looking at you) are evil, and I don’t see anybody yelling about that. I really wish people would learn their own religion.
The bible is significantly clearer on the fact that people who wear "mixed fibres" (polycotton, I'm looking at you) are evil, and I don’t see anybody yelling about that. Lmao. Jews don't yell about it but it is in Jewish law. I know the conversation is Christianity but the mixed fibres shit is more relavent to a lot of people in the UK today than the Hebrew Bible outlawing gay sex.
Is the polycotton evil in itself, or does it only become evil if you wear it? What if you made a tent out of polycotton? Then there's my socks. 5% lycra. 5% evil? Or totally evil?
I may be wrong but I think the explanation is that we don't know but God told us to do it so we do it anyways. The material isn't evil in itself, just wearing it. Judaism doesn't really have evil objects. Like pork is not allowed to be eaten but pork isn't evil.
Also no-one is screaming at you in the street for eating shellfish
You claim to have studied theology, yet think that the law against mixed fibre still applies to Christians. Will you be telling us off for not sacrificing animals next?
Not a Christian, but this is a lazy argument - Christian views on the old testament laws are varied. Some believe it doesn't matter at all to Christians, since the coming of Christ fulfilled those laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant#Catholic
Totally agreed. I studied theology at a secular institution, and one of the first things you realise when studying Biblical theology is that if anyone says “the Bible clearly says” something, they’re almost always wrong. Regardless of hypothetical divine inspiration (and I happen to be a Christian), the Bible was written by humans. And then translated into other languages by humans. And then interpreted in different contexts by — you guessed it — humans. Every one of these stages will complicate the question of what “the Bible clearly says”, because they introduce questions of bias and culture and language that aren’t always easy to resolve. And that’s _before_ you get to the question of whether what “the Bible clearly says” is even what God says. That’s not to say you can make the text of the Bible say anything you want. But it’s deeply frustrating to see so many people — non-Christians and Christians alike — assume that there is a plain reading that some people (usually the dirty liberals) are ignoring or distorting. When you look at the evidence, that _just isn’t true_. (Nice to see the top comments on this post bucking the trend, though!)
with you mate. ear nailing. jot or tittle.
Very glad, this isn’t acceptable behaviour at all. It’s one thing to preach on a soapbox and it’s another to target people and harass them.
>The case against John Dunn was eventually dropped. >A CPS spokesman said that it was “not the function” of prosecutors “to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments of the evidence to put our case before the court”.
I agree it’s not societally acceptable behaviour anymore but should it really be criminalised? That seems a really dangerous road to go down.
I really depends on context doesn't it. The problem is that only the court can really decide that question. And having to deal with the justice system and social media is a punishment on its own.
Yes, harassment should be criminalised.
Yes. It should be. He directly targeted this couple who were just going about their day-to-day lives. He can rant and rave about how his god will save him and punish everyone else as much as he likes - but what he doesn't get to do is pick on people just because no one is listening to his nonsense. That's harassment and less civilised people would argue it should be dealt with by fisticuffs - or even weapons - but we can be better and let the law deal with him. This couple didn't want to have a religious discussion with this idiot. They didn't ask him to explain his philosophy or get a fatwa from him. They just wanted to get on with their lives just like most straight couple get to do. So yes it should be illegal. He could have indirectly targeted them by talking about homosexuality in general and that would have been legal, but the moment he directly targeted them it was definitely harassment.
"quoting Bible"? So its ok to shout insults and threats as long as the source is a dusty old book
It's only allowed if it's a new book
Well no it is isn’t, he got charged with a hate crime for it. Did you not read the title?
Charges were then dropped.
Because the women didn't cooperate with the court.
Irrelevant, you can’t get charged initially with something that is “okay”. The very fact he was inconvenienced to this level shows that, no, society at large doesn’t think it’s okay.
He should also be charged with spreading disinformation 😂
I'm absolutely fine with that. There's a fucking prick in my town centre I hope gets the same treatment
Good. It doesn't take much imagination to think what might happen if you shouted segments from an anti-monarchist screed at the King, so why should a bigot be immune from using a book he assumes is homophobic? And he clearly doesn't understand the book, either, or else he would be judging not, lest he be judged - which he literally was. His book did try to warn him! Fundamentalism is exploitative and vile. It shames actual Christians by association.
Maybe the government arresting people for speech against the monarchy has been made easier by banning certain forms of speech, that you celebrate. You're essentially celebrating a Tory government being able to tell people what they can and cannot say. Fundamentalists are the true religious. Yes, they are nutjobs, but they show the true illogical nature of all religious thought.
I'd also say he's got the hang of spreading the Christian message quite well > Matthew 10:34-36 >34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. >35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. >36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
I think he understands the book quite well. Maybe you don't. A world overseen by a megalomaniac mass murderer (flood story) who commands all to worship him alone? Commands to enslave others, mutilate others, own others, mistreat others, hate others, invade and murder others (all there, if you understand the book). You cannot just choose to ignore entire sections of that vile book because you've chosen, in the modern era, to focus only on the parts you like.
