Which makes more sense? (Bible/Abrahamic debate)

[Absolutely Frank]

The word is applicable to people of the past.

Homophobia basically means you find homosexuality icky. It is not a term that is only applicable to modern people.

The author of Leviticus was homophobic obviously. He called for the death of homosexuals. This makes him quite categorically homophobic.

You say I'm "oversimplifying the situation". Can you expand on this? It makes me think of this part of the OP.

They weren't being homophobic - they were being tribal and they viewed certain things as an existential threat against the tribe. Social cohesion is all that matters in such societies. Remember they viewed Sabbath breakers, shellfish eaters, adulterers and rebellious kids in the same light as homosexuals - threats against the tribes cohesion. I really don't think they were actually being Red Lobster-phobic.

 

[dybmh]

There is a reason why my responses may seem repetitious.

Because you need to hate in order to feel alive, so you look for opportunities to post your hatred, and you lack the morals and ethics which prohibit being nourished by causing harm to others.

 

[dybmh]

The response literally added nothing to the subject/topic.

I think we need to start reporting his posts as SPAM. They're unproductive, and that is against the rules.

 

[dybmh]

informed response

Your information is INCOMPLETE. You avoid and smear anything which disagrees with you.

 

[ChristineM]

Sophomoric bible-bashing. I hate worthless reruns.

I believe he is entitled to any book that calls for his death. As are you

 

[Eddi]

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.

Yes!

 

[an anarchist]

Remember they viewed Sabbath breakers, shellfish eaters, adulterers and rebellious kids in the same light as homosexuals - threats against the tribes cohesion. I really don't think they were actually being Red Lobster-phobic.

Perhaps I wouldn't call them "lobster-phobic" simply because that term hasn't been established in our vernacular. "Homophobia" has been established in our vernacular, however, and that word can be used to describe behavior that is anti-homosexual.

You say they viewed your listed examples in the same light as homosexuals... what does that justify? Nothing. Being punished because you worked on "Sabbath" for the sake of "tribe cohesion" is not any sort of justification.

Let me iterate: the point of the example question in the OP is to ask if it makes sense that a loving God is homophobic. You have done nothing to refute the fact that the Bible God is a homophobe.

 

[dybmh]

I think I have a good understanding of the Christian literalist mindset

Keyword in the above: mind-set.

My understanding is definitely incomplete, but how much so?

1. Do you consider yourself, what happens in your own mind, and in your heart own heart, typical?
2. On a scale of 1 to 10 how easy is it for you to adopt another person's point of view and feel their emotions as if they were your own?
3. In regard to question #2, how would you know if you were not adopting the other individuals point of view and feeling emotions accurately enough to understand what they are going through in regard to the Bible?

judgement and logic

Yes. Your focus is on judgement and logic? a mind-set. This excludes emotional and aesthetic motives, right? Are there logical reasons to exclude both of these other forms of "making-sense"?

I think it's best to leave it up to the person answering "What makes more sense".

I disagree. If the two parties are not meeting on common ground, they will be not be arguing about the same topic. That's "talking past each other."

I first ask "What makes more sense?"

OK. So, you are asking yourself, "What makes more sense to you?" But you are not a Bible Literalist anymore. And perhaps, the reason for this is that your previous zealotry was based on what makes sense in only one way. If there are multiple ways to "make sense", and only one of them is logical and intellectual, then, that is a weak foundation for religious belief. It's not wrong. There's nothing wrong with relying purely on logic and intellect. That's a perfectly valid, useful, and effective means for making choices on what to do and what to believe. However, I am proposing that there are more ways to make those same choices, emotionally and aesthetically. I am not proposing, at least not yet, that these other means for evaluating the Bible's "truth" ( assuming truth exists ) are viable. I am only attempting to broaden the debate to be more complete so that the Bible literalist which does not fit into your mind-set is being excluded from your consideration.

