Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2015, 06:48 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2015 12:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Copied from my post on the subject. DLJ is right. It's about class and status, and equality.

Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.
There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.
There was also no notion of a (vast) continuum of sexual behaviors, (ie various iterations such as "bisexuality"), as science recognizes today.
Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important, as they were in most cultures of the Ancient Near East.

The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (and they ALL were assumed to be "straight"), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex itself. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written down), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes and cultural norms. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equally. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.

The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.

The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter example of in-hospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.

The great irony is that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality, to do the opposite.

ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", and "Who Wrote the Bible"

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-01-2015, 06:53 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 06:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 06:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
I haven't seen such fine slicing and dicing in quite a while.

That's nothing! Since you mention it, you should read his thesis on circumcision Yes

And ask him to show you his foreskin collection.

Big Grin

It is indeed a good read.

I've entitled it:
'So You Think You Have Too Much Penis - You're Not Alone'
A Snippet into Circumcision by Ear Muffs.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like earmuffs's post
24-01-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:51 PM)DLJ Wrote:  But that was no way to treat an equal. One should not be all superior and powerful when having sex with another man.

That is what was seriously frowned upon.

Do not, repeat not, have sex when an equal (a man) as you would with an inferior (womenz and other low-life).

Sincerely intrigued by this interpretation, DLJ — what's your source? I'd like to read more.

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 07:50 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 06:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", and "Who Wrote the Bible"

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

Dern, Bucky. Interesting stuff, and thank you for the refs.

You obviously have some background in Hebrew, at least, and seemingly much more.

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 11:35 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
One could also point out that, when God's deplorable acts are pointed out, they love to say how it doesn't matter cause Jesus and the New Testament made it all better. So by that logic...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2015 12:41 AM by Jack_Ripper.)
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
The bible also says nothing about hermaphrodites. This biological condition is a lot more prevalent than most would believe. Some even have function of both genitalia. Are those people just fucked biblically? How would Leviticus apply to a hermaphrodite who was decidedly female. Would she never be able to take a husband? Should she be put to death for taking a husband? How do fundies feel on this issue I wonder?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 02:58 AM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 07:47 PM)claywise Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 05:51 PM)DLJ Wrote:  ...
Do not, repeat not, have sex when an equal (a man) as you would with an inferior (womenz and other low-life).

Sincerely intrigued by this interpretation, DLJ — what's your source? I'd like to read more.

I honestly thought I was making it up until I read Bucky's post. Blush

(25-01-2015 12:21 AM)Jack_Ripper Wrote:  ...
Are those people just fucked biblically?
...

Aren't we all?

Unsure

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
25-01-2015, 04:21 AM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Hemaphrodites
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 07:43 AM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
While the points brought up here are interesting - and probably worth debate -- one has to ask -----

Why would a supreme being - who created earth, sun and moon, all the planets in our solar system, all the billions of suns and other planets in our galaxy, the billions of galaxies that make up our universe - and possibly, just possibly a cascading multitude of other universes making up a multiverse --------


Really give a rat's ass what some goathearder does with his dick on Saturday night??

Come on - we need a little perspective here....

Tongue

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
25-01-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:16 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  But than the verse would say that if a man has butt sex with a female and than later has butt sex with a male, he should be killed and shit.

So if a man starts with male on male butt sex action and doesn't dip into the pool of straightness than he's all good
Ooh, I think I get it now....

If you're gay or straight, and just stick with the gay/straight sex you're fine.
Once you get into that whole bi sexual thing..... now you've pissed off god.

Is that about right? Tongue

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: