Levicticus 19:19

12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- ExHindu
- Member
- offline
Levicticus 19:19
OP - May 30, 2009, 12:50 AM

Leviticus 19:19 (King James Version)

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Leviticus 19:19 (New International Version)

19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:19 (My version)

- If you breed mules, you're going to hell
- If you plant an apple tree and a pear tree in your back garden, you're going to hell
- If you wear the same underpants that I am right now (95% cotton, 5% Elastine), oh no, you're going to HELL!

Damn my underpants

We keep hearing about how Jack Straw or the French government have mentioned the veil and our doing so puts us in the same boat as them. How so? I want a ban on the burka, neqab and child veiling.

you can either defend women or you must defend Islam. You can’t defend both

- Maryam Namaze
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #1 - May 30, 2009, 01:27 AM

Isn't it basically saying, don't go fucking non-Jews?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #2 - May 30, 2009, 01:31 AM

Quote from: J4m3z on May 30, 2009, 01:27 AM
Isn't it basically saying, don't go fucking non-Jews?

No. Its saying don't plant different seeds together, wear clothes from different fibres woven together, or mate animals of different species. Your interpretation would fly in the face of many other parts of the OT which allow "fucking" of non-Jews.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- ExHindu
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #3 - May 30, 2009, 01:42 AM

At first when I read it, I thought it said that you couldnt 'mix' two different types of animal, not just relating to breeding but lets say owning both a dog and a cat.

Actually, that interperation would stand true if either pet tried to 'breed' with the other one because it simply says that they cannot 'gender', they dont need to make offspring.

So if you own a pet rabbit, do not buy any other pets or you will most likely end up going to hell.

We keep hearing about how Jack Straw or the French government have mentioned the veil and our doing so puts us in the same boat as them. How so? I want a ban on the burka, neqab and child veiling.

you can either defend women or you must defend Islam. You can’t defend both

- Maryam Namaze
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #4 - May 30, 2009, 01:50 AM

Quote from: Cheetah on May 30, 2009, 01:31 AM
Quote from: J4m3z on May 30, 2009, 01:27 AM
Isn't it basically saying, don't go fucking non-Jews?

No. Its saying don't plant different seeds together, wear clothes from different fibres woven together, or mate animals of different species. Your interpretation would fly in the face of many other parts of the OT which allow "fucking" of non-Jews.

Yes but the Jewish "seed" must be preserved...

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #5 - May 31, 2009, 11:03 PM

Quote from: ExHindu on May 30, 2009, 12:50 AM
Leviticus 19:19 (King James Version)

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

If interested, the Lurianic Kabbalic understanding of the two garment prohibition (that is, the understanding that should be taken both by all Orthodox Jews and Maddona) is briefly as follows.

All clothing represents speech/creativity/language in Torah.

The two types of garment are linked to the two offerings made by Cain and Abel. The sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, represent aspects of his archetype. Abel offered wool (produce of sheep) and Cain offered cotton (produce of the land). Wool comes from sheep and sheep represent righteousness. So wool is a righteous garment -- a righteous mode of creativity/speech/perception/language (remember that the Sufis get their names from wearing garments of wool).

Cain's garment should not be mixed with Abel's, basically. Don't mix a righteous mode of being from a lower mode of being (remembering that Cain and Abel represent bits of Adam's psyche, so it's a bit like the distinction between the super-ego and the id in Freud).

(One interesting point from Issac Luria: Abel committed a sin in doing this. Abel basically was presumptuous and elevated the status of his fabric to Divine levels. He committed a very high level kind of shirk, basically. This sin led to jealousy and death: a sort of fragmentation of the original archetype of Prophecy. We see this pattern repeated throughout the narrative of prophecy, what with each prophet's family descending into forms of sin, jealousy, murder and fitna. The sin is repeated and then repeatedly removed through Moses and his various doubles throughout history.)

I could say something similar about the tree business, but you get the picture as the message is similar

Love and Light,

The Tailor

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- Charles
- Ex-Muslim
- I'll go down with this forum
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #6 - June 02, 2009, 12:03 AM

Archeology and Historical Reasoning now shows that "The Chumash, i.e. the Five Books of Moses" were written by Jewish scribes in the reign of Joshiah, circa 7th Century BCE.
Leviticus, (Vayikra) is just a nonsense as is the rest of the so called "Bible"

It's all a bunch of fairy tales.

The only good part is Noah who planted a vineyard.

There will be no white flag above our door
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #7 - June 02, 2009, 07:59 AM

I have no problem with your first point. Certainly it is impossible for Moses to have written the bit about his own death! (On the other hand ... )
But why does the second point follow? When I was 5 years old, I used to believe that one guy was writing all the episodes of Doctor Who. Then someone explained to me about how TV shows have teams of writers. But I could still discern stories and meanings in that TV show.

