Outlawing Homosexuality Farcical

[Brickjectivity]

It was a very black and white outlook. Maybe back then what other cultures wore, i.e., mixed materials, were wrong for Hebrew people, so if they wore all the same material, it set them apart. I don't know...it just sounds like a lot of work to me.

It certainly does sound like a life of dedication to some sort of high ideal. Probably it is dedication to a freedom loving pacifist gypsy life -- the complete antithesis of being an Egyptian.

If I were a scholar I'd know, but I'm not. I would first wonder if the clothing was related to the coverings over the Ark, because there are several kinds of material. But then there are the myths of the Egyptians, and I'd look through them to find something opposite. Specifically I'd look for a myth which threatened anyone who didn't wear mixed materials. I'd also look through Egyptian customs.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

A good example is the rule against cooking a calf in its mother's milk. What a seemingly random law! As if humans had some inner compulsion to cook calves in milk! We don't. There is no nation in the world which has this rule, except Jews. Its simply not needed in any country that I have ever heard of. Nobody wants to cook calves in milk.
.

What about veal parmesan?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What about veal parmesan?

I cannot answer that for anyone but myself. If the prohibition was about avoiding health problems there would be a prohibition against unhealthy foods, but the scripture laws have no rules against unhealthy food. So it is not about the ingredients alone. I don't know why the prohibition came to be.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I cannot answer that for anyone but myself. If the prohibition was about avoiding health problems there would be a prohibition against unhealthy foods, but the scripture laws have no rules against unhealthy food. So it is not about the ingredients alone. I don't know why the prohibition came to be.

I just put it out as an example of a calf cooked with its mother's milk, since veal parmesan is calf meat smothered in cheese.

 

[1213]

...The issue was not doing what others cultures did. To be clean, they had to be totally unlike the other cultures around them...

The problem with that is, we don’t have anything to support that.

... That's why there are contradicting verses. ..

I don’t think that is really true.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The problem with that is, we don’t have anything to support that.



I don’t think that is really true.

That's the theme of much of Leviticus. Biblical scholars think it's true though. Why else would there be contradictory stories?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I just put it out as an example of a calf cooked with its mother's milk, since veal parmesan is calf meat smothered in cheese.

Modern conservative Jews will not eat it, however ancient Jews might have thought it to be Ok since its not boiled in its mother's milk. Over time questions like this are often treated with layers of caution, following a pattern observed in the laws themselves. The law is meant to be internalized, not merely performed by rote. You don't just not kill people you also avoid thinking about killing people, so the very idea becomes appalling not only the act itself. Similary the idea of eating bacon becomes horrible. Today conservative Jews don't eat any dairy with any meat. Its more than a simple meal choice but an internal rejection of even desiring to eat dairy with meat. Or so it seems. I don't think anyone has directly told me so.

 

[John D. Brey]

Can you? Of course you can but why? Are you attempting to reproduce maximally?

If you:

• have leisure time
• don't take every opportunity to reproduce
• masturbate
• eat food for flavor rather than for maximal nutrition
• sleep more than is needed
• believe that each child needs an amount of attention which is individual to their case
• don't adopt orphans whenever you can
• don't donate to orphanages
• don't live in an orderly and systematic fashion
• take stimulants or depressants
• overindulge
• support war in any way

Why would you even spare a thought for outlawing homosexuality? Its simply not as important as any of the above, not in a religious sense.

Is your interlocutor (whom you don't quote) implying that reproduction is the primary reason for outlawing homosexuality? Otherwise, though you may be correct about the insignificance in that context, there may be other reasons for outlawing homosexuality that rise to a significance of biblical proportions.

Perhaps that would be a different thread?



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is your interlocutor (whom you don't quote) implying that reproduction is the primary reason for outlawing homosexuality?

In early times there is a superstitious belief that reproductive power resides in the sacrum. Possibly there is belief that each use of the sacrum weakens it. It might not even require believing this superstition but only awareness of the possibility that casual use of the sacrum might cause problems. A person who is trying to keep Moses laws must consider every possibility, and without modern knowledge of reproduction the myth of the sacrum is compelling. It is believable, so the interlocutor is me thinking about the power this possibility would have on men who believed that reproduction was of maximal import and that by treating the sacrum casually they might worsen life for their offspring. If I believed that and had a shred of decency I would not ever cast off and would only use my appendage with a woman of excellence, a wife and only at times when she could become pregnant. This is, in fact, that way that some men live today and that some have since ancient times. They carefully spill nothing, and if they do spill it is a source of regret.

