Veraxus

What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.

Because that's not relevant to the discussion. But since you brought it up, remember that I explicitly mentioned that the context is "cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now." So let's keep that context in mind. Chattel slavery was normal.

So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit. But in this case there is a very specific prophetic context that we'll touch on shortly.

Since we're on the topic of familial/household abuses, note that the concept of "consent" does not exist here. Re-read Leviticus with that in mind, especially when reading about having sex with the neighbors wife, the daughter-in-law, or the father's wife (which is not necessarily your mother). Consent is not a prerequisite to any of these offenses.

Now also remember, I said these two things:

1. "...they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews..."
2. "When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear... not just on the WHAT... but the WHY."

One thing neither of us has addressed here is the WHY. You shifted from Lev 23 to 20, but missed this: the scripture spells that out the WHY clear as day just a few verses later...

"Therefore you shall observe and obey all of my rules and all of my rulings so that the land where I am bringing you to live will not spit you back out."

YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there's a good chance we can agree on that. So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts... the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH's own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.

Ok, so in that case, what’s the male slave to do?

He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.

But, if he is raped, he will be killed.

That doesn’t seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It’s negative.

Yes, you got all of this right. Again, the slave is chattel and is handled like any other property. By modern sensibilities this is horrific, but this is a historical document that is not by, for, or about us (westerners living thousands of years later in an unimaginably different world and culture). You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it's own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it's meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.

In that case, what about the part in the new testament?

That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn’t use the “as with a woman” phrasing.

Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.

Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them. Paul was further challenged by working with Hellenists... yet another culture that would be alien to us, and decried a wide variety of activities he saw as sexual abuses; from temple prostitution, to slave abuse, to pederasty. And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be "put to death" - but to change their ways.

Now, remember this, because it is VITAL:

The Pharisees, having heard how Yeshua humbled the Sadducees (priestly caste), gathered together. One among them, an expert and lawyer of Torah (religious law) sought to test him.

"Rabbi, in all the Torah, which commandment is the most important?"

And Yeshua said to him: "You shall love, respect, and cherish the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, and all your thought. This is the most important and fundamental commandment.

But the second is equal to the first: You shall love, respect, and cherish your neighbors no less than you love, respect, and cherish yourself.

These two commandments are the foundation on which all the Torah and all the teachings of the Prophets are based.

Whenever you read scripture - any of it, even Paul - and even if you ignore all the other teachings of Yeshua Hamashiach, remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua's ministry.

Yes and no. The AI is significantly better… but it’s still not great. Case in point: cops will chase you now, but it doesn’t take long to get a feel for how to fudge their pathing and lose them.

“People won’t let us install our totalitarian dictator, so we think it’s time to try straight-up mass murder.” - Republicans

I am so happy for them and proud of them. This is the correct response to unnecessary layoffs or any other worker abuse. I hope more people in the industry will follow their example!

It does not. Now, generally when someone online pushes back on this statement they fall into one of two buckets... those who think of themselves as Christian and push back defensively, or those who despise Christians and push back because most Christians espouse this lie. I won't assume either, but I will set the record straight because that dogma is NOT scriptural and that dogged, deliberate lie needs to be put to an end. Feel free to ask questions if you want.

You mentioned both the Old and Testaments... since Paul's greek statement in the "New Testament" (“male-bedder”) follows the phrasing of the Old (LXX), I'll explain that one (because Paul's word choice means he was citing Deuteronomy).

Leviticus 18:22 NKJV: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

First, that is actually a fairly accurate translation (especially for the NKJV), so there's no need to dig too into Hebrew or Greek in this case... just a grammar and a bit of historical context.

Jewish scholars hold a doctrine that scripture does not waste words. This isn't necessarily pivotal here, but it's a good entrypoint for this exercise.

The phrase "You shall not lie with a male" would be perfectly clear on it's own… and yet that is not actually what it says… so why does scripture include the qualifier "as with a woman"?

Before you read on, think about that. What is the specific difference between "lie with a male" and "as with a women" that scripture is trying to clarify?

Now, we don't have to guess at this. It's not a mystery, and it never has been.

The word “woman” here (issah) is also the word for “wife”. It does double-duty… based on context. In this context, it’s a deliberate choice that carries both meanings simultaneously

The year is 2,000 BCE... you are a young man and you want/need a wife. How do you get one?

You buy her. You buy her from whoever owns her. Often, that is her family (well, her father, specifically)... but not always. A man who owns slaves can have sex with any woman he owns... but according to Jewish law, he would need to marry her. She doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Are you seeing where this is going? Men can be property, but they are not to be made subservient to their owners in the same way women are.

Using modern terminology, the way we'd phrase Leviticus 18:22 is "You may not rape your male slaves as you do with your female slaves."

Yes, by modern standards all this is gut-churningly awful. But these writings were not made us - they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews living thousands and thousands of years ago, raised in cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now. When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear... not just on the WHAT... but the WHY.

If you look at all the useless AR features that Apple has pushed into iOS over the years, you can tell that they've already been working toward this for at least a decade. They aren't giving up on it any time soon... they're playing the long game. Wearables are inevitable, and they want to be way ahead of the curve.

I think we’re still YEARS away from this tech taking off. It’s too expensive, it’s too bulky, and it’s not powerful enough.

I think the Apple Vision headset will be the first meaningful step forward since the CV1, and even that is just one step on a journey that could take another decade.

The technology is cool. I will say that.

But Meta/Zuckerberg is squandering it. There is a huge disconnect between the price of thing (OVER $500) and the value proposition. It's bad at gaming. It's still less powerful than even current-gen smart phones, let alone modern consoles or gaming PCs... and what little gaming content is out there makes that abundantly clear. Asgard's Wrath 2 does it no favors given those realities. And what are the uses beyond gaming?

Exercise could be a compelling value proposition, but they aren't leveraging even that obvious marketing angle. "You can do your supernatural workouts!" How many people know what that is? I do, but ask a rando on the street. They have no idea. And what are the other options beside Supernatural workouts? Oh, nothing? Nothing for my stationary bike? Nothing for a rowing machine? Nothing for treadmills? With all those funds, they are not exploring the practical applications at all and the product is failing as a result. Instead, Zuck STILL hasn't given up on his Metaverse/Horizons MMO idea.

And that's before we even get into Meta/Facebook's inherent creepiness as a company.

Ye gods, that is almost as bad as Denuvo.

Ubisoft, what is you doin?

But still no metro system! Literally unplayable!

/s

I thought it was okay. It fizzled out pretty quickly for me as it felt half-baked and overly "gamey", which kept breaking the immersion illusion for me. I never did finish it. But I started over when Phantom Liberty dropped last week and it feels soooo much better. The immersion doesn't feel like it's being killed by a thousand cuts... everything feels more natural and believable now. It still has it's gamey moments, but they are a lot less obvious now.

For me it went from a 6/10 to 9/10.

It's a solar still that can operate continuously without maintenance as it doesn't get clogged with salt. That's a pretty nifty and practical achievement.

They're also proposing it be used at household scale, because the system is so small, rather than scaled up to factory scale.