Furthermore, why do you equate a fairy tale with nonsense exactly?

The fairy tale of snow white (even the disney version) relates a story in which a True Princess flees from her jealous mother/step-mother to live with Seven Dwarves. She eats an apple given by the jealous queen and dies. She is resurrected by a kiss from a Prince.

I've got no idea who wrote it originally, but I agree it is a fairy tale. But while you might read and think, "oh what a load of nonsense", I see all kinds of meaning in it 1) an interesting story that affects us as kids because its inherent archetypes are loaded with a deeper meaning that children cannot fathom but are very sensitive to (if you've ever seen a David Lynch movie and got a bit disturbed by his stream of consciousness images, you will have the same feeling in reverse) 2) the archetypes are there for us to derive value from as we read the story now to our children (for example -- but not limited to -- apple=knowledge, mother=demiurge, the demonic version of God that we create for ourselves, the Seven little men = the seven Sefirot that constitute our psyche, the Princess=our creativity, our selfhood-in-language, our feminine aspect, our shekhinah, the Prince=God's regent).

Each of us is snow white: driven into the forest of dreams, fleeing from a false god, reconstituted within the house of seven men, fallen, asleep. Who will wake us up?

Love and light,

The Tailor (who happens to be an acronym for a group of Jewish scribes)

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- Zaephon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #8 - June 02, 2009, 09:24 AM

Quote from: J4m3z on May 30, 2009, 01:50 AM
Yes but the Jewish "seed" must be preserved...

How so?

Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #9 - June 02, 2009, 09:46 AM

Well the Jewish family line is matrilineal right? It is only the offspring of the Jewish women that will be counted as pureblood, that's why they can't have non-Jewish husbands. That's what I thought anyway.

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Charles
- Ex-Muslim
- I'll go down with this forum
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #10 - June 02, 2009, 09:49 AM

No one should engage in semantics, let alone those who wish to rangle over works written before mankind, (and womankind) started to reason for themselves.

There will be no white flag above our door
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #11 - June 02, 2009, 09:52 AM

Quote from: ExHindu on May 30, 2009, 12:50 AM
Leviticus 19:19 (New International Version)

19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

I wonder what god thinks of animals who breed with each other without human influence?

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- Charles
- Ex-Muslim
- I'll go down with this forum
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #12 - June 02, 2009, 10:00 AM

I wonder what all.

There will be no white flag above our door
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #13 - June 02, 2009, 10:29 AM

Quote from: Charles on June 02, 2009, 09:49 AM
No one should engage in semantics, let alone those who wish to rangle over works written before mankind, (and womankind) started to reason for themselves.

An interesting prescription.

At what point in history do you think this moment of reason began for humankind? Do you believe, for instance, that this occurred with the emergence of the Socratic school? Or perhaps with the move toward humanism over the past 4 centuries?

For example, do you believe that Amazonian indians have yet to enter into the ability to reason for themselves? That they (and mankind before your hypothetical demarcation between ignorance and reason) are somehow inferior to (humanist, rationalist) humankind?

And if they are inferior, then surely we should go in and correct their ignorance, because ignorance and inferiority should be rectified as an act of charity. Shall we remake the primitives in our own rational mould? A rationalist Jihad, perhaps, is in order: so that all will be able to reason, and then semantics can be engaged with for every man and woman?

Or is it possible that those ancestors of ours, and those people deemed primitive and pre-rational by the colonists, were in fact engaged fully with Reason all along. Their language game has different rules and signs from our language games. But still, all games can negotiate a path to the Truth. What if there is no such a thing as semantics, no such thing as an absolute valuation to everything. What if it is all about the game, all about the syntax, the pieces on the board and how they move. What if our ancestors and the primitives (like the gnostics amongst us today, when they are not fighting wars or making recessions) actually grokked the way to

Love and Light,

The Tailor

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- Charles
- Ex-Muslim
- I'll go down with this forum
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #14 - June 02, 2009, 10:51 AM

You use a lot of fanciful words.
But they don't really mean anything.

There will be no white flag above our door
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #15 - June 02, 2009, 10:51 AM

Quote from: Charles on June 02, 2009, 09:49 AM
No one should engage in semantics, let alone those who wish to rangle over works written before mankind, (and womankind) started to reason for themselves.

Why shouldn't one engage in semantics?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #16 - June 02, 2009, 10:54 AM

Quote from: Charles on June 02, 2009, 10:51 AM
You use a lot of fanciful words.
But they don't really mean anything.

