Care to elaborate about in what way and for what reason(s) my thinking is unclear?
Mixing up different categories ad libitum. Inventing ad hoc definitions. I understand what you’re saying, but it has little basis in anything real.
Not really. Rather stubbornly, I suppose, I was hoping to see something like a rebuttal* of the specific explanation that I linked to, not only to be told that it is not the mainstream interpretation and so there is nothing more to talk about.
* By rebuttal, I mean a counter-argument to the specific assertions in the link. It’s fine if no-one here is able to do that for reasons of lack of specific expertise, I can simply hold the uncertainty until that expertise comes along.
For gay Bible, I doubt the relevance of these “lie with” verses. They’re rooted in a very obsolete concept of human beings. The real gay bible is Jonathan’s love for David, “surpassing the love of women.”
There’s only one way to read that. They try to spin it as brotherly love, but for that David would compare Jonathan to a real brother, not a woman.
Yes, i think it’s clear that a lot of same-sex love is on display in the bible.
14 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
Given the context, it’s hard to read anything especially sexual in that commandment. It’s a list of valuable possessions. (And yes, biblically, a wife is unambiguously a possession of her husband.) I’m not actually sure what action would violate that commandment, honestly.
One of the claims made in the Dan McClellan video that @Broomstick posted upthread is that it’s impossible to say definitively whether or not the relationship between David and Jonathan is (homo)sexual: from the biblical text, either interpretation is possible.
Not a ad hominem - I didnt attack YOU, I said your cite was biased, which is common and normal here on the SDMB.
I am? Where? Not to my knowledge.
That agrees with what I have read.
Could well be what we call a “Bromance”. Or perhaps homosexual love. No way to tell. But note that David was likely King in the 9th or 10th century BC, but the Book of Leviticus was more likely written around 6th to 5th century BC, altho opinions differ. So David was pre Leviticus, by that reckoning.
An ad hominem argument is one that says one should discount someone’s argument because of who they are, rather than because of the contents of their actual argument. You can certainly do that to someone at third hand, as you did in that post. You called them biased (which you didn’t support) and then strongly implied that we could ignore their analysis because they were biased.
When a personal criticism is not a fallacy
This is where many people get tripped up. Personal information is not automatically irrelevant. Sometimes a person’s behavior, expertise, or conflicts of interest really do matter.
Consider these examples:
- Expertise: If a mechanic says your engine problem is a loose belt, that is more credible than the same claim from someone with no mechanical knowledge. That is not ad hominem; it is relevant evaluation of expertise.
- Bias: If a company executive testifies about a policy that would benefit their own business, pointing out the conflict of interest is fair and relevant.
We point out the bias of a cite all the time here. I have had many posters do it to me.
That is NOT a ad hominem fallacy.
Nor did i say YOU were biased.
In fact you said yourself-
You are wrong here. Your cite was wrong and biased, and cites and other posters agree.
Nort am I going to argue “ad hominem” again.
That may be but there are numerous editions. And there was a Bible Convention some time ago which is why we’re where we are now,
Point of order: Leviticus 18 is part of the Holiness Code, which was probably written during the First Temple era and predates the rest of Leviticus by a couple of centuries. Still post-David, though.
Sure, estimates differ of course, but that is a good point.
Very well, I withdraw the accusation of ad hominem arguing.
Ah. Your link would be the one that claims that it just prohibits lying in a woman’s bed with a man. I do feel comfortable refuting that.
I see three issues in your link. The first is the contention that mishk’vei means “bed of” and must be referring to a literal bed. The second is the translation of to’evah as “a hateful thing” and a lack of explanation of what it really means. The third is the talk about ancient Israelite practices.
The word mishk’vei is the plural construct form of the noun mishkav, which can be translated as bed, as in a palce where one lies down. And while this can refer to a physical piece of furniture (although there are other more common words for that), it is quite often used to refer metaphorically to sexual activity. Making it a plural construct (“beds of”) actually strengthens this, as this grammatical form is often specifically used to make things more abstract. Hence why I said “lyings of” is a better literal translation.
Translating to’evah as “a hateful thing” isn’t wrong, but the usual translation is more along “abomination”, which conveys the severity better, in my opinion. The term is used for very strong prohibitions, and generally not for lesser issues, which is relevant to the third point below. And is linked to a severe punishment.
The biggest issue I have is with the contention about Israelite practice. The claim about women’s beds is doing the heavy lifting in this interpretation. But there is nothing there to back this up. The oblique reference to Leviticus 15 is about women on their period, and how their discharge makes things unclean. And, yes, if you sit on something where she has discharged, then you also become unclean and must do purification rituals similar to what she must do after she stops menstruating.
The idea that there is some severe prohibition on the literal act of sitting or laying on a woman’s bed, and that somehow doing so with another man would be worthy of to’evah is nowhere in evidence. There’s not any reason that having another person involved would escalate this to uncleanness that needs to be purified to such a strong prohibition that can be used to justify actual execution.
The evidence we do have just really does not support the interpretation that this is about a physical bed. In fact, the only other time mishk’vei specifically is used (outside of Leviticus 18 and the repetition of this command in chapter 20) refers to defiling the “bed” of Reuben’s father, because he had sex with his father’s concubine.
The root mishkav is used constantly for sexual activity, just like the “uncover the nakedness” metaphor used throughout Leviticus 18. The use as a literal place for lying down is actually less common.
Forcing it here to refer to a physical bed just doesn’t really make any sense.
Lying, not laying. Laying on a bed is what the prohibitions are about, lying on a bed isn’t.
The only distinction I know of between those two words is that “laying” is usually transitive to something else. You can lay a blanket on a bed, or lay a pillow on a bed, or lay a sleeping person on a bed, but if you’re just putting yourself in a bed, you’re lying, not laying.
But I don’t think that’s the point you’re making, because laying what on a bed?
I think it was a joke about the sexual interpretation of “to lay”, as in “getting laid”.
That was my interpretation, too.
Read it as: Fucking on a bed is what the prohibitions are about, lying on a bed isn’t.
So gay sex in a bathroom is kosher?
Depends on what you lie about, for example you still can’t bear false witness against your neighbour, even in bed.