The Bible and Homosexuality

[9Westy9]

the bible also says that you should not eat shrimp and that is it okay to sell your daugther as a slave.

Which is worst? eating shrimp or selling you daugther as a slave?

You should probably give up. He's not going to give you a straight answer

 

[Harmonious]

the bible also says that you should not eat shrimp and that is it okay to sell your daugther as a slave.

Which is worst? eating shrimp or selling you daugther as a slave?

That's the third time you've mentioned that.

I hope you realize that such a thing wasn't blithely done, nor did it come without serious consequences on the parent who would consider such a thing.

There are some laws in the Torah which aren't so much green lights with permission as much as they are recognizing that humans will act badly, so God put major restraints on those who would act in this way.

 

[Harmonious]

The token of virginity law seems ridiculous for today`s standards though.

Many women don`t bleed on the first sex encounter.

I know. If I said that the law was a bit more complicated than presented in the text of the Pentateuch, woild you take me seriously?
.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

In order words you have no proof, so lets start name calling

Proof of what? Also, I said you carry a hatred and that you only seem to listen to that which supports that hatred. I did not call you a name. Now if you would like to offer an alternative perception of the posts you have left in this thread, please, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's the third time you've mentioned that.

I hope you realize that such a thing wasn't blithely done, nor did it come without serious consequences on the parent who would consider such a thing.

There are some laws in the Torah which aren't so much green lights with permission as much as they are recognizing that humans will act badly, so God put major restraints on those who would act in this way.

So... why wouldn't God incontrovertibly declare that selling one's daughter into slavery is wrong rather than just try to "curb" the bad behavior with some half-baked rules?

I'm really confused by this; do you think if I were a police officer and that I asked someone to please use a tarp when they murdered their neighbor so no one would have to clean up the mess that I would still be a benevolent being? Do you think this is a poor analogy?

 

[Harmonious]

So... why wouldn't God incontrovertibly declare that selling one's daughter into slavery is wrong rather than just try to "curb" the bad behavior with some half-baked rules?

The rules aren't half-baked as much as your understanding of them.

More to the point, it is more important to understand the circumstances of said slavery. (Not all slavery is equal.)

First of all, the parent in question is so insanely desperate that he is about to do just about anything to survive. Selling the child for slavery isn't as bad as, say, killing the child to get rid of one more mouth to feed. (I see why this is vaguely comparable to your "murder but using a tarp" analogy, but only in the loosest sense.)

Then consider what she has been "sold" to. She will live in the "master's" household, not as a slave (regardless of what the "sale" said), but as a full-blown member of the household. Second of all, if it is possible, the "master" is supposed to redeem the girl from slavery, giving her money enough to support herself and to set her free.

She is guaranteed a marriage to either the "master" or his son. This is a girl who would otherwise have no dowry. If he does decide to take a second wife, he can't marginalize the "slave" wife. And most importantly, if he doesn't want keep her as a wife, he is supposed to set her free, with no further penalty to her.

Further, if a parent in such desperate straits does this to a child, he loses the right for said child to honor him, as in "honoring one's parents".

The word "slave" is catching you in the mental dilemma. I'm not sure that it is accurate, except for the idea that the daughter is "sold," and the parent receives money in exchange for the "possession" of the child.

If the situation is paid attention to, it is obvious that this situation isn't actually slavery.

I'm really confused by this; do you think if I were a police officer and that I asked someone to please use a tarp when they murdered their neighbor so no one would have to clean up the mess that I would still be a benevolent being? Do you think this is a poor analogy?

Yes. Very much so.

 

[Meow Mix]

The rules aren't half-baked as much as your understanding of them.

Er, and I shouldn't have used such hostile language to someone I've only met, sorry. I'm used to the days when I posted more often and people were used to my sense of humor, just know I didn't mean for my remark to sound disparaging about your beliefs

More to the point, it is more important to understand the circumstances of said slavery. (Not all slavery is equal.)

First of all, the parent in question is so insanely desperate that he is about to do just about anything to survive. Selling the child for slavery isn't as bad as, say, killing the child to get rid of one more mouth to feed. (I see why this is vaguely comparable to your "murder but using a tarp" analogy, but only in the loosest sense.)

Then consider what she has been "sold" to. She will live in the "master's" household, not as a slave (regardless of what the "sale" said), but as a full-blown member of the household. Second of all, if it is possible, the "master" is supposed to redeem the girl from slavery, giving her money enough to support herself and to set her free.

She is guaranteed a marriage to either the "master" or his son. This is a girl who would otherwise have no dowry. If he does decide to take a second wife, he can't marginalize the "slave" wife. And most importantly, if he doesn't want keep her as a wife, he is supposed to set her free, with no further penalty to her.

