God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[SkepticThinker]

If you've "read lots of imprinting studies but never saw that imprinting imprints", I cannot help you.

A man preferring someone like their mother is not evidence that they prefer females specifically because of imprinting. Even the text you cited goes out of its way to say such a thing in the ending conclusion/discussion portion. That's specific taste not a sexual orientation.Two different beasts, mate. It's like saying people who like chocolate ice cream do so because as kids their parents enjoyed chocolate ice cream in front of them.

 

[MansFriend]

OT quotations on this issue are irrelevant to Christians, and relevant to Orthodox Jews. God nor I have to justify His feelings on the matter, to anyone.

I wasn't implying that you or God should.
I was pointing out the effects of the fact that God and you do not.

 

[MansFriend]

Wow, just wow! 11 days and 331 replies, and not a single one that addresses the question in the thread title. Although it is sort of a loaded question.

“God’s opposition to homosexual behavior, why?”

Before anyone can even begin to answer the question, one has to determine the specific meaning of “homosexual behavior.”

The Noun “homosexual” is defined: someone sexually attracted to people of the same sex; the Adjective “homosexual” is defined: sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

The Noun “behavior” is defined: 1) manner of acting or controlling yourself; 2) the action or reaction of something under specified circumstances; 3) the way a person behaves toward other people; 4) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation.

According to the dictionary definition, “homosexual behavior” means: someone who acts like they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. So to slightly rephrase the question: Why does God oppose homosexual behavior? The answer is very simple: He does not.

There is not one single Mitz’vah throughout the entirety of Torah that says: “You will not act like you are sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex.” There is in fact not one single Mitz’vah throughout the entirety of Torah that says: “You will not be sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex.”

Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus 18:22 is very simple and straightforward about what is prohibited, and why. “You will not be sexually intimate with a male: it is a toʿévah.” Sexual penetration between two males is prohibited, not sexual attraction. Why? It is a toʿévah. So what is a toʿévah?

The dictionary definition of – תּוֹעֵבָה – toʿévah is: abomination, shameful deed, profanity, scabrousness, villainousness, anathema; idol, idolatry. In English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures the word toʿévah is translated in descending order: abomination; detestable; disgusting; loathsome. Even though these are perfectly acceptable translations, they are still somewhat ambiguous.

Context is everything. The word toʿévah is used 110 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, with one common context; it is describing forbidden religious practice. Why would Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus chapter 18 be the only exception?

“You will not be sexually intimate with a male, because it is a forbidden religious practice.” Even though it is also an unlawful sex act, sexual intercourse between two males is a violation of the most serious crime there is – idolatry.

You have shared some interesting information, but you went off topic by attempting to re-define the question into something other than what was being asked.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wow, just wow! 11 days and 331 replies, and not a single one that addresses the question in the thread title. Although it is sort of a loaded question.

“God’s opposition to homosexual behavior, why?”

Before anyone can even begin to answer the question, one has to determine the specific meaning of “homosexual behavior.”

The Noun “homosexual” is defined: someone sexually attracted to people of the same sex; the Adjective “homosexual” is defined: sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

The Noun “behavior” is defined: 1) manner of acting or controlling yourself; 2) the action or reaction of something under specified circumstances; 3) the way a person behaves toward other people; 4) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation.

According to the dictionary definition, “homosexual behavior” means: someone who acts like they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. So to slightly rephrase the question: Why does God oppose homosexual behavior? The answer is very simple: He does not.

There is not one single Mitz’vah throughout the entirety of Torah that says: “You will not act like you are sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex.” There is in fact not one single Mitz’vah throughout the entirety of Torah that says: “You will not be sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex.”

Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus 18:22 is very simple and straightforward about what is prohibited, and why. “You will not be sexually intimate with a male: it is a toʿévah.” Sexual penetration between two males is prohibited, not sexual attraction. Why? It is a toʿévah. So what is a toʿévah?

The dictionary definition of – תּוֹעֵבָה – toʿévah is: abomination, shameful deed, profanity, scabrousness, villainousness, anathema; idol, idolatry. In English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures the word toʿévah is translated in descending order: abomination; detestable; disgusting; loathsome. Even though these are perfectly acceptable translations, they are still somewhat ambiguous.

Context is everything. The word toʿévah is used 110 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, with one common context; it is describing forbidden religious practice. Why would Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus chapter 18 be the only exception?

“You will not be sexually intimate with a male, because it is a forbidden religious practice.” Even though it is also an unlawful sex act, sexual intercourse between two males is a violation of the most serious crime there is – idolatry.

