Also Leviticus is old testament. So this is less relevant/generally superceded by newer text.
Comment on Now I finally get it
Forester@pawb.social 3 days ago
Just fyi. The original Hebrew version is anti pedo not anti gay. I’m certain this link won’t be popular, but . …timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
Gladaed@feddit.org 2 days ago
bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Only for Christians. I would assume this still holds for Jewish people, as well as some christians who still holds to the Old Testament due to Jesus saying that the old text will not be superceded.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
For reference, here’s that verse, Matthew 5:18:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Thats the KJV, here’s a bunch of other translations:
callouscomic@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Because the New Testament is better? The NT is especially sexist towards women. Like:
- they need to be quiet (1 Cor 14:34-35)
- they can’t divorce but men can (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) and it implies she has no autonomy since his act alters how she is viewed
- also 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is quite the ride, with dressing modestly to worship God, be quiet, fully submit, no teaching a man, be quiet again, men came first, women sinned first, and only birthing children can save them.
Holy shit. Those are just a few.
But it is true the Old Testament is quite the doozy.
We gotta go back to the good Old Testament for one of my favs:
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
The later his wife was turned to salt cause she bad (because of course only women do bad things, didn’t yiu know? /s). Then his daughters, who had been spared what you read above, wound up getting their dad drunk and fucking him in a cave to continue the bloodline.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Lot’s offer to the mob was meant to be an allegorical lesson on obligations to guests. Basically a hyperbolic ‘this is how far you have go to protect guests in your house.’ In the modern age it would be a hotel clerk holding off a mob with a shotgun or something like that.
In not sure if the cave incest had a lesson behind it, but the impetus was his daughters thought they were the last people on earth and were trying to restart the population themselves. I don’t think they were meant to be seen as evil for it.
callouscomic@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Tha is for reminding me of one of so many reasons I abandoned the family from my childhood and all their toxic abusive apologists.
Incredible you’re in here defending throwing your own children to mob rape.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 days ago
The thing that bothers me with that explanation, is that if "where the Torah is concerned, every word counts" - why didn't they use the word 'boy' instead of the more ambiguous 'male'? Seems an intentional choice to refer to men and boys together.
Forester@pawb.social 3 days ago
They did
The word ish is is any male 13 years old that is not married that has functional equipment
www.sefaria.org/sheets/196414?lang=bi
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 3 days ago
No, you are correct.
If it meant men, it would use the same word twice (like the mediocre translation above). It specifically uses a different word to indicate a different meaning. איש at the beginning of the verse, and זכר in the second part of the verse.
Legitimate scholars all agree that this is not referring to the type of gay relationships that generally exist today. They disagree only with the exact meaning that was intended.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 days ago
No, I'd have expected them to say ילד if they only wanted to mean man with boy and not man with any form of male.
Forester@pawb.social 3 days ago
You really are missing the forrest by staring at trees.
The key context between ish zachar and yéled is that an ish is of mental and sexual maturity, an ish is of sexual maturity and a yélid is neither.
So if a zachar is off limits for being too young it’s implied so is an yélid.
If you don’t understand the context of that I can’t help you.
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The word ילד would be insufficient. It does not include נער, or עלם, which would be the more likely scenario (not to mention עול, which would be unthinkable). זכר is the more obvious choice.