• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible and Homosexuality

Curious George

Veteran Member
If you are relying on your own interpretation, then I would like you to make the distinction from "God said so, to I believe it is what God said." There are arguments in the Jewish faith, not just the Christian arguing this. They can read Hebrew as well. They have a knowledge of the ancient culture. And there is an argument about what God meant based on what he said. No where did God say "Homosexuality is wrong." Rather he said a list of other things which have been interpreted to "homosexuality is wrong." I do not think that either argument is right or wrong. I do however think that it is funny that when one says "Homosexuality is wrong" because god said so. I think this is funny because God never said that. He said a host of things in which people argue means homosexuality is wrong.
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
Look. I'm not going to say that guys being interested in guys is wrong. Or girls in girls, for that matter. The law is usually more involved with guys spilling seed in a place outside a wife's vagina, and the fact that two guys shouldn't lie with each other the way a man lies with a woman.

If you want direct truth, it says nothing at all about two women together.

However, men - unlike women, oddly enough - actually have the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. This is biologically not possible for two men.

If you wanted to discuss domestic felicity, it doesn't actually matter. It is usually considered more modest for people who are not married to live with members of the same sex.

Religiously speaking, if two guys decided to live together domestically, and loved each other as spouses (not that it would be acknowldged as such), and there was a lot of happy touching and warm feelings all around, and they spent time with each other - without spilling seed (read: without sex), Torah law doesn't object... Although there is still the sin of omission of not attempting to have children.

Spilling seed and laying with each other are sins that are considered a capital offense and it comes with Careit - a punishment in the World to Come. But here is the thing. It isn't actionable in this world.

Like every section of Torah that talks about sex, the text is sprinkled liberally with the words "Ani Hashem", or "I am God." Jews understand this to mean that while no one else would ever REALLY know, God will know.

If you live your sexual life in such a way that you don't believe that God will object, good for you.

I've told you what Torah law says, and rather emphatically. If you are determined to say "it's my own interpretation", I can't very well stop you. You are entitled to your beliefs, regardless of the fact that I believe you've made up an interpretation to suit yourself, rather than what is there.

At the end of the day, you have you, your lover, and God. If you can say with confidence that you know God approves of your union, power to you.

I hope God ends up agreeing with you.
 
Last edited:

InfidelRiot

Active Member
I have always had a problem with the "be fruitful and multiply" argument, because what happens with a sterile man or woman who cannot procreate? I am unsure how Jewish law interprets it, but Christians tend to use the argument that same-sex marriage should not be legal due to the fact that there is no way for them to biologically procreate. It would mean that Christians would have to hold sterile heterosexual couples to the same law, forbidding them marriage.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I've told you what Torah law says, and rather emphatically. If you are determined to say "it's my own interpretation", I can't very well stop you. You are entitled to your beliefs, regardless of the fact that I believe you've made up an interpretation to suit yourself, rather than what is there.

At the end of the day, you have you, your lover, and God. If you can say with confidence that you know God approves of your union, power to you.

I hope God ends up agreeing with you.

Actually, I have no interpretation. I have my opinion: People make claims based on interpretations of the Sacred Writings of their religion. In these claims, people often assert that their interpretations as "what those writings actually say." Interestingly, People on the other side of the fence (regardless of what topic we are discussing) assert their interpretation of those same Sacred Texts as "what those writings actually say."

Now, when I look at this phenomenon I ask myself which assertion is true or more true? I look at what all sides say, I compare different versions and translations, I try to get both an explicitly literal interpretation and I also study the culture around the time when the text was written. I apply logic, reason and analysis- all with the disclaimer that I could be wrong in my conclusion.

Honestly, I come to very few answers regarding the resolution of the issue at hand. However, I time after time run into arguments created by people that are built on fallacy after fallacy. I never claimed that homosexuality is okay by God, I never claimed that it is not okay by God. I only claim that saying God says homosexuality is wrong is very different than the truth which is closer to "many people believe God implies homosexuality is wrong."

oh. and p.s. I am hetero-sexual. Not that you specifically stated I am gay. In fact, it would be logically invalid for me to say "harmonious said I was gay." But, I thought I might clear any confusion since My interpretation of your last post was that it implied homosexuality on my part. An argument that would be ad hominem, but one that needed to be addressed. Again, I have no stake in how this argument ends. But, if we are to consider the question logically the statement "the bible says homosexuality is wrong" is invalid.
 

allright

Active Member
But, if we are to consider the question logically the statement "the bible says homosexuality is wrong" is invalid.[/quote]

Lets consider it logically

Under Gods Covenant with his people at Sinai.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman they shall surely be put to death

Now here God doesnt directly say he thinks homosexuality is wrong, he just says if any of his people commit a homosexual act their to be immediately stoned to death

Seems to me logically hes not too thrilled with it, of course thats only my opinion

Lets get real, the Bible clearly says homosexuality is sin. Thats the question of the thread
If you dont accept the Bible or have arguments against other things in it, start another thread
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
But, if we are to consider the question logically the statement "the bible says homosexuality is wrong" is invalid.

Lets consider it logically

Under Gods Covenant with his people at Sinai.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman they shall surely be put to death

Now here God doesnt directly say he thinks homosexuality is wrong, he just says if any of his people commit a homosexual act their to be immediately stoned to death

Seems to me logically hes not too thrilled with it, of course thats only my opinion

Lets get real, the Bible clearly says homosexuality is sin. Thats the question of the thread
If you dont accept the Bible or have arguments against other things in it, start another thread

I already addressed this in a post to you. And no, apparently it is not so clear. If I said the Bible clearly says rape is okay would you agree? No, you would deal with the specifics of each scenario, elaborate with contextual evidence, and probably add something about NT vs. OT and Jesus changing things. The point here is that you are interpreting the bible. If I were to say that the bible said rape was okay I would be interpreting the bible.

The bible may mean homosexuality is a sin, but the bible may also not mean homosexuality is a sin. It does not clearly state anywhere that homosexuality is a sin.
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
I have always had a problem with the "be fruitful and multiply" argument, because what happens with a sterile man or woman who cannot procreate? I am unsure how Jewish law interprets it, but Christians tend to use the argument that same-sex marriage should not be legal due to the fact that there is no way for them to biologically procreate. It would mean that Christians would have to hold sterile heterosexual couples to the same law, forbidding them marriage.

Being fruitful and multiplying is only one of many reasons for Jews getting married. If after ten years a couple proves to be sterile, that could be grounds for divorce, assuming both were young and healthy. (I'm not saying that is the best option. I'm simply stating that it is ONE option. It was Sarah's barrenness at the time that inspired her to get Abraham to take Hagar on as a second wife.) Or, they could keep together and try to adopt.
Further, no one says anyone has to wait ten years before adopting.

However... If a couple marries later in life when either or both are beyond child-bearing years, or they know beforehand that one of them is sterile, as I said, being fruitful and multiplying was only ONE commandment involved in marriage.

I wouldn't say it was the be all or end all conversation about same sex marriage and why they would be forbidden. But is one inescapable factor that guys - and particularly guys, as women don't have the obligation, but it is impossible to fulfill this command without women) - will miss if they insist on a same sex union.
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
Being fruitful and multiplying is only one of many reasons for Jews getting married. If after ten years a couple proves to be sterile, that could be grounds for divorce, assuming both were young and healthy. (I'm not saying that is the best option. I'm simply stating that it is ONE option. It was Sarah's barrenness at the time that inspired her to get Abraham to take Hagar on as a second wife.) Or, they could keep together and try to adopt.
Further, no one says anyone has to wait ten years before adopting.

However... If a couple marries later in life when either or both are beyond child-bearing years, or they know beforehand that one of them is sterile, as I said, being fruitful and multiplying was only ONE commandment involved in marriage.

I wouldn't say it was the be all or end all conversation about same sex marriage and why they would be forbidden. But is one inescapable factor that guys - and particularly guys, as women don't have the obligation, but it is impossible to fulfill this command without women) - will miss if they insist on a same sex union.

isn't that a double standard?
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
But, if we are to consider the question logically the statement "the bible says homosexuality is wrong" is invalid.

Lets consider it logically

Under Gods Covenant with his people at Sinai.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman they shall surely be put to death

Now here God doesnt directly say he thinks homosexuality is wrong, he just says if any of his people commit a homosexual act their to be immediately stoned to death

Seems to me logically hes not too thrilled with it, of course thats only my opinion

Lets get real, the Bible clearly says homosexuality is sin. Thats the question of the thread
If you dont accept the Bible or have arguments against other things in it, start another thread

If you only follow this law from Leviticus and not the others then you are cherry picking to support your own bias instead of actually defending God's laws.
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
isn't that a double standard?

Is what a double standard? I said being fruitful and multiplying is only ONE of many reasons for marriage. What are you referring to?

Or, are you referring to the fact that guys have the commandment and women don't? If that's the case... There are many commandments that are incumbent on one or the other sex, or other segments of society.

Women aren't commanded to have children because women can die in childbirth or complications with pregnancy. God commanded us "to live by them", i.e. the commandments. So, God didn't command women specifically with a commandment that could potentially kill them.

However, for a guy to try to have children... The process for a guy is not nearly as arduous as pregnancy is. As such, guys have the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

While women don't have this commandment, it behooves a wife to help her husband fulfill this commandment.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
I think that he would argue that, somehow, the ritual and dietary Law was set aside, but not the sexual Law. Moving those goal posts puts him in the clear.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
I'd be really interested in seeing an informed, Jewish rebuttal to the letter, thanks.
 

allright

Active Member
I already addressed this in a post to you. And no, apparently it is not so clear. If I said the Bible clearly says rape is okay would you agree? No, you would deal with the specifics of each scenario, elaborate with contextual evidence, and probably add something about NT vs. OT and Jesus changing things. The point here is that you are interpreting the bible. If I were to say that the bible said rape was okay I would be interpreting the bible.

The bible may mean homosexuality is a sin, but the bible may also not mean homosexuality is a sin. It does not clearly state anywhere that homosexuality is a sin.

Right you get stoned to death because its not a sin

It was worthy of death till Jesus came and since then its just fine with God.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
Thanks for the input here. I saw this after I posted my request.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Right you get stoned to death because its not a sin

Still missing the point I see. Were they talking about promiscuous men screwing around on their wives?
Were they talking about shrine prostitution?
Were they referring to some form of idolatry?

What does the actual language say? How does the cultural context of the message change the message? What is homosexuality? all of these are relevant questions.
 

allright

Active Member
Still missing the point I see. Were they talking about promiscuous men screwing around on their wives?
Were they talking about shrine prostitution?
Were they referring to some form of idolatry?

What does the actual language say? How does the cultural context of the message change the message? What is homosexuality? all of these are relevant questions.

games games games
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Look. I'm not going to say that guys being interested in guys is wrong. Or girls in girls, for that matter. The law is usually more involved with guys spilling seed in a place outside a wife's vagina, and the fact that two guys shouldn't lie with each other the way a man lies with a woman.
I don't want to dogpile you here, but I have a question.

Wouldn't this law about spilling seed have more to do culturally than morally? What I mean is, when usurpers back then were trying to breed the Jew out, of course it makes sense to inseminate Jewish women with Jewish seed. But what about today, when no such danger exists?

Isn't the law about men lying with men more about the cultural position of shame/honor embodied in the sexes than it is about sexual immorality? And since we harbor no notion here, today, wouldn't the law would be moot?
 
Top