Which makes more sense? (Bible/Abrahamic debate)

[an anarchist]

survival of the community was imperative.

Want to hone in on this point right here...

Are you suggesting that homosexuality works against "survival of the community"?

 

[an anarchist]

I see it as a way to preserve life

How in the heck does condemning homosexuals to death "a way to preserve life"?

 

[an anarchist]

Regarding Leviticus and Christian literalists specifically, I don't think any would be able to call for the killing of homosexuals and ignore the other acts punishable by death such as violating the Sabbath, adultery, or striking a parent. I also don't think Christian literalists get past Exodus but I understand where you are coming from.

You are missing the point.

What Christians believe is that the Bible is the literal "loving" God's words. So, they teach that God is homophobic and homosexuality is wrong.

I think you should drop the irrelevant point that it is unlikely that I will be killed on the basis of Leviticus 20:13. The teaching that God is a homophobe is still present.

 

[GoodAttention]

Want to hone in on this point right here...

Are you suggesting that homosexuality works against "survival of the community"?

Survival of ancient communities yes, and not just homosexuality but any of the crimes punishable by death.

For communities to thrive they had to obey their own laws first and foremost.

 

[an anarchist]

Survival of ancient communities yes, and not just homosexuality but any of the crimes punishable by death.

For communities to thrive they had to obey their own laws first and foremost.

Perhaps we can expand on this particular point tomorrow or another day. Getting tired but I think this could be interesting to expand on.
Edit: but maybe not. I feel like the thread has been quite derailed by the example I use in the OP.

 

[GoodAttention]

How in the heck does condemning homosexuals to death "a way to preserve life"?

Deterrence by punishment of death for engaging in an act that was considered wrong preserves the life of the homosexual individual.

 

[GoodAttention]

You are missing the point.

What Christians believe is that the Bible is the literal "loving" God's words. So, they teach that God is homophobic and homosexuality is wrong.

I think you should drop the irrelevant point that it is unlikely that I will be killed on the basis of Leviticus 20:13. The teaching that God is a homophobe is still present.

I consider myself an adulterer, should I be worried about Christian literalists too?

 

[Absolutely Frank]

I consider myself an adulterer, should I be worried about Christian literalists too?

As long as you don't compound it by eating shellfish and wearing cotton-polyester blends I think you'll be ok

 

[GoodAttention]

As long as you don't compound it by eating shellfish and wearing cotton-polyester blends I think you'll be ok

Oysters are deliciously enticing...

 

[InChrist]

Don't you think though, that some things are so universally abhorrent that they can be seen as wrong no matter how limited their application may be? I'm using a context where the commands were given by an all-knowing (or at least an "a lot knowing") God. If we are talking about words being put in the mouth of God by a people who were simply reflecting their own culture it's different.

Possibly some things are seen as universally wrong, but many are. In some cultures it’s common practice to steal or just move onto someone else’s property. In other cultures it’s acceptable for an older adult man to marry and have sexual relations with little girls. So, no I don’t think humans necessarily are capable of knowing, much less adhering to right and wrong without revelation and instruction from the Creator.

 

[InChrist]

Easy. There's a negative reaction in heterosexual people to the idea of sex between same sex people that has to be overcome to have a reasonable reaction to homosexuality. It happened to me. I felt homosexual sex was "icky", though I didn't wish gays any harm. Then I (long story) got to know a number of gay men and found they were just like me in just about every way but whom they were sexually attracted to. Then I got to like them and didn't even have the negative sexual reaction, though I still didn't share it.

Well, that’s great you got over your icky feelings. I’d say that isn’t the point, though, because it’s not about our feelings, icky or whatever. It’s simply about what is right or wrong, beneficial or harmful. As one who belongs to Jesus Christ, I am called to love others and icky parts of someone’s life don’t alter that. From my perspective, humans too often can’t determine right and wrong because we just go by feelings. So I see the need for the Creator’s wisdom.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I want to make this thread to pose a style of argumentation against a Bible literalist belief system. Perhaps my argumentation can be applied to Abrahamic religion in general, but my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists. Therefore, the arguments I pose will be geared towards addressing that belief system in particular.

My basic line of reasoning that I use as defense/offense against literalist philosophy is the following.

I first ask "What makes more sense?" Then, I can juxtapose what the Bible says against a contradicting belief. Then I ask again, does it make sense that an Omnipotent/benevolent God said/commanded this, or does the alternative make more sense.