Well, I try to keep the vocabulary on a leash.

But let me rephrase it as simply as I can. You say that humankind "started to reason for themselves". My question: when did this start?

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- Charles
- Ex-Muslim
- I'll go down with this forum
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #17 - June 02, 2009, 10:55 AM

Quote from: J4m3z on June 02, 2009, 10:51 AM
Why shouldn't one engage in semantics?

Religion - or so we are to believe is not semantics.

There will be no white flag above our door
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #18 - June 02, 2009, 11:03 AM

Right, I don't get it. I assume you weren't referring to me then?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #19 - June 02, 2009, 11:24 AM

Quote from: The tailor on June 02, 2009, 10:54 AM
Well, I try to keep the vocabulary on a leash.

But let me rephrase it as simply as I can. You say that humankind "started to reason for themselves". My question: when did this start?

Charles: approximate moment of this "starting to reason" would be fine, or even just a key moment/thinker within one culture if you don't think a precise date can be given.

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- Charles
- Ex-Muslim
- I'll go down with this forum
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #20 - June 02, 2009, 11:45 AM

Quote from: The tailor on June 02, 2009, 11:24 AM
Charles: approximate moment of this "starting to reason" would be fine, or even just a key moment/thinker within one culture if you don't think a precise date can be given.

I don't believe anyone started "to reason" I believe they just used commonsense.

There will be no white flag above our door
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #21 - June 02, 2009, 12:01 PM

Okay, perhaps I don't understand what you meant by this:

Quote from: Charles on June 02, 2009, 09:49 AM
No one should engage in semantics, let alone those who wish to rangle over works written before mankind, (and womankind) started to reason for themselves.

I interpreted you to mean: "No one should engage in interpretation, particularly those who wish to discuss works -- e.g., scriptures and mythologies -- written before mankind and womankind started to reason for themselves."

Now you corrected yourself by saying that no one started to reason for themselves, but instead used common sense. Do you mean that people ALWAYS had common sense? (Which would at least contradict my understanding of what you meant before). Or do you mean (following your previous comment) that there was a time when mankind and womankind didn't have any common sense?

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- a.ghazali
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #22 - June 02, 2009, 12:02 PM

Quote from: The tailor on June 02, 2009, 07:59 AM
Furthermore, why do you equate a fairy tale with nonsense exactly?

If a fairy tale is just a fictitious bedtime story then that's fine.

But if you try to use that fairy tale to govern your life and making rules for how others should live, then it needs to be seen as a nonsense, not fit for purpose.

Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #23 - June 02, 2009, 12:17 PM

Quote from: a.ghazali on June 02, 2009, 12:02 PM
If a fairy tale is just a fictitious bedtime story then that's fine.

But if you try to use that fairy tale to govern your life and making rules for how others should live, then it needs to be seen as a nonsense, not fit for purpose.

So you are fine with us reading snow white to the kids. But after childhood is over, we should all grow up and be serious about life.

You wouldn't be happy with me saying that we are all snow white, this forum is the forest, we are hiding from the mother, the seven are here to help and protect, but we are asleep and in need of a kiss?

There are a bunch of guys fighting the Americans in the hills of Florida, armed to the teeth, wearing Mickey Mouse ears, waging Jihad for their belief in those Fairy Tales, because they believe that everyone should be forced to watch them. Things are getting really dangerous in the other Disneyland parks. Well, you know I am no Disney Taliban (you know they say that my Mahdi Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen, perhaps he will return to us at the day of Judgement).

I am preaching a different kind of relationship to the Tales. I don't even wear physical Mickey Mouse ears, while there are some believers who call themselves Salafis who insist on precise physical recreations of original 1930s Mickey Mouse ears, and who oppress their women to dress as Minnie Mouse, not understanding that she is, after all, a cartoon.

I say those folk have never read a fairy tale as an adult reads a fairy tale. They haven't even watch the cartoon all the way through. They wear the ears, but have never realised the INNER Mickey Mouse.

So yes, I agree that no one should force others to watch these cartoons or read these stories. If they force, then they are with Caliph Umar and his ilk, who exploited Disney himself in his lifetime, exiled his family to the deserts and built a commercial empire around the fairy tales.

If people want to act all grown up and serious, fine.

But as for me, I walk amongst you and all I see is Disneyland.

May your Prince come some day,

The Tailor

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- a.ghazali
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #24 - June 02, 2009, 12:34 PM

What?

Snow White is a fairytale. An enjoyable one. Good overcoming evil. Read and enjoyed by all ages from 0-120. The readers do not seem to think that the story governs how everyone should live.

Thie bible on the other hand is a fairytale with much abhorent teachings, yet many believe mankind should live their lives by its teachings.

