How I interpret Deuteronomy 27 on animals

[jennifer_bloom]

Deuteronomy 27 says you shall not have a romantic cohabitation with an animal and the Jewish Talmud suggests that people who operate purely on primitive and selfish instinct should be regarded as immature people with the mentality and spiritual status of animals.

I mentioned in my mailing list, that as somebody who has a connection with God, my life consists in a vast spectrum of religious and spiritual emotions and the visual and material world is just a tiny fraction of the joy I feel, which is why a connection with a man that does not appeal to my higher spiritual self, will never maintain my interest long term.

The bible knows religious people do not fall in love with non religious people which is why the bible says a spiritual person must not attach themselves to an unspiritual person for financial or tactile benefits.

My cousin said similar things to me before I started university, she said, never date a very religious guy, they will never marry you and will only use you for short term happiness.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

I never heard that interpreted that way. And those verses are pretty specific regarding animals.
However Deut. 7:3, 4. says “You must not form any marriage alliances with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods; then Jehovah’s anger will blaze against you, and he will swiftly annihilate you.”
So I understand your point about spiritual people choosing a spiritual person to marry. its like 2 people sharing a taxi that want to go 2 different directions.

[Waldoe]

you wrote... "never date a 'very religious' guy" don't you mean "Non-religious"?

[jennifer_bloom]

Yeah I don’t always edit for typos

[mstbooblover]

Probably a lapsus I'd say. A very religious person can get pretty boring at last, exactly as a very materialistic person would. We're human: no saints, no robots.

[mstbooblover]

Let us get things straight. Deuteronomy 27 verse 21 states: "Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Holy Bible placed by The Gideons).

I checked in a French edition by the monks of Maredsous (La Sainte Bible, version établie par les moines de Maredsous) Deutéronome 27 vers 21: "Maudit soit celui qui a commerce avec une bête quelconque! - Et tout le peuple dira: Amen!"

Those two different bibles actually state exactly the same commandment: a man should not have sex with an animal, and according your interpretation, a non religious person is considered to be an animal...

Humans are nevertheless indeed literally animals, and in my opinion in only very few cases gifted with a little bit higher conscience. From the point of view of those very few enlightened persons, acting on purely primitive and selfish instinct may indeed appear immature and similar to acting as animals, but it's on behalf of that primitive part of us humans that we are able to survive. Wisdom could be to see and admit that plain animal part in ourselves, and act by mature choice according to circumstances.

Still no need to study the Holy Bible to understand that a very religious short sighted person will never be compatible with a short sighted atheist. But if a sincerely (!) religious person considers a sincere (!) atheist, both of good will course, they will have respect and maybe even love for each other. The key is being of good will and listening to the other.

I doubt that religions will ever bring peace on earth, on the contrary considering all those useless and idiotic so-called holy wars caused by blind and deaf people in the biblic sense of the words: no worse blind than one not willing to see, and no worse deaf than one not willing to hear.

[mstbooblover]

There is still something about that Deuteronomy 27:21 that bothers me. Why did the author feel the urge to add "... with ANY MANNER of beast."? Were there some animals that were in some way admissable according popular habits? Sure the Talmud has a point concerning people operating only on the basis of selfish instinct. Without agreeing completely, I do understand why such people may be regarded as acting as animals, although this might be considered an insult to animals, because these are only being themselves without any form of pretending what they're not. Animals act as they were in some way intended to act.

Deuteronomy 27:21 only states clearly that command on behalf of men, not women. The Talmud must thus have based its judgment on other texts as well, and I suspect, probably among others, Leviticus 20 verses 15 and 16, that are far more severe than those of the Deuteronomy:
- Lev. 20:15,
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
- Lev. 20:16,
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shall kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[jennifer_bloom]

I have an answer to this but it’s so controversial I’m not going to share it. But I say, if you have a question, and you ask God, He might answer you.

[mstbooblover]

Controversial or not, please feel free to share your opinion, if not here, then by private message. Although the concept I have of the word God is probably very different from yours, I'm interested in order to have a wider view in interpreting some texts.