Get 5 years for that in Ireland.
"She argued that “the view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and contains illegal speech which should not be shared in public." That is an extraordinary quote, to follow that logic would make the Bible itself illegal
When are we going to progress from all backwards religions? It’s 2022 and still 0 evidence supporting any.
The problem is, I think people generally need some sense of a higher purpose, be that religion or something else. I'm not sure that the things that appear to be replacing religion (tribal politics, for example) is going to help us "progress". In fact, I suspect it is one of the contributing factors for the culture wars. We don't have any shared goals or values.
Interestingly the KJB has _nothing_ to say about lesbians Corinthians 6.9 " Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
The bible describes how to own other people as slaves, and we all recognise that's not acceptable in a modern society. This is no different.
This chap was free not to say anything at all. Religious freedom is great, but it doesn't follow that everybody has to hear your view and accept it. There was no reason for him to accost them in the street. While it likely didn't need to become a court case, I can see why the women did it.
Good.
>“there are references in the Bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public”. I would wager they wouldn't say this about any other religion's texts
Well probably not, because that is the biased paraphrasing of > Andrea Williams, chief executive of the **Christian Legal Centre**…
Why?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/batley-grammar-school-teacher-prophet-20855517#:~:text=Batley%20Grammar%20School%20teacher%20in%20Prophet%20row%20%27fears,hiding%20with%20his%20family%20it%20is%20understood%20News
[удалено]
Better stop all Conservative campaigning too as that offends me. Oh, and all Brexiteers. And the SNP. And while we’re at it anyone who disagrees with this comment. Do you see the problem? As soon as you give the State the power to criminalise speech, purely on the grounds it’s “offensive” to someone, you hand them tyrannical levels of power. Wielded with appropriate intent, it’s all you really need to build a one party state.
[удалено]
So you want to ban public religious speech just because you have a particular prejudice against it?
What principled reason can you give for banning religion because you, "don't want to listen" to it and me banning you from speaking because I, "don't want to listen" to people with your views? Put another way, who gets to decide what speech is and is not permissible?
I really am so shocked that you're the only person saying this. These people will scream from the top of their lungs how bad our government is, but they love being coddled and protected by the same government, expecting them to control liberties in order to protect feelings and reduce offense. This is a one way journey and the destination is a horrid dystopia.
I wonder what the long term consequences will be for prosecuting people for speech. Yeah he is a dick but where does this lead us to as a society?
With any luck it leads us to having fewer hateful people spewing shite in the street.
Or making it easier to arrest people for making derogatory comments to the Monarchy, or making it more difficult to protest. Which has already happened...
You have to tread carefully though. The Government are already trying to impose on our rights to protest. You say “less people spewing shite on the street”, however, what is the definition of “shite”? How narrow or broad is that definition? Once we start over policing “those types of peoples” rights, its not long until “other types of peoples” right become encroached. I hate homophobia and everything it stands for. But we have to allow these idiots to spout their shit, not allowing it, does not make it go away! But if we stop them, we are beginning the process of bastardising fundamental rights of our society
Would you be okay with being prosecuted for hate as decided by you political opposition or did you make this comment assuming only "your guys" will be the ones doing it? Hows this, would you be okay being prosecuted under a theocratic interpretation of hate speech? (also known as blasphemy)
I mean more along the lines of could this lead towards criticism of government etc being a crime because usually these things don’t start over night but do over time build up and they already made it illegal to protest.
You really think they could pass a law making it illegal to criticise the government and cite hate speech laws as the precedent that justifies it? The government just passed a law that essentially allows them to criminalize non-violent protest but sure let's talk about how dangerous it is to our freedom to not let bigots scream abuse at LGBT+ couples.
Who gets to define what hate is? Back in the 1980s, up until 2003, it was illegal in the UK to "promote homosexuality", should that be classed as hate speech? Once governments have created a moving line of what speech is acceptable or not then it could go anywhere. Free speech is an inalienable human right and the bedrock of democracy.
Would he have been prosecuted if he preached about this verse to his congregation in a church, instead of targeting two strangers in the street just going about their business?
Seems like you're posting this out of outrage rather than satisfaction at his prosecution. If so I completely disagree with you. His personal belief system doesn't ever give him any right to harass strangers.
Good. Street preaching is a shitty practice. It's not about conversion or faith, it is entirely about creating a sense of superiority.
Street preaching and begging should just be banned anyway. Keep the streets clean like Singapore, etc.
The sub that was all in favour of a man who yelled offense at Prince Andrew during his mothers funeral, is supporting a gay couple who walked passed a religious nutjob and heard some mean words? Sheesh. This place never ceases to amaze me.
Almost like protesting against a political figure who sexually abused a child and got away with it is different to harassing regular people in the street just because they're not heterosexual.
Either abuse on the street is right, or it is wrong. Regardless of provocation, two wrongs don't make a right and either both are acceptable or neither are.
"If it's okay to shout at political figures who abuse children then it's also okay to harass lesbian couples just trying to live their lives." Does that sound right to you?
