Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[TheKnight]

Ah! I see now. You are unqualified to think for yourself but must follow the traditions no matter how good or bad they might be? And so because you have submitted to the authority of the Sanhedrin you are absolved of personal responsibility? Lots of Nazis tried to claim that at the Nuremberg trials as well. That dog just don't hunt.

I'm sorry if it bothers you that I listen to those who are older then wiser then myself. God forbid I become a fool and pretend that I will be able to figure out everything. Knowledge should be compounded upon, not discovered with each individual.

That being said, you don't know even know the tradition. Your assumptions (as are clearly demonstrated in your posting) are based off of your pre-determined bias of what you think my opinion is. God forbid you actually listen to what I'm saying. I have the feeling that all you see is that I disagree with something you agree with and as a result you conclude I am like everyone else who disagrees with you.

As for slavery, give me a break. There is a clear distinction between a slave and a servant all through the Judaic Laws. Don't try to be clever like that. It's intellectually dishonest.

Oh? Well then please point out this clear distinction between a slave and a servant. Certainly I must have missed something in the tradition that I study daily and that you don't believe in.

I don't understand. How can it be your opinion that this or that act of sex is forbidden? If it's forbidden then it is forbidden by some authority and if you agree with that authority how can you say it is just your opinion?

Because it is up to me whether or not I agree with that authority.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't think it's possible for anyone to believe the Bible as a whole. It's so full of contradictions that to try to believe in it as a whole is like trying to hold onto matter and antimatter at the same time.

I agree with you. Without explanation, the Bible is useless to us. Hence why i posted this link earlier as to why the Oral tradition is necessary. You see it as the opinions of other people, I see it as a tradition that was given to Moses (just as the Torah was) and handed down from Sinai.

 

[Alceste]

Biblical arguments against homosexuality are totally retarded. Can't you people come up with something new? Either that, or get to work spreading the word that I should be getting my 7 days of seclusion every month when I menstruate. Yes, you pick and choose. You're not fooling anybody. Take responsibility for your own choices. Say "Yeah, I KNOW the bible has all kinds of BS in it that nobody bothers with any more, including me, but I CHOOSE to single out homosexuality for special attention because I BELIEVE it's wrong."

 

[slave2six]

I'm sorry if it bothers you that I listen to those who are older then wiser then myself. God forbid I become a fool and pretend that I will be able to figure out everything. Knowledge should be compounded upon, not discovered with each individual.

That being said, you don't know even know the tradition. Your assumptions (as are clearly demonstrated in your posting) are based off of your pre-determined bias of what you think my opinion is. God forbid you actually listen to what I'm saying. I have the feeling that all you see is that I disagree with something you agree with and as a result you conclude I am like everyone else who disagrees with you. And if they are in fact the authority, you are by definition obligated to do as they say and your opinion doesn't even enter into the matter.

Oh? Well then please point out this clear distinction between a slave and a servant. Certainly I must have missed something in the tradition that I study daily and that you don't believe in.

Because it is up to me whether or not I agree with that authority.

You're confusing the Hell out of me. On one hand you "listen to those who are older then wiser then (yourself)" but on the other hand "it is up to (you) whether or not (you) agree with that authority." If they are older and wiser then how can you disagree with them without making yourself a fool? Is it not disrespectful to call someone "older and wiser" and then discard what they tell you? And if they are an "authority" to which you submit, who are you to offer an opinion? I could pontificate on the evils of the speed limit but that don't make no difference to the cop giving me the ticket for speeding. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

Also, you seem to be placing far more emphasis on tradition than on what was delivered to Moses and the other prophets directly. This seems to be in line with the above confoundation. If God says something directly to one of your prophets, how is it even possible to have room for interpretation?

As for the slave/servant thing, the English word "servant" is someone who is paid and who is free to leave his/her employment. A "slave" or "bondsman" does not have such rights. Why do you want to mince words anyways? There is a logical reason why slavery/bondsmanship is wrong; because no man wants it for himself. I can't think of any good thing that no man wants for himself, can you?

 

[TheKnight]

Biblical arguments against homosexuality are totally retarded. Can't you people come up with something new? Either that, or get to work spreading the word that I should be getting my 7 days of seclusion every month when I menstruate. Yes, you pick and choose. You're not fooling anybody. Take responsibility for your own choices. Say "Yeah, I KNOW the bible has all kinds of BS in it that nobody bothers with any more, including me, but I CHOOSE to single out homosexuality for special attention because I BELIEVE it's wrong."

