Friday, July 29, 2011

Parsing Leviticus

Much is made by those Christians who happen to be ultra-conservative of the command in Leviticus that a man should not lay with another man as with a woman.

While conservatives are often faulted for taking their bible too literally, in this case they don't take it literally enough. Let's look at the whole sentence:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
(KJV Lev 18:22)
Many generalize this statement into the belief that men should not have any sexual experiences with other men. It doesn't say that.

Leviticus did not say that man shouldn't lie with man. He says that man shouldn't lie with man "as with womankind". The phrase "to lie with" rather apparently does mean to have a sexual experience. And "as with womankind" is a particular kind of sexual experience.

He next says that for man to lie down with an animal is also verboten. "As with womankind" doesn't enter the picture here. He could have been equally general one verse earlier in speaking about man's laying with mankind. But he wasn't.

If he had wanted to disavow all homosexuality, Leviticus could have saved ink and said "Thou shalt not lie with mankind." Period. But he qualifies the rule. He limits it - "as with womankind" is the particular way in which laying with mankind is forbidden.

What could "as with womankind" mean? Was Leviticus perhaps speaking of insertion? If a man lies with another man and has a sexual experience and no insertions take place, is Leviticus' command violated?

Were the Greeks, whose homosexuality included a lot of "intercrural" sex - insertion between the thighs - condemned for this by Leviticus? This was a class of sex known to the times. Did Leviticus use the phrase "as with womankind" to exempt intercrural sex?

For that matter, does "to lie with" include sex standing up?

There is no reference in Leviticus to females having sex with other females. Once again, his injunction fails to be universal.

Leviticus was a cleanliness freak. God - as spoken to Moses and reported word for word by Leviticus - God is a cleanliness freak. In Chapter 18, He warned people to stay clean, and told them how. In Chapter 20, God speaks through Moses through Leviticus once again and commands that the community kill those who ignored His warnings back in Chapter 18.

Now, one can't catch AIDS through the fingertips. One can't, unless one has sore gums, catch AIDS through the mouth. One can catch AIDS through insertion.

AIDS was, as far as we know, not present in Leviticus' time. But there were other diseases. So the injunction against insertion into the most sensitive flesh of others who are human makes a lot of sense. They may be passing diseases around.

Yet since the male sexual cycle can call for release two or three times daily when young if one is not to spot the bedclothes, the space created by allowing male-male non-insertive sexual relationships may have been used to stabilize their urges until young males were ready to become family men. This appears to have happened in other cultures, and it may well have been quietly present among the early Jews.

Curiously, in the long list of relatives at the beginning of chapter 18 whom one should not attempt to disrobe, the brother is not included. The sister, yes...
"The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. " (KJV Lev 18:9)
Even the sister. But not the brother. No mention of the brother.

Leviticus says in 18:6:
"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD."
He then details exactly what he means by 'near of kin', taking 12 verses. Even thy sister's nakedness thou shalt not uncover. But not your brother. "Even" suggests a boundary.

Not the brother. So brotherly male-male nudity at least is tolerable. In poor families today, children of the same gender are bathed together. It saves water. But this injunction is not about visual contact. It is about uncovering another.

This omission adds to the "not as with womankind" exemption. It is ok to uncover a brother and lie with him if it's not as with womankind. Says Leviticus.

Cousins are also ok, even the girls - they are not on the 'near of kin' list. And there is a whole world of same-sex people waiting beyond who are also not on the 'near of kin' list. It is ok to uncover them and lie with them if it's not like with a woman.

This was a pre-condom era. Sadly, the potential cleanliness of sex with a condom was not a part of Leviticus' discussion. Who knows what he would have permitted his people, if Leviticus had had access to condoms.

Later, in Chapter 20, Leviticus loses his temper and instructs his people that those who violate the laws in Chapter 18 must be killed. In this modern day, Christian conservatives may feel some lingering sense of responsibility to at least dump on, if not kill, those souls who violate the Levitical laws, at least the laws which these same Christians have not themselves broken.

Leviticus has become the enforcer.

What a gift to mankind. God has far greater gifts than Leviticus.

And even Leviticus allows males to lie with males so long as they do not lie 'as with womankind'.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

religion

Everyone has a personal religion. It is the life of the spirit.

When people group together, personal religions interact and organize around the commonalities of interest into shared religions.


Eventually shared religions become a substitute for spiritual life. They become a place to pay penance or to make appeals to that which is already all ways within us always, that for which our personal spiritual life is its own expression.

When one is in a shared religion, there is always a tension between the group belief and the personal belief. There is always a compromise. Other people's dances are never quite our own.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Eliminate The Middleman

Value is created when a sharp tool touches raw material. When a newly washed shirt is ironed. When a brain is led to think in ways it never thought before.

Rather than being value-creators, many people seek gain in life by edging themselves into the delivery system. Buying cigarettes by the pack and selling them one at a time. Offering credit cards for a fee so people can buy today's goods with tomorrow's money.

Making money by facilitating commerce can bring wonderful wealth - but it's a shaky wealth, vulnerable to those who find shorter paths between buyer and seller. eBay, the popular auction house, survives. It links buyer and seller and does nothing more.

An artist could sell through a gallery. The gallery displays the art, sends out mailings, brings in customers. The gallery enables the art to be sold. For a big piece of the action. Or the artist could sell her art on eBay and spend most of her time painting, rather than dealing with marketers.

The most economic transaction is the one that follows the shortest path, eliminating all unnecessary middlemen. The most effective economy is the one with the fewest middlemen.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

A Whole Self

Every city is like a total universe, for it contains that which is being born, that which is living out its life, and that which is dying. It contains the dead, the unborn, and that overall uniting force that impels intent and design and endless redesign.

Is the mind not such a city? When it looks at what is possible, does it not see room for hope? When the mind looks at what is, does it not see life going on, see birth, continuance, and death, the whole meta-system? When it looks at the intersection between these two worlds, the possible and the ongoing, can it see how to do? If it has intention.

Is the world such a city? What is mankind's intention? What is organic life's intention?

Can a man redesign himself? Can life redesign the world?

Thursday, July 14, 2011

TV Goes Around The Bend

My TV sits, waiting for the repairman from the cable company. It has been this way for months. I have yet to call him. I am suddenly now getting everything I used to get on TV at no extra cost over the internet.

John Stewart : http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Stephen Colbert : http://www.colbertnation.com/

Keith Olbermann : http://current.com/shows/countdown/

Rachel Maddow : http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/

Home and Garden Channel : http://www.hgtv.com/

At the moment I am writing this, I am watching Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report". It is in segments, but each segment leads into the next. I will be watching whole show.

There are no commercials. It is continuous. The image is smaller than regular TV, but it is free. Click to make the image full-screen. Still a little fuzzy, but livable.

Each show is archived, so you can watch it when you like. You can browse older shows. If the Earth doesn't collide with humanity, perhaps Colbert's art will survive intact for generations.

Cable TV doesn't do this. This is a new paradigm.

A new paradigm is devouring the old paradigm. Making change. Much of the content that cable stations now broadcast over cable they also broadcast over the Internet, making it globally accessible. As more and more people use the internet, the older method of delivery may slowly fall away.

Just link to the web site of the program you would like to watch. Google and ye shall find.

The quantitative incremental improvement (40% yearly) of computing power has turned television, a thing of the moment, into a new type of entity with a third, temporal, dimension. It still is what it always was, but it can also be anything it ever has been.

Continuous quantitative change has generated qualitative change. Just as, in the political world, continuous reform has created revolution.

Moore's Law marches on.