Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

ROFLMAO(sorry I couldn't resist)------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Lev 20vs13
And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.

---

No, it doesn't say that. "Abomination" is a mistranslation of "to'evah."

quote:

---

Ofcourse, no scholars to date have been able to decipher this mystic message. Freaky.

---

Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

So many types of homosexuality.

---

Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite.The Ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality.

quote:

---

OR does he make it blatantly obvious what the deed is ?

---

No, he doesn't. How could he when the Ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality and no words to describe it?And in the end, falling in love with someone of the same sex couldn't possibly be a horrible thing because David fell in love with Johnathan.

quote:

---

Hmm sexual immorality... We saw a couple of those in Lev didn't we ?

---

Yes, but nothing about homosexuality. There isn't anything in the Bible that resembles anything that we would call "homosexuality."As the joke goes...there are over 300 admonitions about heterosexual sex and only half a dozen admonitions about homosexual sex. That doesn't mean god loves straights less than gays...just that they need more supervision.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Love the way, you can cling onto 'not an abomination' and ignore the rest Abomination is not 'really' THAT bad.. more like 'unclean', more like 'not great', more like 'indifferent' ect ect. Orthodox JudaismFrom its inceptions until the 20th century, Judaism has viewed sex between two men as sinfulConservative Judaism (also known as Masorti Judaism)(A) We will not perform commitment ceremonies for gays and lesbians.(B) We will not knowingly admit avowed homosexuals to our rabbinical and cantorial schools, or the Rabbinical Assembly or Cantors' Assembly. At the same time, we will not instigate witch hunts against those who are already members or students.(C) Whether homosexuals may function as teachers or youth leaders in our congregations and schools will be left to the Rabbi authorized to make halakhic decisions for a given institution in the Conservative movement.Reconstructionist JudaismThe Reconstructionist movement has rejected the traditional view in all areas relating to this issue: they view all restrictions on homosexualiy as null and void. As such, they ordain homosexual Jews as rabbis and cantors. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA) permits Jewish homosexual marriages and homosexual intermarriages.Reform JudaismThe American Reform movement has rejected the traditional view in all areas relating to this issue: they view all restrictions on homosexualiy as null and void. As such, they do not prohibit ordination of homosexual Jews as Rabbis and Cantors.I'm not sure all Jews appreciate you speaking on their behalf Rrhain.
PS: Which do you belong to ?

Hmm, notice the section "1" without the section "2", for the two examples that I gave? So where does jesus excuse clothes made from two different kinds of fabric? Do you want more Leviticus/Dt/etc commandments that don't have to do with sacrifices, that no xians follow today?And regardless of what you think, Israelites had *no* concept of homosexuality as it is known today. And if you want to harp on that line (and ignore most of the rest of Leviticus at the same time), is oral sex OK? What about for same-sex couples?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it doesn't say that. "Abomination" is a mistranslation of "to'evah."

---

​

Love the way, you can cling onto 'not an abomination' and ignore the rest

---

Who's ignoring the rest? I never denied the punishment. What I denied is that the passage applies to all acts of same-sex sexual activity. There are lots of admonitions against opposite-sex sexual activity in Leviticus and surely you are not going to claim that this means that all opposite-sex sexual activity are to be punished, are you?

quote:

---

Abomination is not 'really' THAT bad

---

Incorrect. Please learn to read for content.What you are misunderstanding is that your definition of "abomination" is not the same thing as the Jewish definition of "to'evah." It is a reference to ritualistic practices and must be understood in that sense. The passage is in reference to a ritualistic sex practice, not to the mere concept of sex between people of the same sex.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.

​

That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.

---

​

Orthodox Judaism

---

(*sigh*)I knew you were going to bring this up. That's why the first time you asked me this question, I answered as I did. From People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage), Message 138: So yes, Zealot, I am quite aware that Orthodox Judaism thinks that homosexuality is a sin. But Reformed and Conservative Judaism, which make up a much larger population, don't share their opinion about it.And I notice you have taken an extremely abbreviated view of each major sect (though why you included Reconstructionist and not Humanistic escapes me). That is, yes, Conservative Judaism is not nearly as accepting of homosexuality as Reformed. However, your brief description makes it look as if they're a bit antagonistic and that is not the case. It is a breaking of mitzvot, but mostly along the lines of breaking any of the other mitzvot.

quote:

---

I'm not sure all Jews appreciate you speaking on their behalf Rrhain.

---

I never said I was.But by the by...what makes you think I'm not Jewish?

quote:

---

PS: Which do you belong to ?

---

What makes you think I am Jewish?Hint: Does it matter?

