gay sheep in bible times: didn't they notice?

[rottingteeth]

back in bible times they didn't have television, movies, internet, texting, etc. they depended a lot more on animals and sheperds were common. did they not notice homosexual relations in animals, especially sheep? why then would they say it is unnatural? I'm talking about the verse in leviticus, 20:13:

13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

I noticed it doesn't actually say "unnatural" in either KJV or NIV, but that is what was said in a movie I saw last night that took place in bible times, which is why I wanted to make this thread...so I'm not sure what version they were using :\

still, with all the sheperds, they must have noticed there were some "gay" sheep. did they put these animals to death for commiting this terrible sinful act? :\

or did they notice and no one gave a damn about any of it except for the people with power who picked and chose what books to include in the bible and how exactly it should be translated? I can't say I know what the actual hebrew is or what the most accurate translation would be, but it can't be "unnatural" because any sensible person in that time would realize it occurs in nature and therefore cannot be considered against nature.

furthermore why would anyone take the laws laid down in leviticus seriously? it calls for people to be put to death for petty offenses. why would a christian/bible believer who is against homosexuality think it is ok to use this verse in an argument? for one thing they likely don't even know the REASON it's in there (there is a book written by bishop John Shelby Spong- in which he claims to have studied this subject in depth, and in the original language- that provides the real reason behind these verses, at least according to him) and another thing, if they are going to use this verse, why not take all the others just as seriously? why pick just one verse, one law, and reject all the others as outdated or otherwise unacceptable?

I just don't get it :\

[sox-and-the-city]

Becuase these people are not good Christians. I bet most people who hate gays for religious reasons collect sticks on the sabbath. I bet some of them have even eaten improper ritual offerings...

Incidentally, these are acts also punishable by death.

Also, the living bible translation makes for interesting reading:

The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.

Anybody see gaps between this translaiton and the the more accurate English Standard translation

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

It's an interesting point to think about though. I won't go into the discussions i've had about this as i really don't have the time right now. Keep watching this space, we'll have more on that story later...

[princealbertofb]

back in bible times they didn't have television, movies, internet, texting, etc. they depended a lot more on animals and sheperds were common. did they not notice homosexual relations in animals, especially sheep? why then would they say it is unnatural? I'm talking about the verse in leviticus, 20:13:





I noticed it doesn't actually say "unnatural" in either KJV or NIV, but that is what was said in a movie I saw last night that took place in bible times, which is why I wanted to make this thread...so I'm not sure what version they were using :\

still, with all the sheperds, they must have noticed there were some "gay" sheep. did they put these animals to death for commiting this terrible sinful act? :\

or did they notice and no one gave a damn about any of it except for the people with power who picked and chose what books to include in the bible and how exactly it should be translated? I can't say I know what the actual hebrew is or what the most accurate translation would be, but it can't be "unnatural" because any sensible person in that time would realize it occurs in nature and therefore cannot be considered against nature.

furthermore why would anyone take the laws laid down in leviticus seriously? it calls for people to be put to death for petty offenses. why would a christian/bible believer who is against homosexuality think it is ok to use this verse in an argument? for one thing they likely don't even know the REASON it's in there (there is a book written by bishop John Shelby Spong- in which he claims to have studied this subject in depth, and in the original language- that provides the real reason behind these verses, at least according to him) and another thing, if they are going to use this verse, why not take all the others just as seriously? why pick just one verse, one law, and reject all the others as outdated or otherwise unacceptable?

I just don't get it :\

Yes, it's called lambslaughter.... or sacrifice.

[sox-and-the-city]

Actually, animals don't have an immortal soul and thus can't sin against God...:confused:

[princealbertofb]

Oh so that's what we are, you beast!!!

[sox-and-the-city]

Hmmm?? There was me thinking we were referring to actual, physical, grass munching, baaaing sheep, with woolly backs...

[princealbertofb]

Wooly backs, so you can knit us, Sox?

[sox-and-the-city]

Thoroughly confuzzled...

[yar]

EXCELLENT point PA

[fredv3b]

Yes, it's called lambslaughter.... or sacrifice.

Perhaps they just decided to have some mutton stew out of sheep that were not going to lead to more sheep.