If that were the case, then I would agree. However, I really do believe in ALL of the Bible's laws. I don't see any of it as BS.

Why don't I promote all that other stuff too?

Well, I don't promote anti-homosexual legislation either so it's a non-issue really. The reason it appears that we single out homosexuality is because it's the topic of discussion. Were that to change to something else that the Bible prohibits then we'd probably be against that too. (I know I would).



BTW, I am all for women getting days off when they menstruate. There's no reason for them to be working and what not during that time. It should be like a vacation...

 

[slave2six]

I agree with you. Without explanation, the Bible is useless to us. Hence why i posted this link earlier as to why the Oral tradition is necessary. You see it as the opinions of other people, I see it as a tradition that was given to Moses (just as the Torah was) and handed down from Sinai.

I fail to see the point in God giving revelations to anyone if everything he says is going to just be up for interpretation anyways. Seems to me that any deity worth his salt would be able to do better than that.

 

[slave2six]

BTW, I am all for women getting days off when they menstruate. There's no reason for them to be working and what not during that time. It should be like a vacation...

LOL. I have five daughters and let me tell you, it's no vacation!

It's better for them to go to work. Helps keep their minds off the discomfort.

 

[TheKnight]

You're confusing the Hell out of me. On one hand you "listen to those who are older then wiser then (yourself)" but on the other hand "it is up to (you) whether or not (you) agree with that authority." If they are older and wiser then how can you disagree with them without making yourself a fool? Is it not disrespectful to call someone "older and wiser" and then discard what they tell you?

Older and wiser doesn't equal infallible. My point is, I shouldn't disregard what other people say just because they say it. You're saying that I feel unqualified to make my own decisions. That's not true. I do feel qualified to make my own decisions.

People should listen to those who are older and wiser, BUT they should also try and determine which things are worth listening to and from which older and wiser people.

Older+wiser != (does not equal) infallible.

Also, you seem to be placing far more emphasis on tradition than on what was delivered to Moses and the other prophets directly. This seems to be in line with the above confoundation. If God says something directly to one of your prophets, how is it even possible to have room for interpretation?

Because Judaism teaches that the Tradition was said directly to Moses. The two go hand and hand. God says "Don't work on Shabbos." the question is then asked "What qualifies as work" God then says "Look at the tradition."

Same with any of the laws in the Bible (from the Jewish perspective).

Torah and the Tradition are equal in that they were both given from God. Also, Torah is a term that is often used to describe ALL of the Tradition (including the Tanakh and the Talmud)

As for the slave/servant thing, the English word "servant" is someone who is paid and who is free to leave his/her employment. A "slave" or "bondsman" does not have such rights. Why do you want to mince words anyways? There is a logical reason why slavery/bondsmanship is wrong; because no man wants it for himself. I can't think of any good thing that no man wants for himself, can you?

Right. I wasn't talking about English words. I said in Hebrew EVeD means both slave and servant. A person is not allowed to treat their servant/slave as they please.

The concept of an EVeD is one of service (hence the word AVoDaho which means service<<same root of aleph-Beit-Dalet). A literal translation of the concept of an EVeD would be "A person who serves". Biblical Hebrew (and therefore Jewish law) makes no distinction between a servant and a slave because both are people who serve. Both deserve to be treated with respect and a certain manner of decency. In Halakha, there is no difference between one and the other.

 

[TheKnight]

I fail to see the point in God giving revelations to anyone if everything he says is going to just be up for interpretation anyways. Seems to me that any deity worth his salt would be able to do better than that.

It's not up to interpretation if He gave the interpretation. God says "here's the book" and gives the Torah. Then says "Here's how you understand the book" and gives the Oral Tradition.

LOL. I have five daughters and let me tell you, it's no vacation!

It's better for them to go to work. Helps keep their minds off the discomfort.

Lol. You don't think that if you were to all go spend time having a picnic at a lake and vacationing it wouldn't do you guys some good? Breaks are good for people. Women (lucky women) get a break every time the menstruate. At least they should anyways.

 

[slave2six]

Older and wiser doesn't equal infallible. My point is, I shouldn't disregard what other people say just because they say it. You're saying that I feel unqualified to make my own decisions. That's not true. I do feel qualified to make my own decisions.

People should listen to those who are older and wiser, BUT they should also try and determine which things are worth listening to and from which older and wiser people.

Older+wiser != (does not equal) infallible.

I'm still confused. How do you determine who is older and wiser? Could not someone younger be wiser? And if they are wiser then by definition you are less wise and therefore, again, are in no position to evaluate what they say.

