Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...

by Albert Einstein 113 Replies latest jw friends

Tuesday

have seen boy dogs try by riding and humping but that's it. They never seem to complete the act. Dogs will ride anything, stuffed animals, trees, blue jean legs....
Snoozy trying to picture what "Lesbian animals do"...to a dog smelling and licking is often a greeting or showing of superiority..
I hate when people say stuff like this, like it's so clever and sarcastic. If you won't read the research maybe you'll watch a movie to get some actual knowledge on the subject before dismissing it. The name of the film is Out in Nature: Homosexual Behaviour in the Animal Kingdom; it wasn't originally going to be called that it was initially going to be a documentary about a specific type of animal but both sexes of this species exhibited homosexual behavior to the point they decided to make the rest of the documentary about that subject.
The argument "Dog's hump each other for dominance does that make them gay?" What if an animal forgoes a mating relationship with one of another species in order to have one with the same sex? Would that make them gay? If you say yes, then do some research to see just how many times that has been observed in nature. It's like saying we have never observed animals evolving into a different species, when all that would be required to see how much it's been observed is a simple google search of "observed evidence of speciation". Really there is no excuse for ignorance.
Mad Dawg

Tuesday, for someone who supposedly has studied anchient history, you don't know diddly about their marriage customs. They didn't "have their way with them" at all. The betrothal period that is being spoke of did not include sex. If you want to claim it did, you need to support that claim. By twist, I mean taking stripping it of all context and interpretting it to mean something that no credible scholar would understand it to mean.
If this is the drivel that you were taught, you need to ask for a refund on your history classes.
Tuesday

Tuesday, for someone who supposedly has studied anchient history, you don't know diddly about their marriage customs. They didn't "have their way with them" at all. The betrothal period that is being spoke of did not include sex. If you want to claim it did, you need to support that claim. By twist, I mean taking stripping it of all context and interpretting it to mean something that no credible scholar would understand it to mean.
If this is the drivel that you were taught, you need to ask for a refund on your history classes.
You're confusing the betrothal of a wife in Israel to the taking of wives from other tribes. I'm discussing this specifically. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion"
Again by saying I don't know diddly, you mean that I have read information that contradicts what you think. Oh yes and I need to ask for a refund, how clever. They wouldn't actually have any money to refund me as I went on a full ride to a private college. It's not simply me who claims this though, here's a paper with numerous references in it to books from these credible scholars that you say don't exist.
http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htm
A couple of snippets from this Academic Paper (what do you know from a college, I suppose they should ask for a refund too.)
We shall focus on the expression "violated her," 'initah in Hebrew, from the root 'anah. It is in the translation of this word that an attitudinal difference between the Targumim becomes apparent. In 2 Samuel 13;11-14, the story of Amnon and Tamar, the root 'anah is used twice: "do not violate me," and then "he overpowered her, he violated her, and he lay with her." If we understand "and he lay with her" to mean "and he had intercourse with her," we may understand from the juxtaposition of the two concepts that 'anah can be considered sexual violence. That is, in this instance the use of 'anah together with "had intercourse" seems to imply actual rape.
This seems to be the case as well in Gen.34:2, the story of Dinah and Shechem. There the text says: "He [Shechem] took her, and he lay with [had intercourse] with her and he violated her [vaye'anehah]." 'Anah alone would not mean necessarily rape, but simply sexual violence of some sort. Rape is again implied here by the use of 'anah and "had intercourse" together.
The idea of rape may also be expressed with other terminology. In Deuteronomy 22:25, 28 we find the verb "had intercourse" used with the verbs "took hold of," "grabbed", to imply the idea of forced intercourse i.e. rape. The verb 'anah is used alone in Lamentations 5:11, Ezekiel 22:10, and Judges 19:25, and from the context in these instances seems to imply rape.
We must recognize, however, that though it is important to determine what is meant by 'anah in Deuteronomy 21:14, rape is only one way of exerting sexual violence. Clearly sexual violence is conveyed in all the quoted instances where 'anah is used. Thus although there is no specific mention of rape in Deuteronomy 21:14, the word 'initah implies that the woman's consent (if any) to intercourse was due to her circumstances.
The expression 'initah is particularly poignant, a point that seems to have been recognized in both the Onqelos and Neophyti Targums. Onqelos actually uses the root 'anah in his translation, while Neophyti 1 has "you have exercised your power/authority [reshut] over her." Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, on the other hand, considers 'anah to be only actual intercourse, translating with the verb shamash, and thus failing to transmit the Bible's sensitivity to the captive's powerlessness.
JustHuman14

The point is the all nature is under the bondage of sin. So at the end of the day God will forgive our sins, since Jesus came for the sinners...this is how I understand homosexuality....but in JW perspective view they cannot explain, exacty they cannot explain why did God created flesh eating animals, in the past(dynasauros)and the animals we have now on earth, since many are cannibalistic
only me

