Old Testament "abominations" put into perspective

[chicagosam]

You're welcome splitface.:smile:

And thank you, Dreamer.:biggrin1:

 

[Drifterwood]

So, what do you do?

 

[dong20]

One can only wish Leviticus were as ficticious as the Bartlet Whitehouse.

That said, the 'ignorant tightass club' would find some other pretext for demonising those who don't share their 'values'. To borrow from a well known parable, "they can't help it, it's their nature". In keeping with what [they ought to] believe perhaps they should be pitied, yet forgiven?

Alternatively, for the less absolving [and those appreciative of ironic symmetry] among us, red hot pokers can be applied to good effect (or, so I believe) ...

 

[dreamer20]

Look, I don't want to pull any punches when dealing with religion anymore.

The Book of Leviticus is evil.

23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel (Deuteronomy)

...more sodomite-bashing (1 King):

14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

2 Kings:

23:7 And he broke down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Re: Leviticus 23:17 :the NLTNew Living Translation): reads:

"No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute."

The translators of the KJV made an error in these verses, which was probably intentional. The word qadesh in the original Hebrew text was mistranslated as "sodomite". Quadesh means "holy one" and was here used to refer to a man who engaged in ritual prostitution in the temple. Translations referring to prostitutes in general were also errant, as the original Hebrew referred to only those prostitutes who engaged in ritual sex in a temple. Hence these verses condemned temple, ritual, prostitution, whether heterosexual or homosexual. They do not refer to gay or lesbian sex within either a casual or a committed relationship.

(These ancient jews were so homophobic; so unlike their contemporary Greek counterparts. To these various jewish cults wandering through the desert 2500 years ago, any sex not specifically undertaken for the sole purpose of procreation was an "abomination" ...

The ancient Jews themselves and religious cults they joined were not always homophobic, nor were they anti-sex. The 4th century anti-sex editors of the Holy Bible could not disguise the fact that sex was celebrated in the Old Testament. (See the Songs of Solomon and Jonah's verse below.) Therein, as shown by the verses you selected, m2m sex was at times prohibited and at other times accepted in Hebrew societies.

Ezekiel 23:20

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

 

[molotovmuffin]

So, what do you do?

Me...hopefully. :wink:

I loved that show.:frown1:

 

[798686]

Interesting how there are over six hundred laws in Leviticus and only one of them is fanatically quoted by the the self-righteous in the religious community.

And they feel free to ignore many of the others, themselves. :wink:

 

[dc46064]

The "Good Book," while there is much wisdom in it, is a book that has been used for great evil in the world. It is not the word of God, but the work of men attributed to God with translations and variations of text over thousands of year based on the agenda of the translator and those that use it.

I could not have said that better myself!

 

[Smooth88]

The "Good Book," while there is much wisdom in it, is a book that has been used for great evil in the world. It is not the word of God, but the work of men attributed to God with translations and variations of text over thousands of year based on the agenda of the translator and those that use it.

QFT

 

[dreamer20]

The Book of Leviticus is evil.

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

(this is a passage that is pure evil. There's no way around it. If two guys have sex, they must be put to death; spill their blood)

Yet the original Hebrew translation was:

And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is upon them.​

In modern English, this could be translated as:

It is an abomination for two men to have sex on a woman’s bed. They are to be executed; it is their own fault.

VERSES FROM THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) ON HOMOSEXUALITY

(^^ Above link for this and my "qadesh" post)

​

 

[gymfresh]

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

(there it is: two guys having sex is an abomination)


20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

(this is a passage that is pure evil. There's no way around it. If two guys have sex, they must be put to death; spill their blood)

I don't agree with the idea that there's "no way around it". In fact, I don't think it applies to modern same-sex relationships at all.

When I "lie with" a man, in no way do I lie with him as I would lie with a woman. I don't engage in foreplay with his vulva and clitoris; I don't hold his mammary glands; and I don't enter his vagina with my penis. It seems an overly broad definition to simply say to "lie with" is to make love with or to get horizontal with. Why didn't Leviticus just say one man cannot touch another man's penis and/or cause him to spill his seed? In fact, it easily could have -- and didn't.

There was no need for Leviticus to include the gratuitous language "as he lieth with a woman" unless it was to emphasize that he was denying his true orientation for immoral gain. Clearly, if a man is never inclined to "lieth with a woman", then he does nothing wrong when he lieth with a man, and in any event Leviticus only seems to object if he's trying to get the other guy pregnant. If the other guy has no uterus or fallopian tubes, he's in the clear.

Yes, I'm a lawyer.

 

[68306]

*sighs*


gymfresh: Do you consider that a sound legal argument?

 

[gymfresh]

Under the circumstances, absolutely. If some ancient document that so heavily influences modern laws demands strict adherence, then it invites narrow interpretation. I don't know whether the source of the "laws" is real, but what is indisputable is that their translation and interpretation have gone through countless iterations by humans with an agenda. Wording could have been crafted to make intent clear to the masses, even with ancient vocabularies.

What I care about is whether instructions are clear to me, and it is clear the message in the quoted passages has no bearing on my existence. The instructions, outrageous as they are, purport to be to heterosexuals, which I am not -- by creation. Thus, they're irrelevant and should have no bearing on modern legal systems.