Because Judaism teaches that the Tradition was said directly to Moses. The two go hand and hand. God says "Don't work on Shabbos." the question is then asked "What qualifies as work" God then says "Look at the tradition."

Same with any of the laws in the Bible (from the Jewish perspective).

Yeah. I've seen how ridiculous some people get with this "what is work" business. It's totally ridiculous to even entertain the question because invariably one will end up straining gnats and swallowing camels.

 

[Alceste]

If that were the case, then I would agree. However, I really do believe in ALL of the Bible's laws. I don't see any of it as BS.

Why don't I promote all that other stuff too?

Well, I don't promote anti-homosexual legislation either so it's a non-issue really. The reason it appears that we single out homosexuality is because it's the topic of discussion. Were that to change to something else that the Bible prohibits then we'd probably be against that too. (I know I would).

BTW, I am all for women getting days off when they menstruate. There's no reason for them to be working and what not during that time. It should be like a vacation...

You don't believe in all the Bible's laws. You don't believe the laws regarding the proper handling of diseases of the skin. If you know your Bible, you'll know exactly where to find it, and you'll be able to describe exactly how diseases of the skin are to be treated. (If you have trouble, I'll be happy to find it for you.) If you actually DO believe these laws, please tell me how you would go about following them if you were to develop a rash.

 

[slave2six]

It's not up to interpretation if He gave the interpretation. God says "here's the book" and gives the Torah. Then says "Here's how you understand the book" and gives the Oral Tradition.

That's like giving someone a manual on how to diffuse a bomb then spending years discussing, "...and when he says do not cut the blue wire what he REALLY means is not to cut the wire that is not orange, which is the opposite of blue. Therefore, we must cut the orange wire... <BOOM!>"

It's the old "Blessed are the Cheesemakers? What's so special about them?"

"He didn't mean it literally. He meant blessed are all producers of dairy products."
(Life of Brian)

 

[TheKnight]

I'm still confused. How do you determine who is older and wiser? Could not someone younger be wiser? And if they are wiser then by definition you are less wise and therefore, again, are in no position to evaluate what they say.

True. But I still exist and I still must realize that there are those wiser then myself who lie. People lie (either out of malice or ignorance). I must make it my duty to determine who is lying and who is not.

And yes, someone younger could be wiser.

Yeah. I've seen how ridiculous some people get with this "what is work" business. It's totally ridiculous to even entertain the question because invariably one will end up straining gnats and swallowing camels.

I suppose.

You don't believe in all the Bible's laws. You don't believe the laws regarding the proper handling of diseases of the skin. If you know your Bible, you'll know exactly where to find it, and you'll be able to describe exactly how diseases of the skin are to be treated. (If you have trouble, I'll be happy to find it for you.) If you actually DO believe these laws, please tell me how you would go about following them if you were to develop a rash.

It wouldn't matter. As you may have noticed in my posts to Slave2Six, binding Scripture for the believing Observant Jew or Noahide is not limited to the Bible itself. That being said, I do not live in Israel, neither am I a Jew and therefore such laws of how to care for a rash do not apply to me.

Also, believing in the veracity of law doesn't mean you know the law. I'm sure you also agree with the laws of your country, but do not know them all.

That's like giving someone a manual on how to diffuse a bomb then spending years discussing, "...and when he says do not cut the blue wire what he REALLY means is not to cut the wire that is not orange, which is the opposite of blue. Therefore, we must cut the orange wire... <BOOM!>"

In this case, the manual says "Do X. If you want to know how to do X then look at Y."

In essence, the Bible lets us know what we should do, the tradition lets us know how we should do it. The Bible says punish those who participate in certain activities with death. The Tradition tells us how to do that and what that means.

 

[slave2six]

Originally Posted by slave2six
I'm still confused. How do you determine who is older and wiser? Could not someone younger be wiser? And if they are wiser then by definition you are less wise and therefore, again, are in no position to evaluate what they say.

True. But I still exist and I still must realize that there are those wiser then myself who lie. People lie (either out of malice or ignorance). I must make it my duty to determine who is lying and who is not.

In which case you are the supreme authority in your life and everything else is simply external data that you evaluate. In the end, you determine who is wise and who isn't thus making you superior to them. Your reasoning is illogical. Just a minute ago you said,

God forbid I become a fool and pretend that I will be able to figure out everything.

But this is precisely what you are saying that you do. You have to have some basis for evaluating what someone else says. What is that basis if not your own judgment?