 

[dybmh]

@Eddi, @Balthazzar ,

A note on homosexuality in the bible, in case it is helpful: In the Bible, No one but Jews are obligated to follow any draconian rules regarding homosexuality. Per the Bible, it's written, those laws were given to Jews and Jews only. This is an example of the harm that is caused by cultural appropriation. Non-Jews preaching against homosexuals have no basis for their campaign in the written Torah.

 

[Eddi]

@Eddi, @Balthazzar ,

A note on homosexuality in the bible, in case it is helpful: In the Bible, No one but Jews are obligated to follow any draconian rules regarding homosexuality. Per the Bible, it's written, those laws were given to Jews and Jews only. This is an example of the harm that is caused by cultural appropriation. Non-Jews preaching against homosexuals have no basis for their campaign in the written Torah.

What about gay Jews?

 

[InChrist]

The other possibility, of course, was that the authors of Leviticus reflected the homophobic concepts of the extant culture.

I don’t consider that a possibility, although you or anyone else is free to do so. Why would anyone, authors or otherwise, be homophobic, even care, or think about such things if everyone did whatever they thought was right or normal from their own human viewpoint? I don’t think the prohibitions against homosexuality or many of the other laws would have arisen in the minds of people who were just living their lives and doing their own thing. Therefore, I believe it was outside revelation from the Creator God for a purpose, for Israel at the time.

 

[InChrist]

Moot point. It still called for the death of homosexuals, and was a contemporary text when it was written.

Well, I can frame the question slightly differently.

Which makes more sense?
1: Leviticus 20:13 came from a literal and loving God. This literal and loving God demanded the death of any of his "sacred" tribe members who were gay.
2. Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, not God.

Do you suppose the excuse you offered is a valid excuse? It is not. "It was one of many laws... to keep them pure" you said. Lame and homophobic excuse. Again, I quote the OP.

There were many laws given to Israel which required death when violated. Breaking the Sabbath was one. Why are you isolating the one on homosexuality and not looking at the big picture or purpose?

 

[an anarchist]

There were many laws given to Israel which required death when violated. Breaking the Sabbath was one. Why are you isolating the one on homosexuality and not looking at the big picture or purpose?

I bring up homosexuality because it is a contemporary topic. In America, society has now formally deemed homosexuality as ok i.e. legal. On this topic, I've seen many Christians have conflicting emotions about this. The President is saying it's ok to be gay but the pastor is saying it is not.

The original intent of this OP is to suggest a thought experiment format. It seems the focus has turned to the example that I have used, but that is fine. The topic of homosexuals being condemned to death is sure to evoke a stronger emotional response from the modern person as opposed to the idea of a Sabbath breaker being put to death.

But the question works with Sabbath as well. "Does it make sense a loving God would put to death people working on their day off?" That's the point. Asking "What makes more sense?" can be used repeatedly throughout the entire Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 is just my first example, because I want to observe the homophobia and mental gymnastics in the responses excusing such a verse, denying that it was simply written by a homophobic man.

 

[Alien826]

If everyone were homosexual, there would have been no offspring. I suppose it worked two fold. An acknowledgement of need to procreate and acknowledgment that the pleasure of sexual relations are pleasurable but not without consequence, some of which would be far reaching if everyone were homosexual. I have no idea if anyone was actually put to death, but I'm guessing some were left out of the procreative lifestyle if woman were so turned off by the homosexual life that they wouldn't consider having sex with them, which may have played out in some communities. Beyond this, I have no idea. I do know that without ability to produce children humans fade into nothing, becoming among the next ousted species on earth. If this is homophobic, then I'm guilty. I'm with the mothers who produce children. Whether this is accepted coming from a man who honors motherhood and who understands that opposites do attract is beside the point. It's true. I'm not gay, bi, trans, curious or anything beyond what I am. I'm a straight male and it's not my place to judge anyone for their chemistry or attraction. There must be a reason for it, otherwise it would not be. This doesn't change my own position as a straight male.

I think it depends on the proportion of homosexuals in a society.

There are various ways a gay man can increase the population. He can (as when so many were in the closet) marry a woman and procreate. He can (and don't underestimate this one) look after other people's children. He can work in the medical field to, say, reduce deaths at birth, deaths of young children and extend the lifespans of women who will bear more children.