Further, if a parent in such desperate straits does this to a child, he loses the right for said child to honor him, as in "honoring one's parents".

The word "slave" is catching you in the mental dilemma. I'm not sure that it is accurate, except for the idea that the daughter is "sold," and the parent receives money in exchange for the "possession" of the child.

If the situation is paid attention to, it is obvious that this situation isn't actually slavery.

Okay, but why wouldn't God -- ostensibly an omniscient being, all too aware of how humans love to take things out of context and/or twist things into contexts that benefit them -- be just a little more clear on slavery being an absolutely terrible thing that people should strive to avoid?

I guess that was my main concern, I agree the analogy I gave wasn't very comparable in terms of the extremity of the actions and their ties to moral connotation.

 

[sojourner]

The tread is a Video of someone claiming to prove that the Bible says homosexuality is not wrong

I am saying the Bible says it is

You have yet to provide one shred of exegetical evidence for your opinion. At least the young man in the video did his homework -- and did it very well, I might add.

 

[allright]

proof of what? Also, i said you carry a hatred and that you only seem to listen to that which supports that hatred. I did not call you a name. Now if you would like to offer an alternative perception of the posts you have left in this thread, please, i'd like to hear it.

right you re calling me a hater because i wont call what the bible says is sin good

im not mad about it. Jesus said if they called me the devil how much more will they malign those of my household

 

[sojourner]

Point of clarification by someone who lives by these laws... The rapist cannot deny marriage to said virgin. She isn't forced to marry him. He is forced to marry HER, if her psyche is so damaged that she will only see herself as defiled and unmarriable to any other man. In Jewish law, an erstwhile virgin who was raped is only forbidden to marry a Cohen, like divorcees, converts, and prostitutes.

It helps to know how the laws are carried out by those who live by them.

thanks for the clarification.

 

[Harmonious]

Er, and I shouldn't have used such hostile language to someone I've only met, sorry. I'm used to the days when I posted more often and people were used to my sense of humor, just know I didn't mean for my remark to sound disparaging about your beliefs

All is well.

Okay, but why wouldn't God -- ostensibly an omniscient being, all too aware of how humans love to take things out of context and/or twist things into contexts that benefit them -- be just a little more clear on slavery being an absolutely terrible thing that people should strive to avoid?

At the time, saying that slavery is absolutely awful and evil would make people scratch their heads, as they wouldn't get it. Everyone did it. While it would make sense to forbid slavery, it would be such a removal from everything about society they knew, it would not be conducive to starting a new culture. (God was aware of this, as He made the Jews into a new nation.)

Every culture at the time had slaves, and culturally, when Jews very much wanted to be a nation "like all other nations", either God could have simply forbade it, and rebellious Jews completely ignored God's law - which, if everyone else is doing it, it would make said rebellious Jews feel left out. As such, there would be nothing to keep Jews from being just as cruel as their non-Jewish neighbors to slaves.

Or, God could put serious restrictions on it, so that when Jews did "what everyone else is doing", the concept of slavery would be as present as it was in every other nation, but it would be a very different type of slavery. And, as a society, it would be relatively easy to phase out, as the very harsh restrictions and penalties on the slave OWNERS for mistreating slaves made it rather difficult for any but the most meticulously observant Jews to own slaves legally. And even then, within a couple of generations, the slaves would either convert to Judaism (freeing them), or out of love, the family would set their slaves free.

And if the owners were NOT kind to their slaves, the slaves would be set free, as anyone observing their behavior would complain to any court.

Abolishing slavery would have been a concept WAY ahead of their time. And since God actually wanted Jews to LIVE by these laws, He wasn't going to command something that would be beyond the Jews' ability to accomplish in their lifetime.

The fact that there is a fail-safe built into the Torah that says "if the law of the land forbids something that the Torah PERMITS (not commands, but permits), that the law of the land should be upheld," (yes, the concept is in the Oral Law, but it is how Jewish law works) it was something that was readily easy to phase out.



The laws as given had enough clarity for the Jews to live by them, being the target audience.

 

[Harmonious]

thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome.

 

[sojourner]

right you re calling me a hater because i wont call what the bible says is sin good

im not mad about it. Jesus said if they called me the devil how much more will they malign those of my household

It has been adequately shown that the bible doesn't say what you're claiming it says.

I'd be willing to bet that you're one of these folks who also believes the world is only 6000 years old, and that God created the world in six days.
And in a literal Adam and Eve.

What a shame. Would that such loyalty and zeal were for the truth rather than for religious fundigelicalism.

 

[InfidelRiot]

allright is stating that homosexuality is a sin. Most Christians believe that everyone sins, and that belief in Jesus somehow absolves them from past sin as long as the sin is not repeated. I wonder if allright prays and asks for forgiveness each time he eats a shrimp, gets a hair cut, or wears a poly-blended shirt. If he does not, then he is an unrepentant sinner.