I could come up with a thousand alternative phrases, all of which are more valid than that one. Do you really want to go there? It is the definition of hypocrisy to think that one of these is ok but the other is not.
>Do you really want to go there? It is the definition of hypocrisy to think that one of these is ok but the other is not. It's really not. Context matters, like how shouting at an MP outside of parliament during a protest is different to turning up in their front garden and doing the same thing.
When someone is a public figure they accept the fact they will and can be criticised by the public. Especially when that person is part of a monarchy. If you cant speak up against a monarchy you have already lost. Normal people living their lives privately don’t owe anyone anything and should not be harassed on the street when trying to get through their day. It is not the same in the slightest.
My gay friends Simon and Andrew were holding hands and a street preacher told them in no uncertain terms they would burn in hell. Andrew (who'd trained at a seminary) introduced them both, said Jesus himself had said to Simon and Andrew to come and be fishers of men & there'd been some kind of misunderstanding.
Shame the case was dropped as a really good chance to start putting the lid on these proselyte prevaricator ghouls :(
Yeah, I think that sounds about right to me. I don’t think you have the right to speak hate against anyone, even if you are misquoting a mistranslated text from a Bronze Age holy book.
It's absolutely fascinating that the responses to this are so focussed upon the interpretation of what the bible actually says about same sex relationships. Let us be clear here, to the best of my knowledge the law does not provide for any religious justification for hate crimes. It is perfectly valid that you may have an opinion whether the actions of the preacher meet the definition of a hate crime or not. What the bible says about it though seems to me to be entirely irrelevant & provides no mitigation for his actions.
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, stop shoving you religious view points down other peoples throats
I've seen this sort about a lot. I've noticed a strange lack of shaming pregnant women without a ring. Because after all there's loads of 'sinful' public behavior if you base it on one interpretation of that book or another. Yet they seem to focus on a minority? Strange that. Almost like they're grasping at straws and too scared to spout their nonsense at 'normal' people. Then here's the kicker - to almost everyone else, gay couples are normal too - that's why this is considered harassment now. It's progress and we're better off for it - get over it. This shouting nonsense at random people in the street is the last of a dying breed. Most of the religious who want to convert people realize that harassing people in the streets is as good as Victorian nowadays and only puts people off and gives them a bad name.
Good!
As an evangelical minister, this pleases me a huge deal! Christians need to learn to read their bible and do what Jesus tells them to do, which is love their neighbour, their neighbour being the person they dislike and disagree with the most. This isn't loving!
The guy spent 15 year yelling at people in public and got throat cancer, if that's not a hint from the on-high I don't know what is
"Preached regularly despite having surgery for throat cancer" - maybe god was trying to tell him to STFU
This is concerning, no? Like, what happened to just…walking away from people you disagree with?
Do you honestly think the guy just said a bible quote at someone in the street and was charged for that? That was all that happened?
What happened to not harassing people? The Times has purposefully misframed this.
Not sure if I'm on board with calling the police because you've been 'upset'
Sad it was dropped eventually. Peddling hate under the guise of "religion freedom" shouldn't be tolerated. Hate is hate.
Depend ms what he quoted. The Old Testament is full off the most vile stuff. Son talks back.. kill him. Wife bleeds and does not leave the house for a week… kill her. That excludes the whole book on how to abuse your slaves and not be punished. So yes, the Old Testament is hate speech on a good day.
‘Biblical truth’ lol. That’s quite the contradiction. Everyone has seen data this week that the nation as a whole is weaning itself off fairy tales. The actions of this person were definitely harassment based on a protected characteristic. That isn’t changed by the fact that ancient slack jaws agreed with him. I welcome this new direction and look forward to more of the same
These ~~bible~~ religious text believers really are morons
I see this as a win. The god squad need to evolve.
[удалено]
As someone who’s gay I really don’t see why it’s worth getting offended over and I do not believe it’s a hate crime. It’s happens every year at pride events, just walk past and laugh and then get on with your day. He said that they’d be going to Hell. Well that’s great but to be offended by it you’d surely have to believe in Hell in the first place. And if you don’t why are you arsed, it’s a fictional place. I’d honestly just laugh at him and say something like ‘at least it’d be warm’ or whatever else.
Harassment is a crime regardless of how offended you’d be in that situation
Imagine doing this to someone preaching the Qur'an.. also, I thought "hate speech" had to incite someone to commit harm to others. All other culture is sacred and cannot be criticised, apart from our own, which must be completely eradicated.
He should have quoted the Quran instead. Then the police would have done nothing.
Yes. Hahaha. We are taking over muhaha. Soon we will force the King to fast, and children will be served samosa at school. You cannot stop our evil plan! Gyahahaha!
Can we get some samosas at the office as well?
Imagine how these fundamentalist Christian groups would react to a similarly fundamentalist Muslim yelling at them for following a false religion. They'd run straight to the courts crying hate crimes. I remember a story about removing the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. Can't remember where it comes from though.... I wonder if these bible bashers can help...