Snoozy- I posted that I have lesbian dogs. I meant that quite literally. It started out as a dominance behavior but has turned into a very affectionate relationship. The older dog is spayed and the younger is not. It is not related to the heat cycle. I don't really want to get graphic, but they take turns with one humping and the other licking until they are finished. It is by no means just smelling and licking.
They also give each other presents such as their treats and groom each other.
I also have a neutered male cat who masterbates, but that's another topic altogether.
Mad Dawg
I don't know what pathetic rendering of the verses they, and you, are using, but here are the verses in reputable translations along with Strong's definition of the word in question. Given the number of times that your cut-and-paste uses the words "seems" and "implies" one would think that it was written by the WTS. Your paper is really stretching hard to make a point.
King James Version
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Revised Standard Version
10 "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

New International Version
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

aw-naw' Verb

Definition
1. (Qal) to be occupied, be busied with
2. to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down
3. (Qal)
4. to be put down, become low
5. to be depressed, be downcast
6. to be afflicted
7. to stoop
8. (Niphal)
9. to humble oneself, bow down
10. to be afflicted, be humbled
11. (Piel)
12. to humble, mishandle, afflict
13. to humble, be humiliated
14. to afflict
15. to humble, weaken oneself
16. (Pual)
17. to be afflicted
18. to be humbled
19. (Hiphil) to afflict
20. (Hithpael)
21. to humble oneself to be afflicted
Tuesday

I don't know what pathetic rendering of the verses they, and you, are using, but here are the verses in reputable translations along with Strong's definition of the word in question. Given the number of times that your cut-and-paste uses the words "seems" and "implies" one would think that it was written by the WTS. Your paper is really stretching hard to make a point.
New Living Translation. By pathetic rendering you mean does not read the way you would like them to read, and by reputable translations you mean ones that have softened the language to make it seem more acceptable to your viewpoint. OMG they use the words seem and imply to draw a conclusion, heavens no! You mean they followed the format of a thesis paper? Have you read thesis papers before, any scientific papers? They all use that language. It's not stretching at all, did you look at the references in the paper at all?
Actually given your poor researching skills I would say not. Here's Strong's ACTUAL definition for the word, you looked at the wrong number there Mad DAWG, it's 6031:
a primitive root (possibly rather ident. with '`anah' (6030) through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows):--abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for '`anah' (6030)), chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing (by mistake for '`anah' (6030)), speak (by mistake for '`anah' (6030)), submit self, weaken, X in any wise.
What do you know, it says to defile and to force...oh and to RAVISH. What oh what could it be implying there? Speaking of pathetic, I'm sure you'll muster some sort of reply.
Mad Dawg

Actually, the versions I quote are hardly softened. If you were to compare the NLT to an interlinear Bible, you would find that a huge amount of liberty with the text was taken in the NLT. For instance in I Kings 18:27 the NLT has Elijah asking if Baal is “relieving himself.” There is no textual support for this deviation.
I really don’t care what version a person uses as long as they understand the nature of the version they are using. The exception to this is when people try to use something like the NLT in an effort to establish what some verse or another says or doesn't say.But then, I suppose that some people need a version written on the 6 th grade level.
Frankly, having had more time to read the article, I find that it does not support what you seem to think it does. Did you even bother to read sections 6, 7, or 8? Did you notice this statement near the end of the article, “Once converted and married she was accorded the same privileges and had the same obligations as a Jewish born wife.”? These sections correspond very closely to how I have understood the verses from Deuteronomy.
It is obvious that you cherry-picked your quotes from this article. The summary paragraph of the conclusion of the article states: “Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was.”
Not only are you dishonest about what the verses say, you are dishonest about what your own source says.

