posted
I know it's amusing, but jokes based on the idea that food laws and laws concerning homosexuality are treated equally in the Christian Bible are based on a false premise. There is a distinct scriptural basis for Christians treating the Old Testament food laws differently from the Old Testament laws concerning sexual morality.
Fair enough. So let's look at the other Old Testament laws on morality.
Verse 22 is the one that gets brought up in these discussions: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. For men to act womanly, anyway. Lesbians, have at it!
Have sex with a woman "that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her"? No probem, she won't be put to death, only scourged. He'll just have to make an offering. (19:20)
No tattoos, sorry. (19:28)
Hoever, he will be put to death if he curses his parents, commits adultery, has sex with an in-law, has sex with another man, or commits bestiality. Very clear, it's written. (20: 9-16) Interestingly enough woman are mentioned specifically about bestiality but, again, not about homosexuality. Lesbians are A-OK!
Have sex with a menstruating woman, you're cast out. (20:18) Have sex with the wife of a brother or uncle, you'll both "die childless." Not sure what that might mean for pre-existing children. (20:20-21)
Which slaves you can own, and how to treat them. How far from other people you have to go during your period. Under what circumstances you are required to kill your neighbors. What to do with a priest's daughter who prostitutes herself (hint: you'll need a torch).
What I need is some explanation as to why the laws against homosexuality are to be observed when so many others have been set aside.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I need is some explanation as to why the laws against homosexuality are to be observed when so many others have been set aside.
If I had any reason to think you were serious, I might reply. As it is, this topic has been covered to death and back on Hatrack, plus is readily available on the web if you are interested and aren't just snarking.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if Chris is serious or not, but off the top of my head I can't think of a convincing answer to that question that I've heard on Hatrack.
I generally stay away from religion argument threads though so, that's probably why, if the answers are as prevelant as you say. But I've always been curious.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Philosopher's Lobster/Lobster's Stone Chamber of Lobsters/Lobster of Secrets Prisoner of Lobsters/Lobster of Azkaban Goblet of Lobsters/Lobster of Fire Order of the Lobster Half-Blood Lobster/Half-Lobster Prince/Lobster-Blood Prince Deathly Lobsters/Lobster Hallows
We (in the backseat of the car trip of terminal boredom) decided that the Harry Potter books were the most Lobster-friendly series in existence.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
The Fellowship of the Lobsters. The Lobster of the Rings.
The Lobster Towers. The Two Lobsters.
The Lobster of the King. The Return of the Lobster.
I think it would have been better had they done with the title that Tolkien originally wanted, which was the War of the Ring. So that'd be the War of the Lobster.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had any reason to think you were serious, I might reply. As it is, this topic has been covered to death and back on Hatrack, plus is readily available on the web if you are interested and aren't just snarking.
Nah. I've been in more than a few of those here, and were I serious about starting one up I'd have been less snarky. Just hate seeing mentions go by without throwing back a response.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here, Michael Tomasky takes the book apart -- remember the book that started this thread? - in a detailed review.
quote:Isn't all this at once so broad and so qualified as to be meaningless? (Don't worry, my ellipses do not cut out anything inconvenient to my argument. See for yourself on page 327.) Hillary Clinton does not seek any of the goals that fascists have traditionally sought, but somehow she is like them. And so on. Whole Foods is obviously a pretty fascistic enterprise, especially its EnviroKidz cereal line, but "none of this is evil, and it is certainly well- meaning." Also, liberals "are not cartoonish Nazi villains," and "the danger they pose isn't existential or Orwellian." Lurking behind all these futile disclaimers may be Goldberg's well-founded fear that intelligent or knowledgeable readers might conclude that he is crazy.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