Some people absolutely do believe in maximal reproduction and also view the command to reproduce as one of the first laws and that all of these laws are of utmost import. We have met such people online, and I have observed one or two in person and observed their absolute dedication to keeping the laws. They are not casual scriptures but are laws and protocols for living in the best way possible, and breaking them is like hurting people or stabbing one's self.

Otherwise, though you may be correct about the insignificance in that context, there may be other reasons for outlawing homosexuality that rise to a significance of biblical proportions.

Perhaps that would be a different thread?



John

It depends upon whether you are addressing the topic of whether outlawing homosexuality (today) is farsical. In ancient times it probably does seem reasonable based upon caution about reproduction and an attitude of stoic concern for life which might be harmed through casual use of the sacrum's power. That is how I excuse or understand early concern about masturbation. I'm not saying I'm right about that intuition or that I have the real reason, but that reason works for me. My challenge in the topic really is: is it farsical for Americans and Iranians today to promote laws against homosexual love? I have implied that yes, it is farsical to; (though I don't claim to understand Iranian perspectives, since Iranians are heavily influenced by Islam, a religion I don't know a lot about). What I understand to my satisfaction is Christian scripture translated into English. That is my strong city. But if its not farsical, then explain why.

 

[John D. Brey]

What I understand to my satisfaction is Christian scripture translated into English. That is my strong city. But if its not farsical, then explain why.

Throughout the bible two peoples (the antediluvian and Sodom and Gomorrah) are singled out as the poster-children for discipline and destruction of a sovereign nature (meaning it "rains down directly from heaven") killing guilty and innocent indiscriminately. Midrash Rabbah, a great source of authentic Jewish thought, states (Bere****h XXVI), that the Holy One, blessed be He (God), "is long-suffering for everything save this kind of immorality."

What kind of immorality?

The generation of the Flood were not blotted out from the world until they composed nuptial songs [or fully legalized such practices] in honour of homosexuality and bestiality. R. Simlia said: Whenever you find [this kind of] lust, an epidemic visits the world which slays both good and bad.​

Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h XXVI.​

Jesus agreed completely:

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They [homosexuals] did eat, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they [homosexuals] did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.​

Throughout the Bible, the antediluvian, and Sodom and Gomorrah, represent the kind of lust that will immediately precede the Man of Sin, the Anti-Christ, and the end of the human civilization began after the flood. Pack your bags. This is the first civilization since the Flood that has legalized homosexuality.

In the past, armchair theologians have poo pooed the idea that Jesus is speaking of homosexuals in Luke 17 (quoted above). Unfortunately, he justifies that interpretation in verses 34 and 35 of the same chapter:

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together in the middle of the night; the one shall be taken, and the other left.​

Finally, in Romans chapter one, Paul explains why homosexuality is such a grave sin:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 . . . 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.​

Homosexuality has been practiced almost from the start. It's not homosexuality that brings on sovereign destruction. It's when society accepts it as "natural." It's when society ignores God, and his laws, and decides, against God's laws, to legalize, and even sacralize (holy matrimony) what is a particular kind of sin that's particularly egregious in that it implies God's fairly clear intentions in the design of the human body can be ignored not only by persons with a proclivity for such things, but by society as a whole.



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

What kind of immorality?

The generation of the Flood were not blotted out from the world until they composed nuptial songs [or fully legalized such practices] in honour of homosexuality and bestiality. R. Simlia said: Whenever you find [this kind of] lust, an epidemic visits the world which slays both good and bad.
Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h XXVI.

A very important authority who makes a midrash has not made anything more important than the midrash of an unimportant person, because its only midrash. Look at Simlia's midrash as a puzzle, not as a declaration. A midrash has no authority, no final word; and every midrash has something wrong with it. Think of it as a what-if scenario. Where a midrash is wrong it is as if the writer has had a bad dream and does not reflect whether the writer is an authority. Anyone may have a bad dream or a bad midrash. A reader is responsible to choose what to value in the midrash, so it is up to you what you take out of a midrash. You cannot blame the author if you get ideas from it. Your midrash presumes the entire city is populated by gay men and animal sex lovers, but there is no reason given for you and I to presume so. It has no force in argument and is not persuasive. We can take or leave Simlia's dream about why Sodom is destroyed and still profit from reading the midrash. Taking the useful while leaving the unuseful is like eating a banana and throwing away the peel, and its what you should do with a midrash.