As for your education, it is obvious that you got what you paid for.
Tuesday

I really don’t care what version a person uses as long as they understand the nature of the version they are using.
And by "understand" you mean come to the same conclusion about them as you do.
But then, I suppose that some people need a version written on the 6th grade level.
Nice ad-hominem attack, like you've done since the start of your comments. This coming from someone with numerous grammar and spelling errors in most of his posts. Oh the irony. If we get to play this game, do I get to say that if this discussion fails I can draw out a diagram with nice, shiny pictures sure to get your mentally deficient brain active enough to comprehend the subject at hand? Or do I get to say that, I'm sorry for using big words as it's obvious someone as retarded as you cannot understand them? Seriously don't try to hurl insults at me, I'm a heel pro wrestler and quite adept at them, I can out insult you any day of the week. Stick to the facts and leave the quips off the board.
Frankly, having had more time to read the article, I find that it does not support what you seem to think it does
And by this you mean to say you've found time to cherry-pick a couple of sentences that will support your view and try to skew the source in a different way.
“Once converted and married she was accorded the same privileges and had the same obligations as a Jewish born wife.”? These sections correspond very closely to how I have understood the verses from Deuteronomy.
Yes after it discusses that the rape had occured directly after the battle and more than likely the women were pregnant by the time they returned. If you're taking this as something loving I don't know what you're reading. A woman is raped after her family is murdered, then she gets to spend the rest of her life with her rapist, but at least she's given the rights of a Jewish wife which was...well not a whole hell of a lot.
It is obvious that you cherry-picked your quotes from this article.
"Hi Pot, this is Kettle, just calling to tell you that YOU'RE BLACK!!!" I posted the entire first section of the paper, the very first four paragraphs. You have posted two sentences, yet I cherry-picked the evidence. Sure...
Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was
Yes the very last paragraph of the paper, but you know what's funny is that the paragraph before it describes more accurately how I view things. Actually the entire end half does. Why don't we look at the entire last section to see how fantastic you are at quote-mining.
This paper has examined the Targumim and a number of post-biblical texts relevant to Deut. 21: 10-14, the beautiful captive woman. It has examined certain of the post-biblical texts in an attempt to trace the development of some of the relevant issues mentioned in the introduction. Some of the conclusions reached are as follows:
It is difficult to conceive of a war which the participants would consider non-obligatory. Such assessments have only been attributed in hindsight. Even obviously expansionary wars can be explained as "offence is the best defence". As the capture and subsequent marriage of an enemy woman to an Israelite is only permitted is a non-obligatory war, it can perhaps be construed that such a situation would not occur often. Yet the Talmud tells us that David had four hundred captive wives. One possible (non- traditional) explanation might lie in a concusion of source criticism - that Deuteronomy was later than David.
A biblical imperative is sacrosanct, but the sages were unhappy with the situation of a heathen captive woman attached to an Israelite soldier. According to the Bavli sages in Kiddushin 21b, the permission offered to the soldier in this case is an accommodation to lust. The captive woman then becomes the vehicle for the satisfaction of his evil inclination. In bHullin 109b it is explained that the Torah forbids a man a non-Jewess, but permits him the captive woman. Not only is she the vehicle by which he releases his lust, she is not even his first choice. The captive woman can be described as a consolation prize. As these women were heathens and by definition sexually desirable, the sages felt threatened by the possibility that the captive women's sexual power might entice men away from Judaism. This attitude can be seen in the way the laws applicable to the captive woman were developed.
Other than the compassion displayed by Maimonides, there was very little if any sympathy expended on the plight of the captive. The sages' major concern, given the inviolability of the biblical permission, was the conversion of the woman to Judaism. If that could not be done, then the absolute minimum was her conversion away from heathenism. Once the captive woman's heathenism could be obliterated, the effect of having a diverse and larger genetic pool could be accepted as beneficial.
There was no uniform opinion as to when the first intercourse was permitted. The timing varied from immediately after the battle, but in a private place, to not until after thirty days and conversion. Clearly, there was coercion in both cases, whether physical or psychological or both.
According to the Bavli, first intercourse could occur before the captive arrived at the man's home, perhaps as soon as the actual fighting stopped. The journey to his home could be lengthy, as she was taken from a city far away (Deut. 20: 15). It might occur that very shortly after she arrived at the man's home she would discover that she was pregnant. Even if she was not, her options were very limited. In order to simply survive, she might choose to be converted and remain in the household. It can be understood that a woman in these circumstances would be unhappy and resentful, and possibly full of hatred against the one she perceived to be the cause of her unfortunate circumstances. Possibly the sages were sensitive to this when they claimed that the marriage would not be a happy one.
When the man no longer wanted her, he had to let her go. Once he had intercourse with her, he could no longer enslave her. The captive woman was not a wife before conversion and not a captive after conversion. Once converted and married she was accorded the same privileges and had the same obligations as a Jewish born wife.
The post-biblical sources use the biblical term "woman of beautiful appearance," to describe the woman in Deut. 21: 10- 14. This paper has used the term "captive woman" instead. Sifrei pisqa 211 points out that her actual appearance is of no consequence. She merely has to be sexually desirable to a soldier at the time of her capture. As the term "beautiful woman" is used biblically, so it is used throughout the sources. It is interesting that in the post- biblical development of this section, a number of major changes were introduced by the sages. That they chose not to change or add to the term "beautiful woman" is an indication that they either did not find it inappropriate or it was not important enough to address.
Clearly, however, the operating principle in her description was not her appearance but her powerlessness. This may have been an issue the sages did not wish to confront. Perhaps they understood that if their perception of the captive woman changed from perpetrator to victim, it would be very difficult to set down the stringent rules of conversion. As theological pollution was their primary concern, it was easier to implement their goal if she were objectified. Legislating behaviour is no guarantee that it will be followed, but it does demonstrate the intention of the legislators.The Yerushalmi clearly was against rape of captive women by soldiers at war. In light of recent events in Bosnia, it must be appreciated how ethically and morally forward this thinking was.
Then you like to conclude with two ad hominem attacks:
Not only are you dishonest about what the verses say, you are dishonest about what your own source says.
To which I point you to the above where you quote mined the article I provided and quote mined your own source previously by giving the wrong definition of a word.
As for your education, it is obvious that you got what you paid for.
Usually so says the person without an education to speak of. But please provide your academic credentials and I'd love to discuss it with you.
restrangled

Acccck for heaven sakes...If you're gay you're gay, accept it and quit looking to animals to justify your leanings. Gay's have been refered to in the bible way back.
Get over it, .....and move on... the general population doesn't care and if you insist on comparing your desires to animal behavior...perhaps you are making a case for the other side.
r.

Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...

Share this