Using the rhetoric of the First Amendment, a string of US Supreme Court cases has allowed members of some religious groups to limit the freedoms of other Americans.
What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.
Because that’s not relevant to the discussion. But since you brought it up, remember that I explicitly mentioned that the context is “cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now.” So let’s keep that context in mind. Chattel slavery was normal.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit. But in this case there is a very specific prophetic context that we’ll touch on shortly.
Since we’re on the topic of familial/household abuses, note that the concept of “consent” does not exist here. Re-read Leviticus with that in mind, especially when reading about having sex with the neighbors wife, the daughter-in-law, or the father’s wife (which is not necessarily your mother). Consent is not a prerequisite to any of these offenses.
Now also remember, I said these two things:
“…they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews…”
“When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear… not just on the WHAT… but the WHY.”
One thing neither of us has addressed here is the WHY. You shifted from Lev 23 to 20, but missed this: the scripture spells that out the WHY clear as day just a few verses later…
“Therefore you shall observe and obey all of my rules and all of my rulings so that the land where I am bringing you to live will not spit you back out.”
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that. So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
Ok, so in that case, what’s the male slave to do?
He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.
But, if he is raped, he will be killed.
That doesn’t seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It’s negative.
Yes, you got all of this right. Again, the slave is chattel and is handled like any other property. By modern sensibilities this is horrific, but this is a historical document that is not by, for, or about us (westerners living thousands of years later in an unimaginably different world and culture). You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
In that case, what about the part in the new testament?
That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn’t use the “as with a woman” phrasing.
Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them. Paul was further challenged by working with Hellenists… yet another culture that would be alien to us, and decried a wide variety of activities he saw as sexual abuses; from temple prostitution, to slave abuse, to pederasty. And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Now, remember this, because it is VITAL:
The Pharisees, having heard how Yeshua humbled the Sadducees (priestly caste), gathered together. One among them, an expert and lawyer of Torah (religious law) sought to test him.
“Rabbi, in all the Torah, which commandment is the most important?”
And Yeshua said to him: "You shall love, respect, and cherish the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, and all your thought. This is the most important and fundamental commandment.
But the second is equal to the first: You shall love, respect, and cherish your neighbors no less than you love, respect, and cherish yourself.
These two commandments are the foundation on which all the Torah and all the teachings of the Prophets are based.
Whenever you read scripture - any of it, even Paul - and even if you ignore all the other teachings of Yeshua Hamashiach, remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
It is relevant to the discussion. Because it shows that the old testament thinks homosexuality is bad, which you deny.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit.
You’re not really making the case for a loving god and bible here.
What you have made the case for however, is that the bible view homosexuals as animals, as lesser than people.
All the while, you claim that the bible doesn’t save negative things about homosexuality.
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that.
If you think so, you clearly haven’t read the bible, at all.
So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
And it was paramount that all homosexuals be killed, to safeguard these wanderings.
You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
You can shift and twist the context all you like, it’s there clear as day: the bible says a lot of negative things about homosexuals.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them.
Reiterate them? So the parts about slavery being completely ok and fine is jesus’ teaching reiterated?
Good to know. Everybody sets him up as a swell guy and a hippy, but it turns out he supports slavery.
And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Which again, show that homosexuality was put in a negative light. According to the bible, it’s a sin that must be changed.
It explicitly says homosexuals cannot get into heaven, after all.
remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
Thatfully, I don’t have to go to ministrations or read of bigoted supernatural tales to delude myself into thinking I’m a good man, so I’ll skip that, thanks.
Because that’s not relevant to the discussion. But since you brought it up, remember that I explicitly mentioned that the context is “cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now.” So let’s keep that context in mind. Chattel slavery was normal.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit. But in this case there is a very specific prophetic context that we’ll touch on shortly.
Since we’re on the topic of familial/household abuses, note that the concept of “consent” does not exist here. Re-read Leviticus with that in mind, especially when reading about having sex with the neighbors wife, the daughter-in-law, or the father’s wife (which is not necessarily your mother). Consent is not a prerequisite to any of these offenses.
Now also remember, I said these two things:
One thing neither of us has addressed here is the WHY. You shifted from Lev 23 to 20, but missed this: the scripture spells that out the WHY clear as day just a few verses later…
“Therefore you shall observe and obey all of my rules and all of my rulings so that the land where I am bringing you to live will not spit you back out.”
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that. So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
Yes, you got all of this right. Again, the slave is chattel and is handled like any other property. By modern sensibilities this is horrific, but this is a historical document that is not by, for, or about us (westerners living thousands of years later in an unimaginably different world and culture). You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them. Paul was further challenged by working with Hellenists… yet another culture that would be alien to us, and decried a wide variety of activities he saw as sexual abuses; from temple prostitution, to slave abuse, to pederasty. And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Now, remember this, because it is VITAL:
Whenever you read scripture - any of it, even Paul - and even if you ignore all the other teachings of Yeshua Hamashiach, remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
It is relevant to the discussion. Because it shows that the old testament thinks homosexuality is bad, which you deny.
You’re not really making the case for a loving god and bible here.
What you have made the case for however, is that the bible view homosexuals as animals, as lesser than people.
All the while, you claim that the bible doesn’t save negative things about homosexuality.
If you think so, you clearly haven’t read the bible, at all.
And it was paramount that all homosexuals be killed, to safeguard these wanderings.
You can shift and twist the context all you like, it’s there clear as day: the bible says a lot of negative things about homosexuals.
Reiterate them? So the parts about slavery being completely ok and fine is jesus’ teaching reiterated?
Good to know. Everybody sets him up as a swell guy and a hippy, but it turns out he supports slavery.
Which again, show that homosexuality was put in a negative light. According to the bible, it’s a sin that must be changed.
It explicitly says homosexuals cannot get into heaven, after all.
Thatfully, I don’t have to go to ministrations or read of bigoted supernatural tales to delude myself into thinking I’m a good man, so I’ll skip that, thanks.