The idea is to first "glance" at it I suppose. Make a surface level immediate answer. What does your gut tell you? Then, inspect the choices more closely, and see if you still agree with your initial choice.

This can be done repeatedly with the Bible on a multitude of topics. The point is to show that taking the Bible literally does not make sense.

For the OP, I will provide an example of this.

I ask the following: which makes more sense?

1: Leviticus 20:13 was written indirectly by an Omnipotent and loving God through His most revered prophet, Moses.
(Leviticus 20:13 NIV: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

2: The ancient Hebrews had some homophobic attitudes and wrote them down.

The Bible literalists claim that Leviticus was written directly by Moses and that Moses was a prophet of literal God. They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.). But their base claim is that the Bible is directly from literal God.

To me, as a gay man, it makes more sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, rather than a loving God.

I don't even have to think hard about this one.

To conclude... Christians in America cannot kill homosexuals. However, in times not so distant past, Muslims killed homosexuals on the basis of Islam. Currently, homosexuality is outlawed in various Islamic countries.

That's an example of why I view it as important to push back against religion. The Bible openly calls for my death. The believers in America cannot legally kill me, but if they could, who knows?

The first Five Books of Moses I believe were from God not any homophobic individual.

the Torah that God hath confirmed consists of the exact words that streamed forth at the bidding of God from the tongue of Him Who conversed with Him (Moses). (Baha’u’llah)

All forms of sexuality outside the Institution of marriage between a man and a woman incurred the death penalty at that time. Islam changed the penalty to a hundred lashes and the Baha’i Faith to a fine. But every one of these religions has condemned all forms of sexual acts outside marriage between a man and a woman as unlawful including homosexuality and only recognised marriage between opposite sexes as legitimate.

All these penalties seem to be to protect the Institution of marriage between a man and a woman and no sexual relationship outside this is acceptable.

Torah Ch 20 Death penalties for all sexual acts outside marriage not only homosexuality.

I am the LORD your God. 20,8 And keep ye My statutes, and do them: 20,10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 20,11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife--he hath uncovered his father's nakedness--both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 20,12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them. 20,13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 20,14 And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 20,15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast. 20,16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death;

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment” (Quran 24:2)

Bahai

“God hath imposed a fine on every adulterer and adulteress, to be paid to the House of Justice: nine mithqáls of gold, to be doubled if they should repeat the offence. Such is the penalty which He Who is the Lord of Names hath assigned them in this world; and in the world to come He hath ordained for them a humiliating torment. Should anyone be afflicted by a sin, it behoveth him to repent thereof and return unto his Lord. He, verily, granteth forgiveness unto whomsoever He willeth, and none may question that which it pleaseth Him to ordain. He is, in truth, the Ever-Forgiving, the Almighty, the All-Praised.”

The Kitab-i-Aqdas
Bahá’u’lláh

There is no penalty for homosexuality and homosexuals can join the Baha’i Faith but the only form of sexual expression considered acceptable is marriage between a man and woman. Again, it is the Institution of marriage that is being promoted and protected and no other form of sexual activity heterosexual or homosexual is considered moral .

 

[Heyo]

I want to make this thread to pose a style of argumentation against a Bible literalist belief system. Perhaps my argumentation can be applied to Abrahamic religion in general, but my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists. Therefore, the arguments I pose will be geared towards addressing that belief system in particular.

My basic line of reasoning that I use as defense/offense against literalist philosophy is the following.

I first ask "What makes more sense?" Then, I can juxtapose what the Bible says against a contradicting belief. Then I ask again, does it make sense that an Omnipotent/benevolent God said/commanded this, or does the alternative make more sense.

The idea is to first "glance" at it I suppose. Make a surface level immediate answer. What does your gut tell you? Then, inspect the choices more closely, and see if you still agree with your initial choice.

This can be done repeatedly with the Bible on a multitude of topics. The point is to show that taking the Bible literally does not make sense.

Checking if something "makes sense" is a good tool to begin an investigation, but the feeling of something not making sense is subjective and imprecise. Only if a closer look leads to an objective contradiction, either with itself or reality, can you really dismiss a text as not literally factual.
For the Pentateuch, that is easy. We know with scientific certainty that the Noah story can't be factual. I.e., whoever wrote it (or was "inspired" to write it), had no grasp of reality. It can't be literally true.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The modern nation state of "Israel" is modern. No other country would support it if it enforced Biblical law in full on the Jewish population. Imagine if the modern nation state of Israel was to execute gays for being gay.

Just FYI, I can't speak for the Christian bible, but in the Torah in Hebrew there is no execution for "being gay." In fact, we know historically executions were very rare to begin with in Jewish culture when there was self-rule. The issue is that the Christian understanding of the Christian bible is not the same as the written Torah in Hebrew and the practical Oral Torah of how Jews were commanded to do the Torah. The Oral Torah came before the written Torah, and the written Torah is simply a cliff notes of what was already known and in practice orally.

So, to address your question - there is no concept in the Hebrew Torah (written or oral) of execution with the exception of something that is along the lines of what most countries call treason. Meaning, that in every situaiton that the Torah speaks about execution it is talking about someone who does something that they know the Creator commanded Israel not to do, they do it anyway in public with witnesses, they do it to anger either the Creator or the Israeli / Jewish community, they know 100% for a fact that the Creator gave the Torah (written and oral), and they go before the Supreme Court of a "Torah based Israeli nation," and admit that they understand everything and accept the punishment - that is only after the Supreme Court of said Torah based nation has tried and exhausted all the ways to find them innocent. Even then, they can choose not to execute which is the reason why one doesn't find a lot of executions in Jewish history when there were independance. The preferred method being to try and convince said person of the right Torah based path.

Further, the only way for the system to even exist is if there were proof that the Creator is supporting / protecting the Israeli / Jewish nation.

Note: In the Torah sense, just because someone is execuated doesn't mean that they have no place in the world to come. It is considered, in the Torah perspective, that anyone can make what is called Teshuva (repentance) at any time while they are alive. Thus, there are some situations where the punishment is not for the sake of eternity and stuff like that, but simply a part of the way a society functions to have a certain order to it.

Now, the obvious question that hasn't been addressed is why such thing as intimate / physical relationships between men, and women by extention is considered forbidden for the Jewish nation? That requires one to seperate the theory / idea of a) the Torah was given by the Creator to the Israeli / Jewish people away from b) some ancient Israeli / Jew created the Torah and all of its content.

Starting at b) "some ancient Israeli / Jew created the Torah and all of its content" - there is no rational reason to follow any such text / rules / laws in this scenary. If some guy / guys just came up with the concept, one can push back against it since it would be the opinion or view point of that guy / guys. No real need to debate this. If one lives in a soceity where they have the power to push back or escape they should do so.

If we go to scenary a) the Torah was given by the Creator to the Israeli / Jewish people - this then begs the question. "Do the Israelis / Jews who received said Torah have rationales or reasons why this command was given?" So, to address that there are two, maybe three things pointed out in Torah based Jewish sources.

1. If one accepts that a Creator, created a reality and the rules by which reality is dicated one can see that as a reason go by the rules that said Creator established. It is like saying that said Creator built the house and calls the shots. That is one reason to do or not do something.
2. One of the reasons given in some Jewish sources is because of the seed of a male and what potential comes out of it. I.e. if one accepts that this Creator scneario and that the Creator made the male seed for a particular reason, then it stands to reason that the reason for said seed may have certain requirements to it. Kind of like the proper use clause found on some products.
   • In this vien, there is a concept that the male seed was made for the sake of producing future generations. The method created for that was for a biological male and biological female to procreate the speicies. In this concept, the thinking is that the male and male scenerio goes against the proper use clause and causes a situation where the potential for future generations is invalidated.
   • For example, with every coupling between a male and female there is the possibility to create a life that is needed in the world, either immediately, or in the future. We humans don't have full control over the entire process, but we have control over part of it. Because the wrong use can destroy a pontial birth possibility, and all of the results of that person being born - there is a prohibition against the wrong use. i.e. wasting male seed for something that doesn't have the potential for reproduction is considered on the level of murder. (murder on an unknown scale to use humans since we don't know how far geneologies will go in the future) Thus, we don't know what the potential outcomes are. The Creator does. Destroying one seed can mean destroy on generations, or countless generations - thus the connection to murder.
   • There is a concept in Jewish thought caused Avodah Zara, which can be translated as foreign work. There are some sources that call the behavior of going in the opposite direction of what it means to be human. Thus, one of the definitions of being human is to populate the world with additional humans and together make the world a better place.
   • All of the above has a lot more details behind it but this is a snapshot of the concepts.
3. On the flip side, it is considered natural for a man to love another man. Yet, there are limits to all things - and there are considered to be ways that the Creator gave for men who love each other to interact. On the flip side, there is a proper way for a man and a woman to love each. Again, going back to the proper use clause.
   • I.e. two men can be in love with each other, but that doesn't mean that everything goes just because they love each other. Even outside of the Torah concept, all relationships have bounderies and limits. The concept here is that the Creator also set limits for interactions, based on the reality the Creator intended. The Creator thus also knows where actions lead, in the reality He created, lead to.
   • Thus, it is natural for men to love other men, it is natural for women to love other women, and it is natural for men to love women. Yet, all forms of love comes with bounderies, even outside of the so called religious spectrum. Like how there are some kinds of love that adults can have for children which is considered normal and there are some types of love which are considered inappropriate even if the adult or the child thinks it is. That is of course societal norms at play.

Again, the above is a snap shot of at least some elements of the Torah based Jewish perspectives on the topic, but be aware that there is obviously more to it. So, one can say that a Creator loves someone, using human language, and one can also say that the Creator has set bounderies in reality.

 

[1213]

....
That's an example of why I view it as important to push back against religion. The Bible openly calls for my death. The believers in America cannot legally kill me, but if they could, who knows?

Maybe it would be good to read also these:

....the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,"
John 18:31

Don't judge, so that you won't be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.
Matt. 7:1-2

 

[Trailblazer]

The first Five Books of Moses I believe were from God not any homophobic individual.

the Torah that God hath confirmed consists of the exact words that streamed forth at the bidding of God from the tongue of Him Who conversed with Him (Moses). (Baha’u’llah)

That is not in the authoritative Writings of Baha'u'llah so I am not inclined to believe it.

Who wrote the Torah? In light of more than two hundred years of scholarship and of the ongoing disputes on that question,[1] the most precise answer to this question still is: We don’t know. The tradition claims it was Moses, but the Torah itself says otherwise. Only small portions within the Torah are traced back to him, but not nearly the whole Torah: Exodus 17:14 (Battle against Amalek); 24:4 (Covenant Code); 34:28 (Ten Commandments); Numbers 33:2 (Wandering Stations); Deuteronomy 31:9 (Deuteronomic Law); and 31:22 (Song of Moses). Despite all disagreement in current scholarship, however, the situation in Pentateuchal research is far from desperate, and there are indeed some basic statements that can be made regarding the formation of the Torah. This is what this contribution is about. It is structured in the following three parts: the textual evidence of the Pentateuch; the socio-historical conditions for the development of the Pentateuch, and “Ideologies” or “Theologies” of the Pentateuch in their historical contexts.

Who Wrote the Torah?

Who wrote the Torah? In light of more than two hundred years of scholarship and of the ongoing disputes on that question,[1] the most precise answer to this question still is: We don’t know. The tradition claims it was Moses, but the Torah itself says otherwise.

www.ias.edu

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is not in the authoritative Writings of Baha'u'llah so I am not inclined to believe it.

Who wrote the Torah? In light of more than two hundred years of scholarship and of the ongoing disputes on that question,[1] the most precise answer to this question still is: We don’t know. The tradition claims it was Moses, but the Torah itself says otherwise. Only small portions within the Torah are traced back to him, but not nearly the whole Torah: Exodus 17:14 (Battle against Amalek); 24:4 (Covenant Code); 34:28 (Ten Commandments); Numbers 33:2 (Wandering Stations); Deuteronomy 31:9 (Deuteronomic Law); and 31:22 (Song of Moses). Despite all disagreement in current scholarship, however, the situation in Pentateuchal research is far from desperate, and there are indeed some basic statements that can be made regarding the formation of the Torah. This is what this contribution is about. It is structured in the following three parts: the textual evidence of the Pentateuch; the socio-historical conditions for the development of the Pentateuch, and “Ideologies” or “Theologies” of the Pentateuch in their historical contexts.

Who Wrote the Torah?

Who wrote the Torah? In light of more than two hundred years of scholarship and of the ongoing disputes on that question,[1] the most precise answer to this question still is: We don’t know. The tradition claims it was Moses, but the Torah itself says otherwise.

www.ias.edu

That quote from an untranslated Tablet is from the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. Apologies if I did not include the source.

The Bible

The Bahá'í Library Online: Bahai articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

 

[Trailblazer]

That quote from an untranslated Tablet is from the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. Apologies if I did not include the source.

The Bible

The Bahá'í Library Online: Bahai articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

the Torah that God hath confirmed consists of the exact words that streamed forth at the bidding of God from the tongue of Him Who conversed with Him (Moses). (Baha’u’llah)

I still do not believe it since there is too much evidence to the contrary.