 

[slave2six]

The Bible says punish those who participate in certain activities with death. The Tradition tells us how to do that and what that means.

Very Clintonesque... It all depends on how we interpret certain words to determine if Bill actually had sex with Monica. Doesn't change the facts, just the meaning, right? Blech!

 

[TheKnight]

In which case you are the supreme authority in your life and everything else is simply external data that you evaluate. In the end, you determine who is wise and who isn't thus making you superior to them. Your reasoning is illogical. Just a minute ago you said,

"God forbid I become a fool and pretend that I will be able to figure out everything. "

But this is precisely what you are saying that you do. You have to have some basis for evaluating what someone else says. What is that basis if not your own judgment?

Right...I have no other tool by which to make decisions then my own judgment.

My judgment is incapable of figuring out everything, however, I should be confident of the things it can figure out (like who is trustworthy and who is not).

I believe that a person should be fully confident in what they can do, and fully aware of what they can't.

I cannot know everything, but I can know somethings, and it is only logical that I use what I DO know to make decisions. I know that when I listen to people who are older/wiser then myself there is often some truth in what they're saying. Even if it's not all true.

You should have met me 3 years ago when I was a fundamentalist Christian. Much of would I said makes me want to throw up now that I look back on it. The difference between me now and me then is the level of arrogance. Then I was young and assumed I could know a lot more then I actually can know. As I grew and tried listening to those wiser/older then myself, I learned that people aren't always wrong when I disagree with them. Usually, so I have found, truth lies somewhere in between our two opinions.

That's my point essentially. Be confident of what you can do, and aware of what you cannot. I can know who to trust, I can't know what is/isn't objectively moral.

 

[TheKnight]

Very Clintonesque... It all depends on how we interpret certain words to determine if Bill actually had sex with Monica. Doesn't change the facts, just the meaning, right? Blech!

What are you talking about?

 

[ChristineES]

What about free speech? White supremacists are allowed to hate blacks and others, aren't they? As repulsive as I find racism, it wouldn't be legal for me to stop racists from saying that they hate minorities. And also, just because someone finds something a sin, that doesn't mean he hates or wants to harm the person doing whatever it is.

 

[Jeremiah]

There's no need to. You should be able to see that I would believe in it as true. Saying that believing something because the Bible says so is without thought is akin to saying that because I don't see things like you do, I must have denied thought.


I believe in the administration of justice when it is appropriate. If we were to try homosexuals on the basis of Jewish law...I could guarantee that almost 100% of them wouldn't be executed. There are too many factors that would make the person exempt from capital punishment.



Please. My opinion has not caused anyone to commit suicide. If someone misunderstands my opinion and as a result kills themselves, then it was their misunderstanding that caused their death. My opinon really isn't all that harmful. I advocate control, not self-loathing. In fact, I'm very pro-"you shouldn't give a **** about what people think". So much so that I'm willing to disagree with myself to promote that attitude. Self-esteem is more important then my idea of morality. That doesn't mean that I will disregard my idea of morality for someone's self-esteem.

"There's no need to. You should be able to see that I would believe in it as true. "

Yes, there is need to. Explain the thought pattern behind it to me. As far as I can tell you have no idea why it is a sin. You just think it is because some book said so.

"Please. My opinion has not caused anyone to commit suicide. If someone misunderstands my opinion and as a result kills themselves, then it was their misunderstanding that caused their death. My opinon really isn't all that harmful. I advocate control, not self-loathing. In fact, I'm very pro-"you shouldn't give a **** about what people think". So much so that I'm willing to disagree with myself to promote that attitude. Self-esteem is more important then my idea of morality. That doesn't mean that I will disregard my idea of morality for someone's self-esteem."

We all have good intention. I don't doubt your intent. But if you honestly think that such a position does not contribute to the pain inflicted then you clearly have given this little thought.


"I'm very pro-"you shouldn't give a **** about what people think"."

Then why even mention it being a sin in the first place?

 

[Jeremiah]

What about free speech? White supremacists are allowed to hate blacks and others, aren't they? As repulsive as I find racism, it wouldn't be legal for me to stop racists from saying that they hate minorities. And also, just because someone finds something a sin, that doesn't mean he hates or wants to harm the person doing whatever it is.

"What about free speech?"

What about free speech? Am I not allowed to voice my opinion on this? Nobody is saying it should be illegal I am just saying it is wrong and hurtful.

"that doesn't mean he hates or wants to harm the person doing whatever it is."

It's not about want. Good intent is fine and dandy but what we intent and what happens is not always the same.