Since context is everything, the fact that that verse is saying it's an act of idolatry should give you a hint that it's referring to pagan ritual sex practices and not gay sex in general. That is, after all, from the ritual purity code of the Jewish priests. Obviously those don't apply to everyone. (That verse isn't even clear on what it's referring to since the actual translation of the Hebrew is something like "do not lay with man on a woman's bed" or something like that, iirc. Either way, it's a poor verse to use to condemn gays.)

 

[MansFriend]

Since context is everything, the fact that that verse is saying it's an act of idolatry should give you a hint that it's referring to pagan ritual sex practices and not gay sex in general. That is, after all, from the ritual purity code of the Jewish priests. Obviously those don't apply to everyone. (That verse isn't even clear on what it's referring to since the actual translation of the Hebrew is something like "do not lay with man on a woman's bed" or something like that, iirc. Either way, it's a poor verse to use to condemn gays.)

Your interpretation isn't sensible.
You seem to be saying that homosexual acts should not enter into religious ritual experience, but beyond that there is no law against it.
If anything it is saying:
"If even priests are forbidden these things, then so too is everyone forbidden."
Just as adulterous acts are a capital offense, so too were homosexual acts (between males) deemed a capital offense.
The one is adultery against a marriage covenant and the other is adultery against nature.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your interpretation isn't sensible.
You seem to be saying that homosexual acts should not enter into religious ritual experience, but beyond that there is no law against it.
If anything it is saying:
"If even priests are forbidden these things, then so too is everyone forbidden."
Just as adulterous acts are a capital offense, so too were homosexual acts (between males) deemed a capital offense.
The one is adultery against a marriage covenant and the other is adultery against nature.

Your interpretation is stupid. Do you follow the holiness code of the ancient Jewish priests? You don't eat pork, shellfish, or wear clothing of mixed material? If not, this is a stupid point to argue on. Of course the Temple priests had to adhere to a stricter code of conduct than the average person due to the holiness of their office.

Actually, the Bible itself doesn't have much to say about LGBT people. There's only 6 verses that seem to reference homosexuality out of tens of thousands and those verses are pretty weak when you put them into context. None of them have anything to do with loving gay relationships and are referring to cult ritual sex practices, prostitution and perhaps pederasty. What could be called third gender was apparently known because of the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts (who would probably be understood as transgender in modern times). Obviously they did not have the understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity that we do. They were a very patriarchical culture and being on the receiving end of penetration from another man was viewed as ejaculating. The Greeks and Romans had the same views. So it makes sense that they would be panicky about anal sex between males in their culture due to their archaic views of masculinity.

But whatever, you homophobes can continue to bang on about how "evil" it is. You're only hurting people and driving them away. As a member of the community, I can tell you that probably most LGBT people can't stand or hate Christianity and organised religion. That's your fault for ruining it for them. God is watching.

 

[MansFriend]

Your interpretation is stupid. Do you follow the holiness code of the ancient Jewish priests? You don't eat pork, shellfish, or wear clothing of mixed material? If not, this is a stupid point to argue on. Of course the Temple priests had to adhere to a stricter code of conduct than the average person due to the holiness of their office.

Actually, the Bible itself doesn't have much to say about LGBT people. There's only 6 verses that seem to reference homosexuality out of tens of thousands and those verses are pretty weak when you put them into context. None of them have anything to do with loving gay relationships and are referring to cult ritual sex practices, prostitution and perhaps pederasty. What could be called third gender was apparently known because of the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts (who would probably be understood as transgender in modern times). Obviously they did not have the understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity that we do. They were a very patriarchical culture and being on the receiving end of penetration from another man was viewed as ejaculating. The Greeks and Romans had the same views. So it makes sense that they would be panicky about anal sex between males in their culture due to their archaic views of masculinity.

But whatever, you homophobes can continue to bang on about how "evil" it is. You're only hurting people and driving then away. As a member of the community, I can tell you that probably most LGBT people can't stand or hate Christianity and organised religion. That's your fault for ruining it for them. God is watching.

Stupid? I guess that might hurt my feelings if I cared what your opinion of me was.
The Bible has plenty to say about a lot of things, including what it deems appropriate sexual behavior for that covenant society.
If you understand the parameters for that society, which I explained in an earlier post, then you would see your points are moot.
Homosexuality is nothing new and it has the same political alignments and involvement as it has had anciently.
Evidently, you want to try and portray our ancient fore-bearers as stupid cave dwellers steeped in foolish superstitions.

 

[MansFriend]

But whatever, you homophobes can continue to bang on about how "evil" it is. You're only hurting people and driving then away. As a member of the community, I can tell you that probably most LGBT people can't stand or hate Christianity and organised religion. That's your fault for ruining it for them. God is watching.

I'm simply addressing things in an objective manner.
I'm certainly not going to alter my reading and understanding of God's Word because it might offend someone.
I'm also not too keen on your attempt to make me feel guilty for saying things people choose to be offended by, when none was intended.

