The Bible and Homosexuality

[shivadas]

It's really ignorant to be a Christian quoteing the old testament in the first place...

Modern knowledge says that Jesus the Christ, had made a complete break from Judaism. Not that I have anything against the Jewish faith but the old testament is not a Christian Text it is Jewish...
It was thrown in with the Bible to satisfy many Roman Jews during the creation of the Roman Catholic Church....

And Jesus was an Avatar, literally God Incarnate, does anyone reasonably think Jesus hates anyone?

 

[fantome profane]

Modern knowledge says that Jesus the Christ, had made a complete break from Judaism.

Really? :sarcastic

Tell us more.

 

[Curious George]

It is hard to say.
And... It has been brought to my attention that "abomination" isn't the correct translation, although the fellow who told me so never told me what the accurate translation IS.

I also tried to suggest that there are those who argue this. But I can understand why some random person on the internet might not be trustworthy. Moreover, I sometimes have a poor tendency of explaining things coupled with what some deem a condescending and sardonic attitude. I don't try to come off this way, yet it is inevitable.

Here is another version of the view in another persons words:

Leviticus 18 is a veritable catalogue of Egyptian and Canaanite ritual
practices involving behavior which, in terms of God's cultic prescriptions
for Israel's distinctive life and worship, were perversions. The chapter opens
with a repetitious declaration to Israel that she shall not walk in the statutes
of the Canaanites but in those of the Lord. There follows the list of practices that the Egyptians and Canaanites employed in their daily lives and
in their fertility cult liturgies and other related cultic activity: sexually consorting
with relatives, sexually consorting with women during their "menstrual
uncleanness," adultery, child sacrifice, homosexual behavior, and
beastiality.
There are four reasons repeatedly given for the proscription of these
practices. Such behavior compromises Israel's cultic and cultural distinctiveness.
It is a perversion. It is an abomination. The land will "vomit you
out when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you."
These four are weighted heavily in the passage by being placed against
their backdrop and raison d'etre, namely, "I am the Lord your God!" The
entire thrust of Leviticus 18 is the emphasis upon Israel's cultic and cultural
distinctiveness.
The Hebrew word for abomination (t6ceb&) is crucially significant here.
It is a word derived from the sphere of the cultic rituals of the cultures of
the Semitic Near East. Its stem means "to abhor" something for religious
reasons. Idolatry is the chief reference to such abomination in the Hebrew
Bible. Such scriptures as Deuteronomy 7:25, 27:15, II Kings 23:13, Jeremiah
16:18, and Ezekiel 14:6 speak of idols as an abomination. Leviticus 18, Deuteronomy
12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 18:9, II Kings 16:3, 21:2, II Chronicles 33:2,
Ezekiel 5:9,11, and Malachi 2:11 refer to idolatrous behavior as an abomination.
"Included as an abomination was not only the explicit practice of
idolatry, however, but anything that even remotely pertained to it, like the
eating of unclean animals and food (Lev. 11, Deut. 14:3-21)" (Kosnik, 1977,
p. 189). The assessment of Leviticus 18 for implications regarding homosexual
orientation or behavior, therefore, hinges upon the precise intent of
toceba, abomination, in verse 22.
In Leviticus 20 we have, quite curiously, a virtual repetition of Leviticus
18. Only two additions are made. First, all the proscribed cultic behavior
is described metaphorically as whoredom with Molech. Second, the
death penalty is added to all of the forbidden conduct including homosexual
behavior. Leviticus 20, therefore, contributes nothing to the discussion
except to reinforce the link between sexual behavior and cultic misbehavior
by the use of sexual metaphor to describe "heathen" worship practices.

Ellens, J. (1997). Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective. Pastoral Psychology, 46(1), 35-53.

 

[Curious George]

And some more that are less scholarly but still arguments

https://sites.google.com/site/mccso...mosexuality/misinterpreting-the-holiness-code

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

Shrine Prostitutes are never said to be homosexuals in the Bible.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender

Who Says Homosexuality is a Sin? « God Didn't Say That

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

And Jesus was an Avatar, literally God Incarnate, does anyone reasonably think Jesus hates anyone?

These guys aren't reasonable but they certainly think Jesus and God are haters.

 

[Curious George]

But this one....

Rabbi Eric Yoffee of UAHC, on March 29, 2000, released the following statement in response to the March 2000 resolution:

This afternoon the Central Conference of American Rabbis, meeting in Greensboro, NC, adopted a resolution by an overwhelming vote stating, in part, that "the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual."
It is important to note what the resolution on same gender unions does and does not say. It does not compel any rabbi to officiate at such a ritual, and indeed supports the right of a rabbi not to officiate. It does not specify what ritual is appropriate for such a ceremony. It does not say that the ceremony performed should be called a "marriage."
Nonetheless, the historical and religious significance of this resolution is indisputable. For the first time in history, a major rabbinical body has affirmed the Jewish validity of committed, same gender relationships.
What do the members of UAHC congregations think about this resolution? It is impossible to know for certain. Some have told me of their strong support, while others have indicated their opposition. Still others have said that they are sympathetic to the ideas expressed but felt no resolution was necessary at this time.
Over the last quarter century, the UAHC Biennial Assembly has spoken out strongly in support of human and civil rights for gays and lesbians. We have admitted to membership a number of congregations that offer special outreach to gay and lesbian Jews, and called upon Reform synagogues to welcome gay and lesbian Jews as singles, couples, and families, and not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in matters related to employment and volunteer leadership. And the UAHC has initiated vigorous education programs to heighten awareness of discrimination and to achieve fuller acceptance of gay and lesbian Jews in our midst.
The Union, however, has always refrained from addressing the issue of rabbinic participation in same gender weddings or commitment ceremonies. As a congregational body, it is our task to provide guidance on issues of congregational policy that are normally decided by synagogue boards. But performance or non-performance of a same gender commitment ceremony is a rabbinical matter, to be determined by each rabbi according to his or her conscience and understanding of Jewish tradition. Therefore, while our synagogue members have felt free to present their views to their own rabbis, and many have done so vigorously, the Union as an organization has appropriately remained silent on the CCAR resolution, and took no part in the many months of debate prior to the convention.
But I too am a rabbi, of course, and I was present at Greensboro. And I would like you to know that, voting as an individual, I cast my ballot in favor the resolution. I did so because of my belief that our gay and lesbian children, relatives, and friends are in great need of spiritual support; that the Torah’s prohibition of homosexuality can reasonably be understood as a general condemnation of ancient cultic practice; that loving, permanent homosexual relationships, once difficult to conceive, are now recognized as an indisputable reality; and that in these relationships, whether or not we see them as "marriages" it is surely true that G-d and holiness can be present.
I know that many disagree. But whatever one thinks on the commitment ceremony question, I assume that we will respect those who believe otherwise, and remember what unites us in this debate: our responsibility to welcome gays and lesbians into our synagogues. Because this I know: if there is anything at all that Reform Jews do, it is to create an inclusive spiritual home for all those who seek the solace of our sanctuaries. And if this Movement does not extend support to all who have been victims of discrimination, including gays and lesbians, then we have no right to call ourselves Reform Jews.
​

​

S.C.J. FAQ: Section 18.3.8. Reform/Progressive Judaism: Reform's Position On...Homosexuality

 

[Harmonious]

But this one....



[/indent]S.C.J. FAQ: Section 18.3.8. Reform/Progressive Judaism: Reform's Position On...Homosexuality

I hear ya.

But I'm not Reform, and I don't hold the ruling of Reform Rabbis as authoritative.

I'm interested in what they have to say, as it is always good to learn, but it isn't what will drive me, or inform me of what I should think or believe.

And I mean no disrespect to my fellow Jews who ARE Reform.

 

[Curious George]

I hear ya.

But I'm not Reform, and I don't hold the ruling of Reform Rabbis as authoritative.

I'm interested in what they have to say, as it is always good to learn, but it isn't what will drive me, or inform me of what I should think or believe.

And I mean no disrespect to my fellow Jews who ARE Reform.

But you have to understand what I am saying at this point. The Sacred Texts do not "say homosexuality is a sin." Interpretations say homosexuality is a sin. You just believe in your or other peoples interpretations.

 

[fallingblood]

It's really ignorant to be a Christian quoteing the old testament in the first place...

Modern knowledge says that Jesus the Christ, had made a complete break from Judaism. Not that I have anything against the Jewish faith but the old testament is not a Christian Text it is Jewish...
It was thrown in with the Bible to satisfy many Roman Jews during the creation of the Roman Catholic Church....

And Jesus was an Avatar, literally God Incarnate, does anyone reasonably think Jesus hates anyone?

Modern knowledge does not state that Jesus made a complete break from Judaism. In fact, most scholars, if not all, accept that Jesus was a Jew, and died a Jew. Even with the New Perspective on Paul, more and more are seeing him as a Jew as well.

The reason the OT was put into the Bible is because the earliest Christians were Jews. The was their accepted scripture, as they were Jews, and in fact, the NT relies heavily on the OT anyway.

 

[InfidelRiot]

The Jews do not perceive Jesus as the Messiah. There is no New Testament in their bible, the Torah.

 

[nsantori]

Using the Bible as a literal word of God is a known fallacy of Christians. They use it to "prove" that their point of view is somehow divine and needs no factual support. They can bypass the fact the the Earth was created before the Sun and that God made an oops and created Adam without a partner. He created Eve as an afterthought. Was he expecting Adam to mate with someone/something other than a female?

 

[Meow Mix]

Harmonious, I'm snipping some from the response for brevity. I did read all of it, and if you feel I trim anything that's important please let me know.

God commanded Abraham in circumcision. It was part of the covenant before Isaac was born.

It might be confusing to someone who never heard of it before, but Jews (or rather, who would become Jews) circumcised males since Abraham. It would have been a continuation of a family tradition, not a completely confusing new addition to give the masses.

Ok, and I do understand that you're not God and don't know the mind of God -- but the purpose of my questions aren't for you to explain God's actions but rather to point out an inconsistency in believing God is something we can understand to be "benevolent."

My question here is: okay, if circumcision wasn't a big deal because it had been a "family tradition" since Abraham, why not make opposition to slavery a "family tradition" since Abraham?

God could easily have convinced Abraham to disallow the holding of slaves to all his children if He could have convinced him (or his parents?) to chop off part of his hoo hoo dilly, it seems to me!

Benevolent beings don't fail to denounce wicked things; then turn around and indirectly condone them by applying some mild restrictions on them. That just tells people, "Hey, those guys are doing this terrible thing wrong, but if you do it THIS way it's not wrong."

I don't know of two many other earth-shattering changes to social laws you are referring to. You are asking me to hunt for inconsistencies that I'm not convinced are there.

If you give me a hint to what you are thinking of, we might have something to talk about.

For clarification, I wasn't thinking of anything specifically (though I thought of circumcision as an afterthought; and included it as an edit). I was asking if there was anything such as what I was talking about.

What you are asking me is unreasonable. You are asking me to second-guess the mind of God.

This is what the rest of the response ultimately boils down to (though I note your arguments about the difference in harshness of slavery and such -- I'm not ignoring that, just don't want this discussion to get totally sidetracked).

That's fair enough -- I agree that if God exists and possesses omniscience that I couldn't expect any fallible mortal to understand God's mind -- but I think a disparity between our perception of what is benevolent/malevolent and how God behaves becomes a very serious issue for which "knowing the mind of God" isn't necessary.

If God behaves in a way that's apparently malevolent yet we try to use special pleading fallacies to make an exception for God (citing His ineffable magnitude of x attributes, e.g. of knowledge, power, goodness, perfection, etc.), then we are engaging ultimately in self-refuting nonsense: we've left the realm of reason, as is the case with any fallacy's use.

 

[Harmonious]

Harmonious, I'm snipping some from the response for brevity. I did read all of it, and if you feel I trim anything that's important please let me know.

Okay. We will get back to some of either my post or yours at a later time.

Ok, and I do understand that you're not God and don't know the mind of God -- but the purpose of my questions aren't for you to explain God's actions but rather to point out an inconsistency in believing God is something we can understand to be "benevolent."

See, here is the thing. The belief system involved covers more things than even I am aware of. I am more than willing to say that any seeming inconsistencies I see are from MY lack of understanding than an actual inconsistency.