 

[Harmonious]

I'm curious if an honest answer to the "Letter to Dr. Laura" would be appreciated here.

If it is, I'll gladly post it.

 

[InfidelRiot]

I'm curious if an honest answer to the "Letter to Dr. Laura" would be appreciated here.

If it is, I'll gladly post it.

I remember that letter. I am quite certain it will do no good in allright's case, however, if you post it.

 

[Harmonious]

allright is stating that homosexuality is a sin. Most Christians believe that everyone sins, and that belief in Jesus somehow absolves them from past sin as long as the sin is not repeated. I wonder if allright prays and asks for forgiveness each time he eats a shrimp,

:yes:

gets a hair cut,

Getting a haircut isn't a sin. Shaving certain parts of one's head is. Well, it is if you are a Jew.

or wears a poly-blended shirt.

Again, poly-blends aren't the sin. Wool and linen are the forbidden combination. And again, it only if you're a Jew.

If he does not, then he is an unrepentant sinner.

Point taken.

 

[Harmonious]

I remember that letter. I am quite certain it will do no good in allright's case, however, if you post it.

True, but it might help answer questions about how JEWS answer the questions.

You know... It is odd, how people call Christians hypocritical for not keeping all the laws, but then they lampoon the laws.

The laws actually make sense, in context, and even more sense if one is following all of them, with the inherent commentary of the Oral Law. Some people say that "some Rabbis made it up", but honestly... If you are looking for consistency and a serious explanation for how these laws work, it takes someone who learns them, lives them, and loves them to explain them.

People who have half-ideas based on how various passages have been presented and exploited are only working with half the deck.

So... While the answers wouldn't necessarily help allright, they would make the laws seem at least a little less nonsensical. Maybe.

 

[Harmonious]

What the heck... It will make me feel better to simply answer the questions.

So here you are.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?


First of all, no one says that anyone should be smitten for disagreeing of an opinion. Second of all, it isn’t up to a neighbor to “smite” anyone. Should such a thing be necessary, that would have to be done by a Jewish court of law – presuming the Temple in Jerusalem is standing, and the Sanhedrin meets in the Court of Hewn Stone in said Temple.


And third of all, unless the author of the letter is not Jewish, offering a bull on his own altar would be problematic in the extreme.


2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


Since the laws of the land (i.e. the USA) prohibit slavery, it doesn’t matter what might have “been sanctioned” in Exodus – and even then, only in the most extreme of circumstances – if it is illegal to initiate slavery in the land in which we live, it is illegal under Jewish law to initiate slavery. (If you want more details about the extreme circumstances which were NOT the optimal way of existing, I’ll provide them. Just not here.)


3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.


If he isn’t married to the woman, he shouldn’t be having that kind of contact with said woman. Further… This particular law would only apply if the man was Jewish. Otherwise… it isn’t his problem.


4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?


I already explained that in Question 2. So, no – Mexicans wouldn’t be legal slaves, according to Torah law. Canadians wouldn’t be, either. Nor would the Sudanese, Chinese, or any other slaves that exist in the world be legal for Americans.
(For Jews to own slaves in countries where it is permitted… In this day and age, Jews just don’t do it. )


5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?


No. If your neighbor isn’t Jewish, he isn’t obligated to keep the Sabbath, for one. Secondly, if it isn’t the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, in the Temple doing it, no one should be killing anyone over the lack of Sabbath observance.


6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?


Yes, there are different degrees of abomination.


If you consider that eating a forbidden food is punishable at max with whipping, and sexual sins are punishable by Cutting Off (it says by death, but no one is in position to gauge that unless they are in the bedroom where the forbidden sex is taking place, and if they are, that puts said witnesses into doubt on an ethical standpoint). Only God can judge that.


7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?


Unless you are a Cohen during Temple times, this doesn’t even apply to you.


8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?


Cutting hair is not a capital offense. And the sin is SHAVING said locations on the head. Getting a trim isn’t worth talking about. This is a non-issue.


9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?


Most footballs are not actually made with pig skin, no matter what it might be called, just as most violin strings are not actually made with the guts of cats, no matter that the material is called “catgut”. You don’t need to wear gloves to play football. Unless it’s really cold.


10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)


First of all… unless your uncle is Jewish, none of this matters. Second of all, NONE of the farming issues are capital offenses. Third of all, the sin isn’t to plant two kinds of crops in the same field, but to mix the seeds in the same HOLE for seeds. Fourth, it isn’t ALL combination materials that are sinful – only linen and wool.
As for blaspheming… I’m pretty sure that, while it is objectionable, it might not actually be punishable. (Details of the situation are actually far more important, but as I said before, he's probably not seriously cursing God, and non-Jews, etc. And not functioning death penalty, etc.)


I’d be more concerned for the fellow who is so anxious to put all his friends, relatives, and neighbors to death. As a relative, his word wouldn’t count as a valid witness in an ecclesiastical court, anyway.

 

[Meow Mix]

At the time, saying that slavery is absolutely awful and evil would make people scratch their heads, as they wouldn't get it. Everyone did it. While it would make sense to forbid slavery, it would be such a removal from everything about society they knew, it would not be conducive to starting a new culture. (God was aware of this, as He made the Jews into a new nation.)

So, is it safe to say that God commanded nothing at the time that might have been "confusing" to the Jews of the age? This isn't a leading question because I honestly don't know (I'm not that familiar with the Torah or with Jewish beliefs about God's commands).

It seems to imply to me that if God wouldn't unquestionably decry slavery to the Jews due to a concern that they might be unfamiliar with God's moral reasoning that we therefore shouldn't find any other examples where God radically changes their moral understanding by banning certain states of affairs. Is this the case?

(((EDIT: Ok, so did Jews completely understand (did they not "scratch their heads" at) God's commandment to circumsize the males? If not, then, well, why the inconsistency here? Why confuse them with circumcision but NOT with a commandment against slavery?)))

If there are any examples of God radically altering their culture with a condemnation or a ban -- and again, I'm not sure there are such examples but if there are (can anyone point anything out, here?) -- then why the inconsistency?

Also, why not a declaration to cultures of modern times implanted in the work -- such that even if ancient Jews didn't understand, people of modern time would read a passage that says something like "as soon as possible, all practices involving slavery should stop because it's a morally bankrupt practice. You might not understand that today, but some day you will?" Would that be unreasonable for God to do?

Every culture at the time had slaves, and culturally, when Jews very much wanted to be a nation "like all other nations", either God could have simply forbade it, and rebellious Jews completely ignored God's law - which, if everyone else is doing it, it would make said rebellious Jews feel left out. As such, there would be nothing to keep Jews from being just as cruel as their non-Jewish neighbors to slaves.

Are we sure that the non-Jewish neighbors were cruel to slaves by a de jure lack of protection for slaves inherent in their culture and laws? For instance, according to this site, Babylonian slaves were granted protection by their culture and laws -- including owning property!

According to the same source, Spartan slaves retained their own land (though they worked it for the Spartans); and retained some basic rights. Some slaves, such as the 300 Scythian Archers seemed to even attain a level of prestige in Greek society. There are more examples but this provides enough of a point.

So what's special about the Torah granting protections to slaves when pre-Torah cultures already did that? Why wouldn't God make Jewish culture stand out a little bit more by having the courage to outright denounce slavery as a practice?

Also, why would there be two sets of laws -- one for Canaanite (and ultimately non-Jewish) slaves, and another (more lenient) set for Jewish slaves? Does God condone racism, or was this a matter of "culturalist self-protection?"

Or, God could put serious restrictions on it, so that when Jews did "what everyone else is doing", the concept of slavery would be as present as it was in every other nation, but it would be a very different type of slavery. And, as a society, it would be relatively easy to phase out, as the very harsh restrictions and penalties on the slave OWNERS for mistreating slaves made it rather difficult for any but the most meticulously observant Jews to own slaves legally. And even then, within a couple of generations, the slaves would either convert to Judaism (freeing them), or out of love, the family would set their slaves free.

And if the owners were NOT kind to their slaves, the slaves would be set free, as anyone observing their behavior would complain to any court.

But... it doesn't seem like a "very different type" of slavery. It looks to me as though pre-Torah cultures had already invented the concept of trying to "play nice" with slaves to an extent. So, I don't really understand this argument. Does my skepticism make any sense to you?

Abolishing slavery would have been a concept WAY ahead of their time. And since God actually wanted Jews to LIVE by these laws, He wasn't going to command something that would be beyond the Jews' ability to accomplish in their lifetime.

The fact that there is a fail-safe built into the Torah that says "if the law of the land forbids something that the Torah PERMITS (not commands, but permits), that the law of the land should be upheld," (yes, the concept is in the Oral Law, but it is how Jewish law works) it was something that was readily easy to phase out.

The laws as given had enough clarity for the Jews to live by them, being the target audience.

Why no preparation for future "audiences," then, to remove ALL ambiguity?

What would be wrong with a passage that read something like, "You may not understand this now, but there will be a time when you should find that slavery of any kind is an abominable practice?"

Better yet, why not just provide a revelation that explains the moral reasoning?

Mortal men (and women!) have written books that changed ethical standpoints within said mortals' lifetimes, are you telling me that God can't do that, even with His own chosen people?