On one point I agree, which is: God is watching.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Stupid? I guess that might hurt my feelings if I cared what your opinion of me was.
The Bible has plenty to say about a lot of things, including what it deems appropriate sexual behavior for that covenant society.
If you understand the parameters for that society, which I explained in an earlier post, then you would see your points are moot.
Homosexuality is nothing new and it has the same political alignments and involvement as it has had anciently.
Evidently, you want to try and portray our ancient fore-bearers as stupid cave dwellers steeped in foolish superstitions.

I wish I didn't have to care about what you and your ilk have to say about it but I have to because of how you people treat others.

No, they weren't stupid. They knew what they could at the time but they didn't have the understanding that we have now. We now know that sexual orientation, as well as gender, exists on a spectrum and don't base it all on behaviour like the ancients did (they were concerned about male honor and completely ignored female sexuality, for one). Obviously gay men and lesbians could not get married in same-gender marriages, raise children and have all the rights that hetero marriages then did, in ancient times so you argument that it was always the same is just dumb. There are very different cultures and the space of millennia we are talking about. There wasn't much social space for them to have relationships with each other like a married couple.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm simply addressing things in an objective manner.
I'm certainly not going to alter my reading and understanding of God's Word because it might offend someone.
I'm also not too keen on your attempt to make me feel guilty for saying things people choose to be offended by, when none was intended.

On one point I agree, which is: God is watching.

It was a general statement. I know homophobes don't care how others feel about it, as long as they feel holy and righteous. God forbid you have to think of the human element. Or do you think this is all an abstraction?

 

[shmogie]

Since context is everything, the fact that that verse is saying it's an act of idolatry should give you a hint that it's referring to pagan ritual sex practices and not gay sex in general. That is, after all, from the ritual purity code of the Jewish priests. Obviously those don't apply to everyone. (That verse isn't even clear on what it's referring to since the actual translation of the Hebrew is something like "do not lay with man on a woman's bed" or something like that, iirc. Either way, it's a poor verse to use to condemn gays.)

Actually, you are taking it out of context. The interpretation from the Hebrew is accurate, and in the context of the entire OT, it applies to anyone under the Torah

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Either way, it's a poor verse to use to condemn gays

Everything in there has no leg to stand on in condemning gays. Their understanding of human biology and sexuality was underdeveloped, or even arguably non-existent.

You're correct, that the lack of empathy for LGBT people is sickening. Reckon these zealots will ever own up to how many LGBT people they tormented into killing themselves?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Everything in there has no leg to stand on in condemning gays. Their understanding of human biology and sexuality was underdeveloped, or even arguably non-existent.

You're correct, that the lack of empathy for LGBT people is sickening. Reckon these zealots will ever own up to how many LGBT people they tormented into killing themselves?

They never will. Most are in denial. Some of them are also sadists who enjoy the pain they cause.

It pains me also because Christianity can be so beautiful and transformative but they are rubbishing it. They are fake Christians wrecking the teachings of Jesus. The early Church was more accepting of the downtrodden than today. It drives those on the margins away and enforces social and political power to keep them on the margins, becoming the very thing Christ taught against. There are some very loving and selfless Christians who minister to the outcast without judgement (I recall a Catholic nun who ministers to homeless at-risk trans women to give a leg up and help them out of sex work who is respectful of their identities, for example) but that is not the norm. They may even get into trouble with their higher ups. This situation angers and depresses me. If they were actually Christ-like, people would flock to church in eager joy instead of running from it in anger, fear and pain.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is the nun I'm referring to: Nun ministering to transgender women gets thumbs-up from Pope

Stories like hers should be the norm among Christians and not the exception.

 

[MansFriend]

I wish I didn't have to care about what you and your ilk have to say about it but I have to because of how you people treat others.

No, they weren't stupid. They knew what they could at the time but they didn't have the understanding that we have now. We now know that sexual orientation, as well as gender, exists on a spectrum and don't base it all on behaviour like the ancients did (they were concerned about male honor and completely ignored female sexuality, for one). Obviously gay men and lesbians could not get married in same-gender marriages, raise children and have all the rights that hetero marriages then did, in ancient times so you argument that it was always the same is just dumb. There are very different cultures and the space of millennia we are talking about. There wasn't much social space for them to have relationships with each other like a married couple.

You are entirely missing my point. Anciently, the Hebrew culture was tiny compared to the whole planet and its many varied cultures and ways of living. You seem to act as if homosexuality is some new revelation and that it has some kind of special sacredness about it thanks to modern revelation. I disagree. It has been a part of many cultures in times past, which cultures are avowed enemies of patriarchal based civilizations. There is a good reason for this, that my earlier post touched upon sufficiently well.

