• TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        800 years? He had other sons and daughters, with who? His mom? His brothers? I know Christians love incest but 2 brothers can’t have kids AFAIK. So he had sex with his mom?

        • vane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          There is nowhere information that God created Earth as first planet and first human there, there is information he created planet and things or at most a galaxy but there is no information nowhere that it was first planet or first galaxy. He just found empty spot in space. It’s pretty possible to do it if you could manipulate matter how you want and have unlimited energy source. That’s just terraforming to be honest.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Problem is Genesis was written before the religion it was written for decided it was a monotheist religion that believed it was the only truth. So Yaweh created Adam and Eve, who had a couple of sons, one killed the other, but then that other went out and joined up with the other people made from other gods or titans or whatever, somehow convinced some of them to join his clan for a god that loved them, but then hated them because they sought knowledge (via eating fruit lol they really didn’t want their followers to be able to figure out shit to the point of even misdirecting them for how one obtains knowledge).

          Where it falls apart even considering the original context is Noah’s flood, because that did apparently wipe everyone out except one mating pair per species, so how did Noah’s descendents repopulate the world without other populations to hook up with?

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Fucking thing’s got plot holes big enough for a sperm whale to swim through comfortably and yet it’s regarded as 100% literal truth by most lunatics governing us and most of the mouth breathers that voted for them.

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              That’s why Jesus was sent to retcon most of it and replace it with “just don’t be a dick”.

              They nailed him to a tree for that.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Also Leviticus is old testament. So this is less relevant/generally superceded by newer text.

      • callouscomic@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours 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 (Genesis 19):

        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.”

        Then 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.

        Now, realize this whole story is being told cause Lot was the right God-loving soul they just HAD to save before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Everyone else was “worse?”

        The lesson I was taught when I was younger was that Lots daughters were evil and this was in zero way Lots fault (the incest). He apparently didn’t raise them to be that way. You know, with his attitude of “please fuck my daughters and spare the rest.” Somehow their actions were in no way reflective of his character as a father.

        Also we ignore the part where he tried to give them away to be raped by an entire town.

        • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours 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.

          I’m 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.

      • bramkaandorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours 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 NKJV:

          For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

          Here’s a bunch of other translations:

          https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

          Absolutely tons of branches/denominations use this to justify upholding whatever their particular interpretation of whatever law they perceive from the Old Testament, the Tanakh/Torah.

          ‘The law’ is literally what Torah means in Hebrew, the Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament, The Tanakh broadly is the entire Hebrew Bible.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The thing that bothers me with that explanation, is that if “where the Torah is concerned, every word counts” than 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.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          21 hours 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day 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 zachar is of sexual maturity and a yélid is neither.

            So if a zachar is off limits for being too immature it’s implied so is an yélid.

            If you don’t understand the context of that I can’t help you.

            • Nikls94@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Okay let me get this straight for my own understanding:

              In South Park, the Vatikans said “the bible states it’s not forbidden to fuck young boys” and the original Hebrew wording literally states that this is forbidden.

              As in: “stoned shall not be the gay, but the one that gropes children”?

              • Forester@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                20 hours ago

                You realize SP is satire right?

                Yes the original wording explicitly forbids adult men from fucking males that have not themselves reached full adulthood

                The wording roughly would be man should not fuck adolescent male it is abhorrent

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 hours 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.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Iirc Oregon or Colorado legalized pot and gay marriage at virtually the same time. I remember the memes of a freaked out preacher yelling “NO NOT LIKE THAT!!” lol. Good times.