Why would I. Seeing as the text is pretty specific for which heterosexual activities were abominations, there is no need for punishment for those that aren't sins. Indeed, need we even worry today about any of the sexual heterosexual sins ? After all they are all "to'evah". Thus a Jew should then be allowed to sleep with a woman and her mother no ? I am using the Jewish version "to'evah". Indeed all the sexual sins in Lev 18 are considered "to'evah". The translation however is1. a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a.in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b.in ethical sense (of wickedness etc) Yet in this thread you seem to have little difficulty stating as a matter of fact:"Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.
That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin." So Conservative and Orthodox indeed do seem to have a problem with homosexuality. Unusual considering "there is nothing in the Old Testament even remotely resembling homosexuality." Shall we try actually stating what we are then ? You seem pretty obtuse regarding your background. Gay, not gay, Jewish, not Jewish. Fluent in Hebrew/ not fluent in Hebrew.When I asked you about your Hebrew, you answered with an indirect question regarding whether it was possible that you had gone to Rabbinic school. Was that an attempt to make yourself sound more knowlegeable about Judaism ?cheersStrange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.
That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

Seeing as the text is pretty specific for which heterosexual activities were abominations, there is no need for punishment for those that aren't sins.

---

Same thing for homosexual activities.There is no mention of intimate relationships between people of the same sex...only mention of ritual sex.

quote:

---

I am using the Jewish version "to'evah".

---

No, you're not.It really is as simple as that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I knew you were going to bring this up. That's why the first time you asked me this question, I answered as I did. From People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage), Message 138:

---

​

Yet in this thread you seem to have little difficulty stating as a matter of fact:

​

"Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.
That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin."

---

That's because I had expected you to be able to read for content, Zealot, and would know that since I made a point of referring to sects of Judaism, pointing out that the most common sects don't have a problem, that later references would be in that same context.Amazing thing about relgion is that there is always somebody who disagrees. While the official position of Reformed Judaism may be one thing, I'm sure there is at least one person who identifies as a Reformed Jew who disagrees. So when we talk about "Reformed Judaism," does it make sense to note those people? And if one acknowledges their existence, must one always do so when talking about "Reformed Judaism"? One cannot say, "Reformed Judaism," but rather, "the official position of Reformed Judaism which individual members may not agree with"?Grow up, Zealot.

quote:

---

So Conservative and Orthodox indeed do seem to have a problem with homosexuality.

---

No.Orthodox, definitely.Conservative only sorta. F'rinstance, the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality.

quote:

---

Unusual considering "there is nothing in the Old Testament even remotely resembling homosexuality."

---

Yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But by the by...what makes you think I'm not Jewish?

---

​

Shall we try actually stating what we are then ?

---

Nope.You tell me why it matters and then I'll tell you what I am. Until then, you'll just have to live with disappointment.

quote:

---

You seem pretty obtuse regarding your background.

---

For very specific reasons. I have found that when people categorize others, they no longer listen to the argument but rather react to the category: "Of course you would say that. You're thus-and-so." "How can you say that? You're such-and-such!" We can see this on almost any subject. So in order to keep discussion on topic, I refuse to reveal those aspects of myself. It can be frustrating, I know. So much of what passes for argument is really just stabs at a person's perceived characteristic rather than the actual argument being made.Of course, it means that people put me in the "obnoxious jerk" category, but I don't really care about that. It usually means they don't respond at all and I can ignore them.

quote:

---

When I asked you about your Hebrew, you answered with an indirect question regarding whether it was possible that you had gone to Rabbinic school. Was that an attempt to make yourself sound more knowlegeable about Judaism ?

---

It was an attempt to make you rethink why you asked the question. More specifically:Does it matter?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
That sounds pretty much like homosexuality. I must confess I am confused with statements on this thread that there is no concept of homosexuality in the Old Testament.

Rrhain, the Bible did not say that loving someone of the same sex is a sin. Nowhere does it equate that with homosexuality.[This message has been edited by defenderofthefaith, 11-17-2003]

defenderofthefaith responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:

quote:

---

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

---

Oy...not this argument again. We've been all through this before.

quote:

---

That sounds pretty much like homosexuality.

---

Nope.You're ignoring the context. Leviticus is referring to temple prostitution.Besides, you misquoted it. "Abomination" is not the best word for "to'evah."

quote:

---

I must confess I am confused with statements on this thread that there is no concept of homosexuality in the Old Testament.