If you're wondering how the homosexual "gene" (if that exists) stays in the population, think of gay guys helping to raise children of their siblings.

And, last but by no means least, they are often wonderful entertainers! What would we do without them?

 

[dybmh]

What about gay Jews?

That's different. However, it's extremely rare for anyone to be ostracized, much less punished, simply for being gay and being in gay relationships in Jewish communities. There are loopholes in the law which can be exploited for the well-being of the parties involved.

 

[Eddi]

That's different. However, it's extremely rare for anyone to be ostracized, much less punished, simply for being gay and being in gay relationships in Jewish communities. There are loopholes in the law which can be exploited for the well-being of the parties involved.

To what extent would a Jewish person was a practicing homosexual be ostracised or accepted by their religious community?

 

[InChrist]

I bring up homosexuality because it is a contemporary topic. In America, society has now formally deemed homosexuality as ok i.e. legal. On this topic, I've seen many Christians have conflicting emotions about this. The President is saying it's ok to be gay but the pastor is saying it is not.

The original intent of this OP is to suggest a thought experiment format. It seems the focus has turned to the example that I have used, but that is fine. The topic of homosexuals being condemned to death is sure to evoke a stronger emotional response from the modern person as opposed to the idea of a Sabbath breaker being put to death.

But the question works with Sabbath as well. "Does it make sense a loving God would out to death people working on their day off?" That's the point. Asking "What makes more sense?" can be used repeatedly throughout the entire Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 is just my first example, because I want to observe the homophobia and mental gymnastics in the responses excusing such a verse, denying that it was simply written by a homophobic man.

Okay…”what makes more sense?”

Whether it’s breaking the Sabbath or breaking laws about homosexuality, what makes sense to me is that God the Creator knows what makes sense more than finite human beings do. I don’t consider God to be homophobic. I consider an All- loving, All-knowing, All-wise Being to simply know what works with His creation and to have valid reasons for giving such information and/or laws when He does so.

 

[Alien826]

The Bible does not openly call for your death. You are not rightly dividing, reading, or understanding the scriptures correctly. Questions to keep in mind while reading the scriptures are; who, what, when, where, and why?. Not all of the commands in the Bible were written for all people for all time. The passage you’ve quoted in Leviticus give to Moses was specifically for the children of Israel. It was one of many laws to set them apart as a nation and to keep them pure from the surrounding tribes and nations.
I think you should learn to properly read the scriptures before you go on blurring everything or anything contained in the Bible together.

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.

 

[dybmh]

To what extent would a Jewish person was a practicing homosexual be ostracised or accepted by their religious community?

In the worst cases, they would not be called on to lead parts of our ritual service, but they would be included in other ways.

Conservative Judaism does this already in many cases in regard to non-Jews participating in B'nai mitzvot ( Bar and Bat Mitzvahs ). I was a member of their board at the Conservative congregation here in Portland. I was invited to participate, because they thought they wanted religious Jews to help them make choices about their religious policies. I stormed out of there after the vote. It was disgusting.

See, from my perspective, if a community has decided to follow the rules in total, then it makes sense in a lot of ways to prohibit certain leadership roles from those who are publicly not following the rules. However, if a community doesn't follow the rules, intentionally, and attacks the Torah in order to justify their choices ( Reform and Conservative Judaism ), it is abhorrent to ostracize and exclude non-Jews or gay people because : "it's against the rules". That is NOT the real reason. And that is why I stormed off and never looked back. Those folks are on their own.

 

[Alien826]

I don’t consider that a possibility, although you or anyone else is free to do so. Why would anyone, authors or otherwise, be homophobic, even care, or think about such things if everyone did whatever they thought was right or normal from their own human viewpoint? I don’t think the prohibitions against homosexuality or many of the other laws would have arisen in the minds of people who were just living their lives and doing their own thing. Therefore, I believe it was outside revelation from the Creator God for a purpose, for Israel at the time.

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.