If you think that the earth was created in 6 days, and god wants his subjects to not plant various seeds together, he want them to go and destroy the altars of idol worshippers, kill those who don't accept him, don't eat shell fish, accept 50 shekels of silver from the man who raped your daughter to take her, etc then it is a nonsense.

Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #25 - June 02, 2009, 12:47 PM

In my reading of Snow White, the story is not so much about Good overcoming Evil (neither is my reading of the Bible) in an abstract sense. Because it is all about the self: which is a mixture of both things. It is about the transformation of the self: the soul represented by Snow White, from fleeing the Mother (an aspect of the self), transformed by the kiss (God's light) to be awakened (to live in Truth through divine Marriage).

The simpler interpretation (an externalised version) is appropriate for children. But it would become dangerous for adults to really believe in such a reading religiously, because then they would possibly get into pre-emptive matricide and a fundamentalist sunnah where every house MUST have seven (literal) dwarves in it for protection. How mad would that be?

Or else they will just read the story as they read it as a child, but not with the same emotional engagement they felt. Which is also sad, because being a child is quite a lovely thing.

Regarding bloody aspects of the Bible versus sanitized fairy tales: would you be uncomfortable with the original more gruesome aspects of Cinderella?

In the modern Cinderella fairy tale we have the beautiful Cinderella swept off her feet by the prince and her wicked step sisters marrying two lords ? with everyone living happily ever after. The fairy tale has its origins way back in the 1st century BC where Strabo?s heroine was actually called Rhodopis, not Cinderella. The story was very similar to the modern one with the exception of the glass slippers and pumpkin coach. But, lurking behind the pretty tale is a more sinister variation by the Grimm brothers: in this version, the nasty step-sisters cut off parts of their own feet in order to fit them into the glass slipper ? hoping to fool the prince. The prince is alerted to the trickery by two pigeons who peck out the step sister?s eyes. They end up spending the rest of their lives as blind beggars while Cinderella gets to lounge about in luxury at the prince?s castle.

Isn't it a bit tough karma for the sisters?

Or do the two sisters represent something else here ...

The Tailor (who actually fashioned Cinderella's ballgown -- for real, man!)

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- a.ghazali
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #26 - June 02, 2009, 12:53 PM

Try to understand.

I would not be uncomfortable with most stories once they are seen for what they are - Fairytales.

If you take a fairytale and attempt to put supernatural origins to it, with the premise that all humans should follow its dictates then it becomes a nonsense.

Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #27 - June 02, 2009, 01:09 PM

Yeah, I understand what you mean, no problems dude.

I have no problem with denying a literal interpretation of all stories. And I do agree with Charles 100% that the Torah is like those fairy tales (and its bloody bits are like the bloody bits in Cinderella).

But I diverge with you both in that I have a problem with a literal interpretation of EVERYTHING, because for me all life is a fairy story. Its up to us to read the signs right and find our Prince.

This is where we must simply agree to disagree, but that's cool. As I say, I'm not out to push a heavy deal on anyone.

Love and light,

The Tailor

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
- Zaephon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #28 - June 02, 2009, 01:23 PM

Quote from: J4m3z on June 02, 2009, 09:46 AM
Well the Jewish family line is matrilineal right? It is only the offspring of the Jewish women that will be counted as pureblood, that's why they can't have non-Jewish husbands. That's what I thought anyway.

I wonder how you can relate the matrilineal phenomenon to the concept of "pure blood." If Judaism sought ethnic purity, the children of Jewish mothers and non-Jewish fathers would have to be excluded from Judaism also. Judaism accepts converts too, so the concept of "Jewish genetics" is irrelevant.

I think the precedence of Jewish mothers to Jewish fathers is the relic of an older, matriarchal society.

Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
- The tailor
- Member
- offline
Re: Levicticus 19:19
Reply #29 - June 02, 2009, 01:34 PM

In Hasidic Judaism, it has cosmic significance too: the point being that all human consciousness (and all Godly truth) derives from Binah, the feminine name/mother archetype of God. The great oracle wikipedia has a simplified explanation but good enough as an introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binah_(Kabbalah)
(Bring this back to my snow white exegesis -- the evil mother in that story represents the mirror image of this name, as all the names of God have a satanic counterpart in the minds of men. Also Binah is the counterpart of Reason, again, the thing that Charles was on about earlier -- although later preferred to term "common sense".)

Basically the matrilineal line mirrors the way Jews are meant to see the cosmos unfolding (consequently, everyone, Jews and gentiles, are all cosmically matrilineal. If this is denied then we run into trouble).

Love and Light,

The Tailor

The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

https://vimeo.com/110528857
12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »