The Bible and Homosexuality

[Harmonious]

My husband and I are both polyamorous. Hence, we are open to having relationships in addition to ours. Continuing down that road could bring some colorful conversations, but we can save that debate for another thread.

But, I was speaking of 20+ years of trying to kill that desire for women in me before I was married, which is culturally more acceptable than the arrangement in my marriage now. And that trying to deny it is like a death. Orientation is much more than a simple desire, or even a burning desire. It is the capacity to fall in love and to share a life and a home with another person.

My story doesn't begin nor end with the day I got married to the coolest man alive.

Agreed.

 

[Harmonious]

Harmonious, were you raised into Judaism or is it something you chose willingly and apart from what your family believes?

I was born and raised Jewish. When I went to high school, I became Orthodox. I learned a gret deal.

I didn't focus on every social issue, but I learned a little of everything. Some of my learning is far more in depth than other bits.

 

[Harmonious]

thats all fine...

so it isn't all that obvious now, is it?

Perhaps not.

 

[Harmonious]

I'll get back to you after Shabbat.

 

[waitasec]

just a few more minutes....
:beach:

(btw, thats a plastic cup and straw )

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, you may think the Torah was made up and authored by humans.

I believe the Pentateuch was authored by God. It's a rather serious part of my belief system.

So even though your post sounds reasonable in theory, I'm going to have to say "No, your suggestion is not a possibility."

And as brilliant an orator as the fellow is in the video, while his interpretation is appealing, I'm going with: It is interesting but wrong.

I realize other people will say the same about my position. That's life.

I disagree, but...
Fair enough.

 

[Curious George]

This is the closest thing to discussing homosexuality as it gets in the Bible. However, we aren't talking about homosexuality. We are talking about non-gay individuals making a conscious decision to participate in "homosexual acts." More so, right after this passage, the whole argument flips around, and those who had been judging such people are told that they are also guilty, and that they shouldn't judge anyone.

So it has nothing to do with homosexuality, and in fact, tells people not to judge others.

While I would agree that there exists the arguments that you laid out in your post, and in your essays. I would also add that an argument could be made that suggests the "shameful" (NIV) or "Working that was unseemly" was due to the lustful nature. With lust acting as one of the "seven deadly sins."

Keep in mind however that these are arguments made from the bible and not necessarily the truth that is supposed to be within the bible. The same being true for the other arguments against homosexuality. Thus, these are either yours or others beliefs. Not literally what is in the Bible.

Oh and don't forget to add the mistranslation of Prostitute to Sodomite argument.

 

[Curious George]

Harmonious I didn't quote your post, but basically it suggest that worship of Jesus is wrong, and homosexuality is wrong.

I know I am coming off as being nit-picky- but imagine this: if you are correct in saying "homosexuality is wrong" or "worshiping Jesus is wrong" based on the argument that your writing these statements implies the phrase "I believe" then another person could say the exact opposite and we would have to accept that statement is just as valid. When two views are contradictory we meet a problem of logical congruence.

It may seem trivial to have to indicate when you are making a faith based statement. Also, it is a passive writing style. I can appreciate why using a passive voice in one's writing style might be hard for people in a debate forum, yet I suggest you try. This way, your statements are not invalid. I am not saying your statements are not true. Hell, you might be right. But to make blanket statements as fact when really they are beliefs is actually very aggressive, and attacking.

You have suggested in other posts that:

They don't have the right to assume that I'm violating anyone else's rights for simply holding my beliefs. I'm not controlling anyone. I'm not hurting anyone, and I'm not assuming anyone else has to adhere to my belief system.

Now, I would argue that aggressive and attacking speech can hurt and implies that others should adhere to your belief system. Because after all, it is fact. If it is not fact, why is it stated as such?

 

[shivadas]

sorry i was away from the computer for a little bit.

what i meant a little bit ago in previous posts, is that it is wrong to put words in Jesus' mouth.
Jesus was born a Jew but had steered far off from Judaism, essentially making him no longer a Jew but autonomous in his own beliefs.

Its as if people think Jesus personally approved every book of the bible. The books of Leviticus and Corinthians are Jewish texts found in the old testament, Jesus didn't write'em and neither did his students.
At a very basic level, Christians hating gays is a phenomenon stemming from Christians taking inspiration from Jewish texts.

 

[fallingblood]

sorry i was away from the computer for a little bit.

what i meant a little bit ago in previous posts, is that it is wrong to put words in Jesus' mouth.
Jesus was born a Jew but had steered far off from Judaism, essentially making him no longer a Jew but autonomous in his own beliefs.

Its as if people think Jesus personally approved every book of the bible. The books of Leviticus and Corinthians are Jewish texts found in the old testament, Jesus didn't write'em and neither did his students.
At a very basic level, Christians hating gays is a phenomenon stemming from Christians taking inspiration from Jewish texts.

Jesus was a Jew. He accepted the Law. He didn't steer away form Judaism. In fact, some would argue that he was even a Pharisee himself.

Also, Corinthians is found in the New Testament. Paul wrote it.

 

[shivadas]

sorry i didn't mean to write corinthians i've been on a forum spree today and got mixed up....
any ways i would take into account that Jesus trashed the temple that he thought was corrupt, and condemned the sacrifice of animals...
He still probably practiced some jewish ritual but his beliefs were in direct contradiction to jewish beliefs. As shown in the Dead sea scrolls and the nag hamandi library. These newly revealed books of the bible can not be ignored, to do so would be ignorant...


However im not putting down Jesus, I think of Jesus as an avatar(an incarnation of God)

 

[fallingblood]

sorry i didn't mean to write corinthians i've been on a forum spree today and got mixed up....
any ways i would take into account that Jesus trashed the temple that he thought was corrupt, and condemned the sacrifice of animals...
He still probably practiced some jewish ritual but his beliefs were in direct contradiction to jewish beliefs. As shown in the Dead sea scrolls and the nag hamandi library. These newly revealed books of the bible can not be ignored, to do so would be ignorant...


However im not putting down Jesus, I think of Jesus as an avatar(an incarnation of God)

In the first century, there were various Jews who thought part of the Temple was corrupt. That is not being anti-Jewish, or even anti-Temple. That is simply being upset with the way things were going. We can look at the Essenes, who were a Jewish sect, and completely disassociated with the Temple because they thought part of it was corrupt. They still loved the Temple, just not how it was being run. That was actually not that uncommon. One can love the Temple, and still have a problem with aspects of it. That is what we see with Jesus.

Jesus also never condemns the act of sacrificing animals. In fact, he supported that. We know this because he participated in Passover, which would have included having an animal sacrificed in the Temple. So it is clear evidence that he was not opposed to the Temple, and in fact supported the animal sacrifice. If he didn't, he wouldn't have gone to Jerusalem during that time, and participated in the Passover seder.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls were Jewish scrolls. They also have nothing to do with Jesus. As for the Nag Hammadi texts, they only show us what Christianity became. They simply are not close enough to the events to be reliable, especially since they disagree with our earliest and best sources.

 

[shivadas]

I have read that while Jesus traveling in his early life, Jesus went and learned from Egyptian priests, then went to ancient India/modern Pakistan and came back around to the homeland so he could get baptized by John the baptist...
Lets agree to disagree...

but really we are getting off the topic of homosexuality, even if Jesus was the best Jew ever, Christians dropped Jewish social laws as a whole by the first century...

For example in the same book that says its wrong to lay with another man, also says not to cut the hair from the sides of your head, demands all males be circumcised, demands a kosher diet, forbids wearing clothing made of two different fibers woven together, and justifies slaves as long as they are not part of your Tribe and you kept them fed...
and yet Christians do none of these things(except the occasional circumcision).
So why in the hell do Christians choose this one singled out law of ancient Jewish social custom? Its ridiculous, and I think Jesus would cry if he had to see the Hate mongering that has developed by people who genuinely think they are doing the Lord's work.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Understood and already been discussed shivadas.