[jennifer_bloom]

I believe the man is a representation of the warrior and labourer and not the masculine gender and I believe the woman is a symbol for the recipient, the obligated and the social collectivist

[mstbooblover]

That's an idea worth to be considered: I understand what you mean with the man not necessaryly being the male gender, but I'm not sure to grasp your concept of the woman's symbol. Is that the controversial side of the idea?

[jennifer_bloom]

I thought both were controversial ideas for the average Christian

[mstbooblover]

Not really, because in French, the word "Homme" (Man in English) means humans whether male or female. The word "homme" (man in English) on the other hand means exclusively de male gender. That's why the Human Rights in French were called originally "les Droits de l'Homme", and now "les Droits Humans".

By the way, one can hardly call me an average Christian ;0) I don't let my opinions be twisted by official or politically correct theories.

[jennifer_bloom]

The Christian circles I know are very closed about their fixed bible interpretations, one reason I sometimes watch Jewish rabbis on YouTube instead of pastors.

[mstbooblover]

Little orthographic mistake: "Droits Humains" (the "i" was missing)

[jennifer_bloom]

What is your background? Did you study language academically or as a hobby?

[mstbooblover]

You're right, but's that's true for every closed society. I'm interested in every honest interpretation, and I always try to find the original texts to refer to instead of staring me blind on comments of comments. Actually, the most open minded society I ever met had to do with Tibetan Buddhism.

[jennifer_bloom]

I care about ideology and not just open mindedness - I studied Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and Buddhism and Orthodox Judaism and Christianity and Islam and I liked all of them. I even learned Sanskrit at a basic level.

[mstbooblover]

We seem to have some common interests. Ideologies nevertheless seem to me always suspect. There's the theory, and then the practical side. The Bible is full of horrors if taken literally. Same with the Coran. There's the text which set aside its sometimes annoying tone, contains a rather moderate set of laws which were a real improvements compared to customs of the time. I'm convinced that nearly no islamist ever really read the Coran. What I mean: let's always go back to the original texts. Same with Hinduism by the way.

[mstbooblover]

I notice to have suggested a wrong association of ideas. The Coran itself does not contain horrors to the contrary of the Bible.

[jennifer_bloom]

I view the bible as allegorical and not as literal

[mstbooblover]

The truth is a bit more complicated. Parts are poetical, literal, philosophical, symbolic, etc. Everything depends on the context and the period they were written. The bible is a often messed up pile of heterogeneous texts put together according their seemingly inspired content.

Sorry for having skipped your question about my background. That's a long and difficult story. I mainly have been focused on music, and also photography. I studied one year biochemistry. I mainly studied by myself with now and then an occasional guide. I have always been interested in philosophical matters, but still always suspicious about official dogmas and too much cleaving hairs in four ;0)

Many things happened in my life. Concerning languages, my parents were French speaking, but I went to school in Flemish. At school we got English and German lessons. Later I studied a bit Russian, and together with my wife Tibetan (not much left of this...).

[Whatever2929292]

That is how I see your fleshly life. Your primal instincts. The passions of the flesh. To be lustful, fornicate, etc. to be gluttonous. To kill... ETC ETC. To be spirtual is to be above that. God can get out out of that and walking the the spirt.

Long as you aren't into witchcraft or anything. There are some pretty evil people out there some who think they are good people and some who enjoy being evil.

[purplepoppy]

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is how bad was problem of sheep shagging back then that they had to actually stick a command in the bible to stop people doing it? We're people really gobbling camels thinking hey it's not in out religious texts therefore it must be OK. Did god really think leave that dolphin alone, do I really need to explain this to you people.

[zagor]

Given the sanitation standards of the day, beastiality probably wasn't as far removed from "normal" back then.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

I believe you are just being funny. Its clear you do not know much about the bible or those times. I am debating if I should answer either of you. Not sure you even want an answer. Let me know if you do. I don't want to prejudge.

[cth96190]

The Talmud is not scripture.

[Xtendable]

Whats the correlation to animals in your question?