What I will not tolerate is your incessant innuendo that I am a "hateful" person because I speak objectively about an entire system of government that views such behavior as not only unhealthy for the individuals participating, but which also becomes abberent and disruptive, critically so, to the normal orderly functioning of the society itself. It isn't about hating individuals, it is about a particular manner of living that homosexuality is utterly incompatible with.

 

[dgirl1986]

It was probably the authors that didn't like us queer folk.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are entirely missing my point. Anciently, the Hebrew culture was tiny compared to the whole planet and its many varied cultures and ways of living. You seem to act as if homosexuality is some new revelation and that it has some kind of special sacredness about it thanks to modern revelation. I disagree. It has been a part of many cultures in times past, which cultures are avowed enemies of patriarchal based civilizations. There is a good reason for this, that my earlier post touched upon sufficiently well.

What I will not tolerate is your incessant innuendo that I am a "hateful" person because I speak objectively about an entire system of government that views such behavior as not only unhealthy for the individuals participating, but which also becomes abberent and disruptive, critically so, to the normal orderly functioning of the society itself. It isn't about hating individuals, it is about a particular manner of living that homosexuality is utterly incompatible with.

You are missing my point that we have greater knowledge about human sexuality than they did thousands of years ago, just like we have greater knowledge of every other subject. That is what I am saying. I have no idea where you get the impression that I said homosexuality was unknown to them. Of course it was. It's been a part of all cultures, past and present. What I said is that the Bible really doesn't have much to say about LGBT people. There's a handful of verses out of tens of thousands and they aren't as clear as you like to pretend. And then there are some examples of what would be an LGBT person being presented positively, like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts. So despite what the bigots like to say - no, the Bible does not definitively declare that being LGBT (that includes being transgender, by the way) or homosexual sex acts are inherently sinful at all times. The Bible doesn't say anything about loving, consensual, monogamous gay relationships. Even if the issue is anal sex, you can express intimacy in other ways. The early Christians would've prized the state of virginity and celibacy above any sort of sexuality - married or not, heterosexual or homosexual - in the first place, so this modern Christian idolatry of hetero marriage, baby making, child rearing and "family values" is a big joke and totally against what Jesus and St. Paul taught.

I have no idea what that last paragraph is supposed to mean. What society is homosexuality "aberrant" and "disruptive" to? What "manner of living" is homosexuality "utterly incompatible with"? What, a homophobic society? Well, yeah. Who cares.

 

[SomeRandom]

Perhaps a vocal minority ? Ex gay therapy's, what is that ? I agree, Christ said, "by their fruit, you shall know them" He was speaking of how to recognize a TRUE believer. The Constitution, determines the rights of all people, I know of no one who contends that anyone should be denied these rights. Harassment is evil and no one who does this............

Whilst I do agree the trouble makers are the vocal minority. Perhaps I am still a little jaded since the recent SSM debate my country had. Literally both sides come out of the woodwork. I think it was the only time I've seen my country be more interested in debating politics than arguing about which Football code is better. Just.........weird.

Half my family is Catholic, my close family friends are non denominational Christians. Whilst a tad "traditional," they're all pretty chill about "teh gayz" issue. So I'm not saying Christian is synonymous with homophobic actions. Of course not.
Although I will still admit that the greatest push back from the anti side seem to strongly identify as Christians. I mean I don't really see Jewish denominations protesting gay marriage.
Just saying there's a bit of smoke.

Ex Gay camps are atrocious unscientific wastes of time. They basically try to "treat" gay people into becoming or at least acting heterosexual. Which is, by the way, denounced by any scientist even remotely acquainted with the mental health industry.
Might be more prevalent in America though as the "religious freedom" excuse is a lot stronger than other Western Countries.

 

[SomeRandom]

If you've "read lots of imprinting studies but never saw that imprinting imprints", I cannot help you.

I just said that your own citation didn't say what you implied. You can post more if you like. I mean I get it, busy life, maybe skim read a source and miss a thing here and there.
Take all the time you need.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are entirely missing my point. Anciently, the Hebrew culture was tiny compared to the whole planet and its many varied cultures and ways of living. You seem to act as if homosexuality is some new revelation and that it has some kind of special sacredness about it thanks to modern revelation. I disagree. It has been a part of many cultures in times past, which cultures are avowed enemies of patriarchal based civilizations. There is a good reason for this, that my earlier post touched upon sufficiently well.

What I will not tolerate is your incessant innuendo that I am a "hateful" person because I speak objectively about an entire system of government that views such behavior as not only unhealthy for the individuals participating, but which also becomes abberent and disruptive, critically so, to the normal orderly functioning of the society itself. It isn't about hating individuals, it is about a particular manner of living that homosexuality is utterly incompatible with.

Could you elaborate on what you're talking about here?