Greater heads than mine have thought more deeply on points in the Torah than I can fathom. Your pointing out the fact that there are things "I don't get" doesn't tell me that there is something wrong with my belief system, or with God, but with my understanding of either God or the law.

Also, I believe that God is benevolent, and I also believe that God understands great truths about humanity that we just don't take into consideration. There might be justice happening that we don't know about because we didn't see the deception, or the mitigating circumstances.

God sees all, and God knows all.

So... You are asking me to judge God because YOU see slavery (as neither you nor I could think of a different social issue that was changed so dramatically) as inconsistent with what you perceive as right and wrong. (I happen to agree with you, but I don't agree with your conclusions.)

At the start of the Penitential Season, when we know that God is set to Judge humanity for our deeds, our sins, and our fortunes over the course of the following year, judging God doesn't seem to be the thing to do.

My question here is: okay, if circumcision wasn't a big deal because it had been a "family tradition" since Abraham, why not make opposition to slavery a "family tradition" since Abraham?

I don't know. I wasn't there when the conversation happened.

If I was, maybe I could offer an explanation. But I don't know the answer to your question. I can tell you what is. I can even tell you what WAS. I can't tell you WHY this and not that.

I thought I did explain that.

Benevolent beings don't fail to denounce wicked things; then turn around and indirectly condone them by applying some mild restrictions on them. That just tells people, "Hey, those guys are doing this terrible thing wrong, but if you do it THIS way it's not wrong."

And Omniscient beings understand how to convey information and what will actually be accepted by the people said Being is communicating with.

See... This isn't going to work. You don't give God the benefit of the doubt, assuming you know better than God how to run His world. You are asking me to adopt your lack of confidence in my belief system because you have questions.

I can explain the what. I can sometimes explain the how. But I can't explain the why, and that seems to be the point you are driving home, even though I've repeatedly told you I don't KNOW the why.

God knows humans better than either you or I do. He knows: He created us, He programmed us, and He understands our motivations and our levels of understanding.

You don't see it that way. I respect that.

This is what the rest of the response ultimately boils down to (though I note your arguments about the difference in harshness of slavery and such -- I'm not ignoring that, just don't want this discussion to get totally sidetracked).

Good.

That's fair enough -- I agree that if God exists and possesses omniscience that I couldn't expect any fallible mortal to understand God's mind -- but I think a disparity between our perception of what is benevolent/malevolent and how God behaves becomes a very serious issue for which "knowing the mind of God" isn't necessary.

If God behaves in a way that's apparently malevolent yet we try to use special pleading fallacies to make an exception for God (citing His ineffable magnitude of x attributes, e.g. of knowledge, power, goodness, perfection, etc.), then we are engaging ultimately in self-refuting nonsense: we've left the realm of reason, as is the case with any fallacy's use.

You know...

I can tell you that I've read stories that explain how what seems cruel at one moment might not be if we understood everything in the Big Picture that only God knows and understands. I also understand that if you aren't interested in understanding what I'm saying, you can poke a hole in any story or parable I would choose to bring.

I wouldn't say that we have left the realm of reason. I would rather say, in the words of the great Chofetz Chaim (translated to English, of course): For those who believe, there are no questions. For those who refuse to believe, there are no answers.

 

[InfidelRiot]

For those who refuse to believe, there are no answers.

I would not state that is quite true. First, however, it is not that we refuse to believe so much as there is no valid reason to believe. Secondly, the answer in which we believe is that there is nothing supernatural in which to believe.

 

[fallingblood]

Using the Bible as a literal word of God is a known fallacy of Christians. They use it to "prove" that their point of view is somehow divine and needs no factual support. They can bypass the fact the the Earth was created before the Sun and that God made an oops and created Adam without a partner. He created Eve as an afterthought. Was he expecting Adam to mate with someone/something other than a female?

Correction. Only some Christians do that. Many, and a growing number, don't. I would say that a majority don't, at least in the west.

 

[Harmonious]

I would not state that is quite true. First, however, it is not that we refuse to believe so much as there is no valid reason to believe. Secondly, the answer in which we believe is that there is nothing supernatural in which to believe.

My quote wasn't as much to show a lack of inquisitiveness on the part of the believer, as much as a firmness of belief, such that doubts are not present.

For people who are looking for honest answers, even if they don't believe, they will be satisfied with an answer, even if they don't agree.

For people who are trying to catch a believer out, there is no amount of answers that would be sufficient for the purpose of answering their questions; the questions aren't looking for info, but they are built to cause doubt.

That is what I mean.

 

[waitasec]

Yes.

God created the world, and God provides sustenance for all living beings. The fact that said sustenance isn't distributed in a way to serve all living things, particularly PEOPLE, is a human failing.

how so?

I also have no problem believing that God can create as much space as is needed for all people. Waters recede, a volcano throws up a new island, people find new and more interesting ways to use space more efficiently...

I've never been a fan of Thomas Malthus. I DO believe in miracles, and if God told us to do something, I intend to make it my business to try to do it, if I am able.

even if it has to do with infringing on someones rights?

 

[Harmonious]

how so?

There are some nations with overflowing storehouses, and goverments pay farmers to destoy produce to drive up prices. There are countries wher people die of starvation regularly.

It isn't that God hasn't provided. The food is there, as God made the produce grow, and allowed the farmers in charge of animal husbandry to successfully raise cattle and other animals used for food.

It isn't God's fault that some people are corrupt.

even if it has to do with infringing on someones rights?

How do you mean?

 

[waitasec]

There are some nations with overflowing storehouses, and goverments pay farmers to destoy produce to drive up prices. There are countries wher people die of starvation regularly.

It isn't that God hasn't provided. The food is there, as God made the produce grow, and allowed the farmers in charge of animal husbandry to successfully raise cattle and other animals used for food.

It isn't God's fault that some people are corrupt.

ok i see what you mean.

seems there is a disconnect here.
as you claim god created this world and supplied it with everything it needs...for the purpose of serving mankind...as if we were the reason for being here in the 1st place. but what about diseases, the ice age, being hit by large astroids, natural disasters like tsunamis and hurricanes... then these are a part of gods plan too...right?

How do you mean?

with regards to homosexuals and how some use gods word to control their decisions

 

[Harmonious]

ok i see what you mean.

seems there is a disconnect here.
as you claim god created this world and supplied it with everything it needs...for the purpose of serving mankind...as if we were the reason for being here in the 1st place.

Yup.

but what about diseases, the ice age, being hit by large astroids, natural disasters like tsunamis and hurricanes... then these are a part of gods plan too...right?

Yup. I don't understand them, but they are also from God.

with regards to homosexuals and how some use gods word to control their decisions

I can't control what people do.

People who don't believe as I do will do or believe as they will.

I am not responsible for people getting married or not. I know that my belief system doesn't acknowledge marriage between various people. It doesn't acknowledge the marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. It does not acknowledge a marriage between siblings. It does not recognize marriage between a parent and his or her biological child. It does not acknowledge the marriage between two people of the same sex.

It is my job to be a loving human being, and to treat all people with love and respect, unless they have given me reason to do otherwise.

When I worked selling insurance and I met a married lesbian couple, I treated them no differently than I treated any other couple who I attempted to sell insurance to. They were pleasant people, even when they rejected my attempt to sell to them. I was pleasant with them.

Do you want me to abandon my belief system because it doesn't permit certain behavior? It doesn't permit theft, murder, and cruelty to living animals, either. Should that also be allowed because someone decides that it is acceptable behavior? Should I agree that this behavior is permitted, without question or pause, to assuage someone else's sensibilities, because someone decides that it is acceptable?

Are you really concerned with the rights of homosexuals? Or are you more concerned with disallowing religions that have belief systems that forbid certain behaviors, just because someone else wishes they were different?

I'm not with the Westboro Baptists, condemning people, protesting their actions. I'm not being cruel and vicious, or tearing into people's rights. As a matter of fact, a few pages ago, I very much stated that I was FOR governmental rights of homosexuals.

YOU and a few others in this thread are set to condemn me and my belief system for disagreeing with homosexual liaisons.

Maybe I should be concerned with MY rights to my opinions and beliefs...