A
AndyF
Guest
Duhhh?
It is rare I use this expression my teenage granddaughter likes to use, but I find it quite appropriate for this narrative of Leviticus 18 which is quite obviously tongue in cheek. I have read this passage many times, and I am quite certain there is no real contextual lesson that can be learned from it.
Consider a learned scribe diligently writing down these points. He would not have this honour unless he was a student of the law. Something doesn’t dawn on him as he’s writing and that is:
**Unless your married, sex is banned.
**If it had, he would have realized that every point would need an insertion “Spouse” or “Married Person” to make these acts valid where sexual acts are only permitted.
Now that is not to say we don’t know the real intent of this passage. It is a check list on who you shouldn’t have sex with, and paradoxically for this case, marriage is a prerequisite for any sex. (so says the same Inspired Book). In this male dominant society of that time, it is surprising that God sanctions the expression of sex without at least Inspiring the scribe to include a “catch-all” at the end of it in this potential orgie of permissiveness.
**"… only if your married of course."
**because without it, it implies sex is allowed before marriage provided conditions are met. Of course this line would immediately reveal the silliness of the list.
Now something else is apparent once we do the proper editing which should have been done. If the scribe assumes everyone knows the basic law, then it would need only a reminder to those about to marry. ie: “Don’t marry your mother, relative,sister,etc”. The detailed points like menstruation,etc, would include “wife”.
The state of marriage would have placed the individual in the conditions where his sexual desires will always be expressed to the correct subject or situation. For instance, if the policing body ensured he married a none relative, then there would be no need for the warning to “not have intercourse with” a relative.
So we can imagine our scribe voicing his protest, like a modern rookie lawyer trying to remind his senior firm members of basic laws. But he is sent back and reminded that he had better tow the line.
I feel if anything can taint the Inspirational works of this Book, then this carte blanche checklist does it quite nicely and can only hinder potential readers, and would have swayed many Hebrews of that time to sin also. I think the passages that are obviously privledges to suit a long past male culture should be removed. There is nothing Inspirational about these passages, but the inspiration we see is from a few bar room Hebrews with an over active libido, and a weak Rabbi and submissive scribe wishing to remain politically correct to their wishes.
Andy
It is rare I use this expression my teenage granddaughter likes to use, but I find it quite appropriate for this narrative of Leviticus 18 which is quite obviously tongue in cheek. I have read this passage many times, and I am quite certain there is no real contextual lesson that can be learned from it.
Consider a learned scribe diligently writing down these points. He would not have this honour unless he was a student of the law. Something doesn’t dawn on him as he’s writing and that is:
**Unless your married, sex is banned.
**If it had, he would have realized that every point would need an insertion “Spouse” or “Married Person” to make these acts valid where sexual acts are only permitted.
Now that is not to say we don’t know the real intent of this passage. It is a check list on who you shouldn’t have sex with, and paradoxically for this case, marriage is a prerequisite for any sex. (so says the same Inspired Book). In this male dominant society of that time, it is surprising that God sanctions the expression of sex without at least Inspiring the scribe to include a “catch-all” at the end of it in this potential orgie of permissiveness.
**"… only if your married of course."
**because without it, it implies sex is allowed before marriage provided conditions are met. Of course this line would immediately reveal the silliness of the list.
Now something else is apparent once we do the proper editing which should have been done. If the scribe assumes everyone knows the basic law, then it would need only a reminder to those about to marry. ie: “Don’t marry your mother, relative,sister,etc”. The detailed points like menstruation,etc, would include “wife”.
The state of marriage would have placed the individual in the conditions where his sexual desires will always be expressed to the correct subject or situation. For instance, if the policing body ensured he married a none relative, then there would be no need for the warning to “not have intercourse with” a relative.
So we can imagine our scribe voicing his protest, like a modern rookie lawyer trying to remind his senior firm members of basic laws. But he is sent back and reminded that he had better tow the line.
I feel if anything can taint the Inspirational works of this Book, then this carte blanche checklist does it quite nicely and can only hinder potential readers, and would have swayed many Hebrews of that time to sin also. I think the passages that are obviously privledges to suit a long past male culture should be removed. There is nothing Inspirational about these passages, but the inspiration we see is from a few bar room Hebrews with an over active libido, and a weak Rabbi and submissive scribe wishing to remain politically correct to their wishes.
Andy