 

[shivadas]

my bad there are alot of pages, and i got into the discussion late...

 

[InfidelRiot]

It is perfectly understandable.

 

[fallingblood]

but really we are getting off the topic of homosexuality, even if Jesus was the best Jew ever, Christians dropped Jewish social laws as a whole by the first century...

Christians never really dropped Jewish social laws. They simply were never bound by it. And even during the first century, Christianity was primarily a Jewish movement. Meaning, it still generally followed Jewish social law.

For example in the same book that says its wrong to lay with another man, also says not to cut the hair from the sides of your head, demands all males be circumcised, demands a kosher diet, forbids wearing clothing made of two different fibers woven together, and justifies slaves as long as they are not part of your Tribe and you kept them fed...
and yet Christians do none of these things(except the occasional circumcision).

Those were never laws for Christians though.

So why in the hell do Christians choose this one singled out law of ancient Jewish social custom? Its ridiculous, and I think Jesus would cry if he had to see the Hate mongering that has developed by people who genuinely think they are doing the Lord's work.

Now you are getting to he basis of this. It has nothing to do with Jesus.

Christians choose that one law because it fits their prejudice. It really is the same reason why many people hide behind various texts or ideas in order to fuel their hatred. They aren't getting their hatred from the text, they simply use it as an excuse.

 

[shivadas]

@ allright:

I find it interesting that all the "things" that you don't like about the Bible were changed with Jesus the Christs death and resurrection, then why not the others that you uphold from the old testament. Things like gambling in the church, but folks flock to the "Casino night" at the neighborhood Catholic church. Oh and imbibing in libations to get drunk is called unlawful, or slavery is good only when you enslave those that are that are not of your city or town. Oh and I think that when I want a divorce than I can just kill my current wife and then its ok to marry another.

One thing that we forget about is the fact that these "laws" were made in a time and place that helped their civilization survive under the way that those in power wanted. Man wrote the Bible, so it is not infallible. In fact there were 80 books written for the Bible and now a days we don't follow those. Hell they (a council of aristocrats) excluded them by a decision made by man.

Religion has been used to hate monger for centuries, I'm sure the Inquisition was thought to be inspired by God, but we now know it was to flex their political muscle and increase their territories. But please trust everything that you read. Couldn't be that maybe the person writing it was inspired by God, but what about those who edited it?

Jesus preached of love and respect, compassion, and taking care of those who are unable to help themselves. Religion was originally there to bring a people together, and yet we continue to use it to pull ourselves apart. I'm sure that that is what Jesus really wanted, right?

 

[BBTimeless]

@ allright:

I find it interesting that all the "things" that you don't like about the Bible were changed with Jesus the Christs death and resurrection, then why not the others that you uphold from the old testament. Things like gambling in the church, but folks flock to the "Casino night" at the neighborhood Catholic church. Oh and imbibing in libations to get drunk is called unlawful, or slavery is good only when you enslave those that are that are not of your city or town. Oh and I think that when I want a divorce than I can just kill my current wife and then its ok to marry another.

One thing that we forget about is the fact that these "laws" were made in a time and place that helped their civilization survive under the way that those in power wanted. Man wrote the Bible, so it is not infallible. In fact there were 80 books written for the Bible and now a days we don't follow those. Hell they (a council of aristocrats) excluded them by a decision made by man.

Religion has been used to hate monger for centuries, I'm sure the Inquisition was thought to be inspired by God, but we now know it was to flex their political muscle and increase their territories. But please trust everything that you read. Couldn't be that maybe the person writing it was inspired by God, but what about those who edited it?

Jesus preached of love and respect, compassion, and taking care of those who are unable to help themselves. Religion was originally there to bring a people together, and yet we continue to use it to pull ourselves apart. I'm sure that that is what Jesus really wanted, right?

:yes:Well said.

 

[shivadas]

and Why would Christians decide to drop all this BS, but decide to keep the one banning "****". This takes it out of the realm of faith, and into the realm of personal choice, and if you personally choose to hate a group of people, then by definition they are Bigots...

this is wrong and ignorant....