---

Because "homosexuality" does not mean simply "having sex with someone of the same sex." By this logic, everyone in prison is homosexual since they are having sex with members of the same sex.The cultures at the time had no concept of the idea of someone who would fall in love and stay forever with one person and that that person would be of the same sex. Cultural attitides toward sexual behavior were not nearly as black-and-white as you're making it out to be.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

defenderofthefaith responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And in the end, falling in love with someone of the same sex couldn't possibly be a horrible thing because David fell in love with Johnathan.

---

​

Rrhain, the Bible did not say that loving someone of the same sex is a sin. Nowhere does it equate that with homosexuality.

---

But that's what gay people do: They fall in love with people of the same sex. Straight people don't.Again, homosexuality is much more complex than merely looking at the crotches of the people involved. A person need never have sex with anybody and yet will still be gay.That's what I mean when I say that the cultures of the time had no concept of homosexuality as we understand it. Take, for example, Spartan culture. Males were removed from society and placed in the mess at 7 years old. They were raised among men and taught about sex by men. The average age of marriage for a Spartan male was when he was pushing 30 years old. Until then, all of his sexual experiences would have been with other men.Were they gay? Of course not. There was a sense of camaraderie among the men, and many men had a hard time making the transition from being single to being married and having sex with women (such that there was a tradition of the wedding night having the groom sneak away to meet his new wife at the marriage bed, consumate the marriage, and then him leaving her to return to his comrades in the mess...sometimes this routine would last for years), but that doesn't mean that all of these men were gay simply because they routinely had sex with other men.The Bible is talking about defining the Jews as distinct from the religious traditions that surrounded them...which often had fertility rights that required people to have sex with the temple prostitutes, who were often people of the same sex. They weren't gay. That isn't what being gay is about.Homosexuality is not simply recognizing there are two tabs or two slots.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

On what basis do you state this? 18:22 is in the middle of a chapter regarding sexual laws and not anything specifically to do with the temple. It's a basic commandment. Considering the rules and regulations elsewhere to cover every possible loophole, why did this particular verse mention just any two of the same sex lying with each other? Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines to'evah as "something disgusting... i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence... abominable... abomination..." The word is a form of ta'ab, meaning to loathe, detest, abhor. {Strong, J. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company.}
All that on top of the normal "You shall not" beginning a prohibitive commandment. Whatever homosexuality's other characteristics may be, the Bible is talking specifically about having sex with someone of the same sex, because that is what it says in the verse. It is very careful to define that simply. The Bible does not bother about whether they love each other and stay together for life. All it's doing is prohibiting lying together. You might define what it's prohibiting as "homosexual sex." Two men who love each other and live together are not necessarily doing this, nor necessarily homosexual in nature. They could be father and son.[This message has been edited by defenderofthefaith, 11-17-2003]

defenderofthefaith responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're ignoring the context. Leviticus is referring to temple prostitution.

---

​

On what basis do you state this?

---

The text.There are already many posts in multiple threads that deal with this. Tell me we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Besides, you misquoted it. "Abomination" is not the best word for "to'evah."

---

​

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines to'evah as...

---

Um, why did you hack the entry to shreds? Is it because the inclusion of "in a ritual sense" would go against your argument?The wording is talking about ritualistic practices.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because "homosexuality" does not mean simply "having sex with someone of the same sex." By this logic, everyone in prison is homosexual since they are having sex with members of the same sex.

---

​

Whatever homosexuality's other characteristics may be, the Bible is talking specifically about having sex with someone of the same sex, because that is what it says in the verse. It is very careful to define that simply.

---

But you're missing the complete context. It is defined quite simply: Ritualistic sex such as that expected by the neighboring pagan tribes and their fertility rites is unclean.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The cultures at the time had no concept of the idea of someone who would fall in love and stay forever with one person and that that person would be of the same sex. Cultural attitides toward sexual behavior were not nearly as black-and-white as you're making it out to be.

---

​

The Bible does not bother about whether they love each other and stay together for life.

---

That's because it would never occur to the people writing it that such a thing could happen.How do you write about something that you can't even conceive of?

quote:

---

All it's doing is prohibiting lying together.

---

It's prohibiting unclean rituals.

quote:

---

Two men who love each other and live together are not necessarily doing this, nor necessarily homosexual in nature. They could be father and son.

---

BWAHAHAHAHA!Oh, that's just darling! You're falling for the same problem those who wrote the Bible did: There can't be love between people of the same sex the way that there is love between people of the opposite sex. And yet, you claim you don't understand how that can happen.The irony is astounding.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I don't have time to respond in full to you, Rrhain, but that concordance entry does not mention anything about a connection with ritual practices. To'evah means simply an abomination. Here is the entire entry: