Mankind lying with womankind is indeed referred to as abomination in Lev. 18, as is a man lying with a beast. However, there is a whole list of other sins in that chapter which involve the possibility of conception, such as lying with one’s sister-in-law or one’s neighbor’s wife. These are also included in the command, to “not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you”.
Furthermore, in Deut. 23:18, it is commanded that “thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore […] into the house of the LORD thy God, for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”. Obviously, lying with a whore in the house of God contains the possibility of conception. Hence, it is not the case that the possibility of conception is what separates abomination from non-abomination.
Your second point is ridiculous; we’re not supposed to sell stuff in the temple either, and commercialism is one of our god-given obligations!
As for your first point, you obviously overlooked the part where he proved that coveting your neighbor’s wife was equivalent to shagging her. Given that, there is an apparent contradiction in the bible, since coveting is a mere sin; yet the bible is entirely true and has no flaws whatsoever. Such apparent contradictions are (of course) errors on your part, but don’t worry; you can always rely on we of the religious right (‘right’ as in ‘correct’) to tell you what is true.
So 9 Supreme Court justices in 1973, I don’t know how many justices since then (not to mention the 7 Presidents who appointed them), 32 congresses and millions upon millions of Americans are unreasonable (absurd, all wet, arbitrary, biased, capricious, contradictory, erratic, fallacious, far-fetched, fatuous, foolish, headstrong, illogical, incoherent, incongruous, inconsequential, inconsistent, invalid, irrational, loose, mad, nonsensical, off base, opinionated, preposterous, quirky, reasonless, senseless, silly, stupid, thoughtless, unreasoned, unsensible, vacant, wrong)? Only you and your “holy armies” have a clue? Don’t you and your minions have a damn high opinion of yourselves…
You miss my point. Intercourse with a whore in the temple is given as an abomination; it has the possibility of conception; hence there can be abominations that have the possibility of conception.
I fail to see where he did so. Please point it out.
No you don’t. Gravity brings you down. It doesn’t make you rise, but keep going.
It makes absolutely perfect sense to me if you parse it carefully. In the first two examples we have sexual relations occuring. In the first between a man and a man. In the second between a man and a beast. In the third example we have a person merely wanting to have sex with a beast. One would expect that the contmplation of a sin would be the lesser offense than the action, would one not?
Anyway, I recall no dogmatic distinction between “sin” and “abomination” in my Catholic Bible. Perhaps you can quote me a chapter and a verse.
Actually, conception is impossible in the third example as well. You still can’t get pregnant from just wanting to do it. You have to do it. Secondly, an ass is a beast who’s germ plasm is incompatible with humanity’s (though strangely not with a horse, hence the mule.)
No. It does not follow. You spend the first section addressing a distinction in degree of severity of sins, yet now you pretend that all things are equivalent. You can’t have it both ways. Either all sins are equal or there are gradations.
Personally, I think that littering is worse than killing and go with gradations myself.
I concede you have something of a point there. It does seem somewhat extreme, doesn’t it? Perhaps your missing something from the story or misinterpreting it? Try this on:
We agree that Onan spilling his seed was a sin. We agree that killing him for doing this seems disproportionate. Therefore I propose two possibilities. Possibility the first is to interpretate the story so that we have a ridiculously unjust God. Possibility the second is to try to understand within the context of the story why Onan was struck dead. You see, Onan had a duty to impregnate this woman under law (I think she was his dead brother’s wife) and Jewish law stated that he had to marry her and give her children so that there would be a direct lineage of firstborn sons. If he doesn’t than it’s a betrayal of his brother, his brother’s wife, and both families. It betrays all his ancestors. Firstborn sons and their sons inheriting and whatnot.
So, Onan (in the context of the story) wasn’t struck dead for simply spilling his seed. He was struck dead for betraying his brother, his brother’s wife, his family, and God’s law. The crime was actually a lot more severe than simply spilling his seed. His betrayal was pari passeu with murder not because of the seed spilled, but because he was murdering his families legacy, betraying his brother etc, etc. (I may have gotten a detail wrong, it’s been a while, but that’s the gist.)
You should go to Sunday school so you know what it means.
Within the context of marriage or concubinage, at least according to the Old Covenant. The text here says not to hire a whore for use in the temple; it says nothing about which orifice is being used. Vaginal intercourse with a fertile whore in the temple could very likely result in conception, yet is nevertheless an abomination.
I find the best way to counter satire that makes a point one doesn’t agree with is to treat it as if it were serious. It can take the fun out of satire when one’s opponent doesn’t play along.
This came immediately to mind: “When Duty whispers low, ‘Thou must!’”…
Of course, that was written about the young. I like Emerson, but he didn’t really probe the depths of what women – strong, older women – are capable of giving in times of need.