Like Narkissos pointed out, a woman accidentally touching another man's genitals breached ritual cleanness or purity, as the ultimate desecration/pollution would involve a woman's betrayal of her husband's control over her physical contact. Contagious, or tactile, issues are notoriously ritualistic and tightly controlled. Recall the case of Uzzah who was struck dead for touching the ark in an effort to steady it (1 Chron 13:9,10) No such converse law existed for a man touching female pudenda, you will note. But the heightened ritual obsession had less to do with a sublimated sexual perversion than it had to do with a tribal society's stringent religious code of ritual purity vs. uncleanness and probably not a little to do with woman's place as property in the larger scheme of things.
What's the deal?
by kwintestal 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Preston
I think the Bible's view is pretty much an extension of various predominant views in various religions and cultures that revere fertility. Isn't it true that according to Jewish culture life is viewed as prominantly coming from the male rather than the female. LOL, the star of David may have represented the line the messiah came through but not that many people know about the woman that ACTUALLY had to carry that line. So remember women, you may have the light responsibility of carrying babies but you still have the utmost responsibility of respecting a man's johnson. It's not like it's easy for a man you know....right?.....right?
-
Quotes
=====================
Evidently, therefore, it had to do with deliberate emasculation for immoral purposes, such as homosexuality.
=====================
Am I the only one who found this a ridiculous non-sequitor?
The proposed logic seems to be:
(1) Someone is a homosexual
(2) As part of being a homosexual (????), they deliberately emasulate themselves -- thereby reducing, if not completely eliminating, both the desire and the ability to be sexually active.
What does WT want us to think, that being gay involves:
(1) Coming Out
(2) Deliberate self-emasculation
Not only is it inaccurate, but it doesn't make sense.
(Now, they could have been referring to castratii, but if that is what they meant, why not say so??? Oh no, that would be too "deep", better to just mention homosexuals and let dear Sister Oldtimer be even more freaked out my yet another misconception)
~Quotes, of the "bock and calls" class