I am not making a midrash but an argument when I point out that the story is clearly about a city which traffics human lives, kidnapping travelers. It makes no sense to me to put up a midrash against it as if a midrash were an argument. I point out that Lot tests the men to see if its sex they are interested in and finds they are not, because they turn down the better sexual opportunity of two virgin girls. "Bring out your guests that we may have sex with them" is a lie. Its a city that kidnaps. These visitors were to be enslaved.

Jesus agreed completely:

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They [homosexuals] did eat, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they [homosexuals] did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

You have misinterpreted this by inserting '[homosexuals]'. There are plenty of ways to understand the scripture without inserting such unneeded imposition.

Here is what Ezekiel reveals about Sodom and he says nothing about sex in the piece marked in bold letters: "47 You not only followed their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekiel 16:47-50)

What were the 'Detestable things' which Israel in this prophecy has imitated? Find out what detestable things by reading more in Ezekiel and in its companion book. The people who have been brought out of Babylon by Zerubbabel have fallen into the same habit of enslaving their fellows. Yes, they are enslaving their own brothers. This is even worse than the detestable practice of Sodom: enslaving strangers. So the sin of Sodom is made clear: enslavement of strangers.

To argument:

[Gen 13:13 NIV] 13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.​

What sort of thing would the L-RD consider to be wicked among non-Jews. Would the L-RD be very concerned about our sexual practices or more concerned about how we treat one another, treat the poor the widow and the orphan? How we treat other people is far more important, so much so that one cannot sin so greatly without mistreating others. The fruits of the spirit also reflect this: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5) Love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4)

Finally, in Romans chapter one, Paul explains why homosexuality is such a grave sin:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 . . . 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

The passage refers to the Babylonian Captivity. And to what can the above refer if not the capture of Jews who are dragged away to Babylon and forced to live in Babylonian ways instead of Jewish ones. What writer, familiar with Jewish History, could write such words and not be talking about that captivity? Such a cataclysm must never be forgotten. So in that case, yes, Jews were forced to become like babylonians, men sleeping with men; because they had already forsaken the Torah. This does not amount to making homo sex the worst sin or the one that brings destruction. These Jews were also made unclean in their hearts for a time, but so was Nebuchadnezzar. It was not permanent, not for their destruction but instead to preserve them and to show them the power of the law in their lives. Similarly, Nebuchadnezzar was also restored once he had been taught a lesson -- or at least that is what seems to be the plot in Daniel. In later books (for there are several about Babylonian captivity) they discover they missed the law and needed it, and Zerubbabel was able to find many among the survivors who wished to return to the laws and live in the home land. And there are books about how they returned to following the law and how they recommitted to keeping the whole of it.

Homosexuality has been practiced almost from the start. It's not homosexuality that brings on sovereign destruction. It's when society accepts it as "natural." It's when society ignores God, and his laws, and decides, against God's laws, to legalize, and even sacralize (holy matrimony) what is a particular kind of sin that's particularly egregious in that it implies God's fairly clear intentions in the design of the human body can be ignored not only by persons with a proclivity for such things, but by society as a whole.

I cannot disagree more, however I thank you for the honorable discourse and opportunity to bring these ideas out to be discussed.

 

[John D. Brey]

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They [homosexuals] did eat, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they [homosexuals] did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.​

You have misinterpreted this by inserting '[homosexuals]'. There are plenty of ways to understand the scripture without inserting such unneeded imposition.

Did you read the followup verses (34 & 35)? Mind you they're given to confirm specifically whom Jesus is referring to in 26-30:

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together in the middle of the night; the one shall be taken, and the other left.​

It sounds suspiciously like homosexuality.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

What sort of thing would the L-RD consider to be wicked among non-Jews. Would the L-RD be very concerned about our sexual practices or more concerned about how we treat one another, treat the poor the widow and the orphan? How we treat other people is far more important, so much so that one cannot sin so greatly without mistreating others. The fruits of the spirit also reflect this: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5) Love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4)

According to the Apostle Paul, what the Lord is concerned about is doctrine: what he commands in the Bible.

And concerning the false-doctrine spread of late, that the sin of Sodom wasn't anal sex, male homosexuality, we have the odd fact that for far longer than the false-doctrine has been accepted and spread by hucksters, anal sex has been called Sodomy.

