Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:35:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1526 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:37c37276.22308086@lugnet.com...
[snip clone stuff]
I have no clue. I think successfully cloning a human would send
metaphysical shockwaves all over the place. the only good places to draw a
solid line for the appearance of the soul is birth, which I think some
mythology uses (the first breath a baby takes is sucking in its soul or
something), or conception. But I don't think anyone would claim fraternal
twins don't both have souls (since they split from one blob early on), so
maybe as soon as you get a living dividing thing (is it an embryo that
early?) you know it has a soul. When exactly it arrived I don't know.
Getting a soul at conception is not a popular thing to claim sometimes
because that suggests that artificial insemination and other fertility
programs where they fertilize more than one egg and only use one leaves a
lot of souls bound for the trash (or at best the freezer). Of course that
crosses over readily into the abortion debate, and I don't feel like going
there tonight.
But I do like the way you're addressing this as a non "You're a moron and I
wish you were dead" kind of thing.
> > Specifically, verse 22 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as
> > one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
> >
> > It's tough to read that one wrong. [...]
>
> I think it's pretty easy to "read that one wrong." There's a LOT of stuff
> wrong with that sentence!
>
> First, the word "lie" (as in lying down) is the past tense of the word • "lay"
> (to lay). "Lie" itself is not a present-tense verb in that sense. So it
> should really say, "You shall not lay with a male as one lays with a
> female..."
Well, Miriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary (10th collegiate edition) says that
1lie: 1d is "to have sexual intercourse with." I think that makes lay the
past tense (and lain the past perfect) and the sentence grammatically
correct. The past tense of the verb lay is laid, when referring to actively
laying something (or someone) down. Lie is never a past tense verb.
> Second, the antecedent of the word "it" is ambiguous -- is it the female • or
> the male or the act of lying with a female or the act of lying with a male
> that is an abomination? It's not 100% clear -- it's left up to the
> interpretation of the reader.
I'm not an English major, but I think the use of "as" as a conjuction
subordinates that second part of the sentence and makes "lie with a man" the
main subject to which "it" refers. Although I will admit that "it" often
refers to the immediate predecessor.
> Anyway, as written, what it SAYS is that a guy isn't supposed to lie (as • in
> untrue statements) to his male buddies as he lies to females. "No, that's
> not lipstick on my collar, honest -- and I wasn't out smoking cigars and
> drinking Mezcal all night either, honest!"
Very creative, but it says lie with, not lie to, unless you're succumbing to
American pop grammar. But, ignoring Hebrew vocabulary (which probably uses
different words for telling lies and having sex--although the two are often
related, at least in a "sure, I love you" kind of way...), I suppose you
could say it means that when you're with another man and the two of you have
to lie about something, you lie differently than when you and a woman have
something to lie about.
> p.s. Even if "lie" were corrected to say "lay," maybe it still only means
> that if you lay with a male, you should make sure to lay a different way
> than you lay with a female.
That's your best one yet (in a "thou shalt use the missionary position" kind
of way), why'd you save it for the PS?
Jesse
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
