Is it sinning? Is there a specific prohibition in the Bible about dead animals?
Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists
Thatuserguy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This just puts the image in my head of a religious person seeing someone having sex with a dead deer on the side of the road and their first reaction being “Oh my god he’s sinning!” and not “Why the fuck is that freak fucking a dead deer on the side of the road”
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The Bible includes passages that condone murdering a cheating wife, so maybe don’t use that as your yardstick.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
In a sense, yes.
Leviticus 5:2 condones touching a dead creature:
“‘Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also shall be unclean and guilty.”Leviticus 11:29-31 states that “creeping” creatures result in uncleanliness, but only until evening, so unless “evening” is an abstract term meaning “nearing the end of your life”, you’re only gross until tomorrow:
"‘These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the large lizard after its kind; the gecko, the monitor lizard, the sand reptile, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening."Side note
Lev 11:42-43 states that their god promotes veganism, but not because their lives have just as much meaning as human lives, but because of the exact opposite; their lives are scum. Hot take.:
“Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth—these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them.”And the passages that mention sex with a creature, regardless of a heartbeat, include Leviticus 18:23. And as a bonus, their god is said to be talking to Moses with the intention of passing the message to all Israelites, it also slanders men being gay in the previous line (but as this was also to be delivered to women, I guess this implies rather that sexual acts suitable for a woman partner should never be done with a male partner.) :
“22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.”Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It seems to say you would be unclean to touch a dead animal. That means you need to take a bath and wait until evening to be clean again. No harm, no foul.
And Christians can always pull out their get out of jail card, “Jesus fulfilled the law so OT rules don’t apply.”
So I think only true Christians could morally have sex with a dead deer.
davidagain@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It seems to say you would be unclean to touch a dead animal. That means you need to take a bath and wait until evening to be clean again.
I think this is before the invention of soap, so being ritually unclean meant that other people aren’t allowed to touch you for a certain number of days (and then you need to offer a sacrifice in the temple or something), or in some cases like touching a leper, the priest has to examine you at the end of the unclean period to declare you clean.
erev@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Note that 18:22 is heavily debated because its been translated as male, but more nuanced translations decribe same-sex rape, not necessarily homosexuality as whole.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It’s heavily disputed whether those translations are more accurate rather than just reading nuance where none exists. Some translations also interpret it as specifically about pedophilia, but again, they may or may not be more accurate than simply translating it as all M/M sex.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
The very fact of the whole text being:
- In my skeptical opinion, likely invented by ramblings of a nutter, and the book was written as an attempt to write history by those who listened to the town crazy;
- (Western editions) Translated multiple times - (roughly) Hebrew ‘Torah’ to Greek ‘Septuagint’ to Old Latin ‘Vetus Latina’, then revised using the ‘Septuagint’ and translated directly from the ‘Torah’ to make the ‘Vulgate’, and into modern languages (true English, French, and German originally) ‘Bible’ by multiple groups;
- As well as many translators there are countless individuals who either evangelise or simply read for themselves, each with their own unique interpretation of every verse;
makes me suspect that every single translation has some error, and because I cannot read Hebrew I’ll never truly know. Even what used to be the most trusted digital translator, Google Translate, now uses AI to interpret and adjust the wording, making the translate service more useless than it already was. FWIW, whenever I need to consult the English Bible I prefer the King James Version (1769 revision, not the NKJV), not only because I love the language style, and that it is in a language I can read, but it is translated into English from Hebrew, and in my opinion if there are deviations from the Torah, the KJV will have less errors than others.
A good read of the women involved in one translation: Paula and the Latin Vulgate
Thatuserguy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I don’t know. Much like most modern day Christians I haven’t actually read it
abc@suppo.fi 2 days ago
The difference between those thoughts sort of vague.
87Six@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
the difference is one requires a prerequisite (religion) while the other one doesn’t require anything except…idk, common sense, or having more than one brain cell?