As fate would have it, Sodom's sister city, Gommorah עמרה, is a word/name that comes from the Hebrew root word עמר, which means to bind the sheaves together, to be bound tightly together, such that we're all bound to see that bound together Sodom and Gomorrah means to be bound together tightly at the buttocks; i.e., sodomy such as might be practiced by Gomer Pyle.



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

Did you read the followup verses (34 & 35)? Mind you they're given to confirm specifically whom Jesus is referring to in 26-30:

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together in the middle of the night; the one shall be taken, and the other left.​

It sounds suspiciously like homosexuality.


John

Humorous using the Luke gospel, but I'm afraid to laugh for fear of confusing readers who may be trying to catch up. The point of the passage seems to be that we cannot tell the difference between similar people though they are different. All we know is one is taken and not the other. The version in chapter 24 of Matthew says that two men are in a field, one taken and one remaining, and it specifies two women are using grain mills, which is believable since milling grain with a hand mill takes time.

According to the Apostle Paul, what the Lord is concerned about is doctrine: what he commands in the Bible.

And concerning the false-doctrine spread of late, that the sin of Sodom wasn't anal sex, male homosexuality, we have the odd fact that for far longer than the false-doctrine has been accepted and spread by hucksters, anal sex has been called Sodomy.

As fate would have it, Sodom's sister city, Gommorah עמרה, is a word/name that comes from the Hebrew root word עמר, which means to bind the sheaves together, to be bound tightly together, such that we're all bound to see that bound together Sodom and Gomorrah means to be bound together tightly at the buttocks; i.e., sodomy such as might be practiced by Gomer Pyle.

When I first learned of the existence of sex I felt it was funny, silly and disgusting, but my feelings changed. Despite that change I know that I was right. Sex has always been and will always be silly, disgusting and funny; though our minds are bent upon it to make us think it is a serious topic. We are like that squirrel who can only focus upon chasing an acorn. The lot of us are pathetically funny, with no substance and no grip on our own feelings. Our logic is like the crisp snap of a whip which has been twirled in no particular direction, our powerful minds applied to and distracted by silly things. We are slapstick.

 

[John D. Brey]

Humorous using the Luke gospel, but I'm afraid to laugh for fear of confusing readers who may be trying to catch up. The point of the passage seems to be that we cannot tell the difference between similar people though they are different. All we know is one is taken and not the other. The version in chapter 24 of Matthew says that two men are in a field, one taken and one remaining, and it specifies two women are using grain mills, which is believable since milling grain with a hand mill takes time.

I can't speak for, or against, your theological foundations, but for the record, let me state mine. I believe the scripture is inerrant when interpreted correctly. I don't believe it ever makes scientific or logical errors when interpreted correctly.

I preface my comments with that, since not only does Luke chapter 17 speak of men in the field, as does Matthew, but Jesus's students appear to have been following what Jesus is saying just fine. In other words, after Jesus speaks of two men in the same bed, and two women grinding together, both at night mind you, he then speaks of two men in the field.

At the latter (men in the field), his students, scratching their heads, ask: "Where Lord?" (verse 37). ---- Where on earth do men work the fields in the middle of the night? Jesus's students are clearly following him. They know he's speaking of homosexuals (particularly since he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah where sodomizers are tight עמרה, so to say). They're under no illusion concerning the fact that Jesus is speaking of homosexuals which is why they ask about the men in the field ---at night? Jesus answers:

Wheresoever the body is, thither will the vultures gather.

Luke 17:37.​

Since, unlike Jesus's students, the interpreters and translators are daft, i.e., they don't know whats going on in the text, they translate "vultures" (Greek "aetoi") as "eagles," so that those reading the translation, like those doing it, don't have a clue what's going on. Jesus is confirming to his students that the sheep are going to be separated from the goats at the Judgment in the end-times so that the righteous are removed from the earth while the unsaved remain. And it matters not a wink if they're in their beds safe and sound or in their graves out in the field. At the resurrection they'll be treated the same.



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can't speak for, or against, your theological foundations, but for the record, let me state mine. I believe the scripture is inerrant when interpreted correctly. I don't believe it ever makes scientific or logical errors when interpreted correctly.

I empathize. I think you are compelled, by belief in the inerrant original lettering, to concatenate the stories. Even so your theory that it is to do with sex just makes no sense to me considering what the story is about. Its not coming together.

I preface my comments with that, since not only does Luke chapter 17 speak of men in the field, as does Matthew, but Jesus's students appear to have been following what Jesus is saying just fine. In other words, after Jesus speaks of two men in the same bed, and two women grinding together, both at night mind you, he then speaks of two men in the field.

At the latter (men in the field), his students, scratching their heads, ask: "Where Lord?" (verse 37). ---- Where on earth do men work the fields in the middle of the night? Jesus's students are clearly following him. They know he's speaking of homosexuals (particularly since he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah where sodomizers are tight עמרה, so to say). They're under no illusion concerning the fact that Jesus is speaking of homosexuals which is why they ask about the men in the field ---at night? Jesus answers:

Wheresoever the body is, thither will the vultures gather.

Luke 17:37.
Since, unlike Jesus's students, the interpreters and translators are daft, i.e., they don't know whats going on in the text, they translate "vultures" (Greek "aetoi") as "eagles," so that those reading the translation, like those doing it, don't have a clue what's going on. Jesus is confirming to his students that the sheep are going to be separated from the goats at the Judgment in the end-times so that the righteous are removed from the earth while the unsaved remain. And it matters not a wink if they're in their beds safe and sound or in their graves out in the field. At the resurrection they'll be treated the same.



John

Jesus disciple leans his head upon Jesus chest at the last supper, and they share the same food and drink. They lie together in the same bed. It is a much more cozy arrangement than I (as an American man) am comfortable with. If I were to do this, in America, to lean my head upon another man's chest it would instantly brand me as a homosexual. We have to be macho macho here, unfriendly, not hugging. This is not the case in Jesus country where men lie together affectionately without having intercourse. It is only the act of penetration which is expressly forbidden to Jews in Torah, but the softening of the heart is encouraged. In America it is discouraged and punished. Not only in America but in many places.

Can we in America soften our hearts, too? It seems like not. I think we have destroyed ourselves, partly because ministry is so vehement and arousing against homosexuality. Sometimes ministry comes partway towards heart softening, and brothers do embrace. They are still very flighty and afraid of what people think. There is a public fear of appearing homosexual, as if it were a sin to care about other men. We live in fear that we will be identified as homosexuals or labeled as such. Its a schoolyard taunt. Sometimes fathers and sons don't hug! Cousins frequently will not, because it isn't macho, is too soft. A man must be hardened and cold externally at all times. He must learn to be sensitive to women but hardened against men. It is a difficult time for anyone who needs emotional support and friendship. Small wonder there are so many homeless men, so many who are unable to go on. We men are like drifting barges or desert islands. Thirsty for care but receiving none, and it is because we have haughty eyes and a proud heart.

 

[John D. Brey]

Jesus disciple leans his head upon Jesus chest at the last supper, and they share the same food and drink. They lie together in the same bed. It is a much more cozy arrangement than I (as an American man) am comfortable with. If I were to do this, in America, to lean my head upon another man's chest it would instantly brand me as a homosexual.

What about women "grinding" at the same time men are in the same bed?

If mine heart have been deceived by a woman,
Or if I have laid wait at my neighbour’s door;
10 Then let my wife grind unto another,
And let others bow down upon her.

Job 31:9-10.​

Fwiw, "grinding" was a metaphor for sex in the Tanakh. The grinding stone was often phallic in shape and was placed into the opening where the grain was waiting to be ground by the stone.

When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife [enjoy conjugal relations with her] which he hath taken. 6 No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge. 7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 24:5-6.​

Rabbi Elie Munk comments:

One shall not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge. The Midrash notes a symbolic linkage between this verse and the previous passage having to do with marriage. After the first sin, Eve was told, your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16). . . [The set of upper and lower millstones are considered to be an analogy for a husband and wife, with the lower millstone, corresponding to the wife.].

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah: An Anthology of Interpretations and Commentary of the Five Books of Moses (Bracketed statement is R. Munk's).​

John

 

[Brickjectivity]

What about women "grinding" at the same time men are in the same bed?

In Jewish culture: for all I know women may be allowed to grind, but men are not. I don't know if women are; but I think so. If I am on the right track about maximal reproduction then it makes sense so could be correct. Women do not have sperm, and (unlike men) it was never thought that they'd become less viable with each sexual encounter. I think instead that it was suspected that they became less viable with each menstruation. Women grinding women would (because of that) not be thought to make sickly children and so would not be forbidden. Oppositely men grinding men could have been suspected of weakening the children. So men were forbidden from purposely spilling semen and discouraged from accidentally doing so. The laws in the torah discourage and/or forbid.

The goal of Israel was for it to be a living thing which outlasted nations and reproduced as reliably as a vine: both physically and mentally, an endless line of righteous Jews, always reproducing the exact original Jewish person type reliably. Israel could be remade from any single Jew, and according to Jewish lore had been at least once and possibly more than once. Anything which hindered this ability to reproduce Israel was discouraged. Conversion to Judaism began with a mark of extreme dedication to the same goal.

Then came Christianity with its rejection of that physical mark of dedication and its concept of grafting gentiles onto the Jewish vine. Then came Christianity with a different idea of reproduction, of fulfillment, of imitation of the vine. Then came Christianity, something which many Jews did not accept; yet they were not destroyed but persisted and remained in the world. Today we are able to understand many things about Judaism because of them and to make sense of scripture because of them -- because they continue to reproduce reliably.

Fwiw, "grinding" was a metaphor for sex in the Tanakh. The grinding stone was often phallic in shape and was placed into the opening where the grain was waiting to be ground by the stone.

Yes that sounds correct. I am not a Hebrew reader, but I understand that grinding metaphor.

Rabbi Elie Munk comments:

One shall not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge. The Midrash notes a symbolic linkage between this verse and the previous passage having to do with marriage. After the first sin, Eve was told, your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16). . . [The set of upper and lower millstones are considered to be an analogy for a husband and wife, with the lower millstone, corresponding to the wife.].

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah: An Anthology of Interpretations and Commentary of the Five Books of Moses (Bracketed statement is R. Munk's).

In other words "Don't use your wife as collateral." That makes sense.

 

[night912]

Did you read the followup verses (34 & 35)? Mind you they're given to confirm specifically whom Jesus is referring to in 26-30:

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together in the middle of the night; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
It sounds suspiciously like homosexuality.

If it sounds suspiciously like homosexuality to you then, okay it's fine. So this would mean that homosexuality is not immoral like how you've been arguing, and actually opposed your argument.


"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

Let's take a closer look at it. Here we have two homosexuals having sex with each other. So this clearly demonstrates homosexuality. And immediately following that, it says that one GAY man went to heaven and the other GAY man did not. So this clearly demonstrate that homosexuality is not immoral since both GAY men were engaging in anal sex with each other but only one Gay man was "punished" when it should've been both.

So basically the bible teach that it's possible for active homosexuals to enter the Kingdom of God.


Isn't awesome how all this works? You can dressed up bible verses and use it to make the best presently conceived argument for why homosexuality is immoral, only to be refuted by a slightly better dressed version used as a counterargument to yours.

 

[John D. Brey]

If it sounds suspiciously like homosexuality to you then, okay it's fine. So this would mean that homosexuality is not immoral like how you've been arguing, and actually opposed your argument.


"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

Let's take a closer look at it. Here we have two homosexuals having sex with each other. So this clearly demonstrates homosexuality. And immediately following that, it says that one GAY man went to heaven and the other GAY man did not. So this clearly demonstrate that homosexuality is not immoral since both GAY men were engaging in anal sex with each other but only one Gay man was "punished" when it should've been both.

So basically the bible teach that it's possible for active homosexuals to enter the Kingdom of God.


Isn't awesome how all this works? You can dressed up bible verses and use it to make the best presently conceived argument for why homosexuality is immoral, only to be refuted by a slightly better dressed version used as a counterargument to yours.

I'm glad you brought this up. I was wondering if anyone would catch the nuance you address. Those being resurrected aren't sinless. Salvation and resurrection are for sinners since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Homosexuality is a sin like many other sins and has nothing to do with salvation or lack thereof.

Jesus is using homosexuality not as the example of some grave sin that means you can't be saved, or aren't saved; he's using society's attitude toward homosexuals, specifically allowing them to marry, as a canary in a coal mine. It's not the homosexuals that are the sign of the end times. It's society's attitude toward them. And even that, society's attitude toward homosexuality (allowing them to marry) isn't being singled out as some great crime so much as it's being singled out as a sign of the way people will think in the end times. Jesus primary intent in the text in the cross-hairs is to tell his followers what will be the sign of the end times.

Since no society outside of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the antediluvian civilization, has normalized homosexuality as it's being normalized today, we would all do well to pack our bags if we intend to be among those lifted out of here. Homosexual marriage is a canary in the coal mine. It's not about judging another person's sins. It's about knowing when to pack yer bags.



John