NationStates Jolt Archive

We have a lot talk about Christians and homosexuality and often Christians refer to passages of the Old Testament to back up their statements against it.

So I'd like to know what the stance(s) of Judaism on homosexuality are.

King David and Jonathan had a physical homosexual relationship (see thread entitled "Homosexuality").

The Book of Leviticus however says homosexuality is an abomination. So I can see Jews not liking it. But if you are going to hate one abomination, you better hate them all, such as:

-touching the skin of a dead pig
-eating shellfish
-wearing clothing made from blends
-working on the Sabbath (Sunday)
-adopting the customs of foreign lands (which we are all guilty of)
-cutting your hair/trimming your beard

Oh, keeping slaves as well as selling your daughter to slavery is OK. Hey, some Jews want the money (HEYOOOO)

...ooh even I found that to be in bad taste...

Anyway, once you realize the book of Leviticus was written to keep control over the Jews and stabilize their numbers during the Exodus, you might not take it so literally.

NOTE: I WAS JOKING ABOUT THE JEWS WANTING THE MONEY SO PLEASE DONT ACCOST ME.

I beleive that the jewish sabbath is saturday not sunday, but i might be mistaken.

Anyway, my point of view is you can never argue something because it says so in the bible, or your religion teaches it, you have to argue something on its own merrits. Sex is unitive and procreative--it strengthens a couple's relationship and is also for baby making. A child with two loving parents is going to be better off than with one loving parent who has to work double shifts. If you have sex with someone you don't love, and are doing it for just pleasure, it takes away the unitive part, and you also are having the possibility of creating a child which you aren't prepared to take care of. If you have sex using a condom, or with a person of the same sex, it takes away the procreative part--very little or no possibility of having a child.

So if you have a one night stand using a condom, or have a homosexual one night stand, you are taking away both the procreative and unitive natures of sex, and all that remains is the pleasure. When people do something purely because it gives them pleasure, they get enslaved or addicted to that action, and eventually they don't even have a choice anymore.

If you beleive in God, doing something purely for pleasure means that you aren't doing something because you love God, and that is bad. Forgetting the part about Jesus being God, if you beleive in what he taught, doing things solely to pleasure yourself in no way helps you fellow man, and in many cases can hurt others. Raping and murdering someone might feel good to them, but any objective observer can say this action is wrong.

Basically what I am saying is that passions are not bad, but they have to be properly ordered. Hunger--it may feel good to eat McDonalds and cake and icecream every day, but your going to get fat. Tiredness--it might feel good to sleep, but you can't sleep all the time or you miss school and work. In the case of sex, the only responsible time and place for it is with someone you are married to, with the intention of creating a baby.

Sex is NOT about procreation. Thats just a result.

You think animals say to themselves "man, I should really procreate" ? I doubt it. More like "damn I wanna tap me some fine ass because it feels good." If sex did not feel good, I dont think anyone/anything would do it.

Sex is NOT about procreation. Thats just a result.

You think animals say to themselves "man, I should really procreate" ? I doubt it. More like "damn I wanna tap me some fine ass because it feels good." If sex did not feel good, I dont think anyone/anything would do it.
Well that's one universal truth if I ever heard any.

And let's all keep in mind humans are animals, too. So that explains a lot of things.

Well that's one universal truth if I ever heard any.

And let's all keep in mind humans are animals, too. So that explains a lot of things.

Are you being sarcastic?

I beleive that the jewish sabbath is saturday not sunday, but i might be mistaken.

Anyway, my point of view is you can never argue something because it says so in the bible, or your religion teaches it, you have to argue something on its own merrits. Sex is unitive and procreative--it strengthens a couple's relationship and is also for baby making. A child with two loving parents is going to be better off than with one loving parent who has to work double shifts. If you have sex with someone you don't love, and are doing it for just pleasure, it takes away the unitive part, and you also are having the possibility of creating a child which you aren't prepared to take care of. If you have sex using a condom, or with a person of the same sex, it takes away the procreative part--very little or no possibility of having a child.

So if you have a one night stand using a condom, or have a homosexual one night stand, you are taking away both the procreative and unitive natures of sex, and all that remains is the pleasure. When people do something purely because it gives them pleasure, they get enslaved or addicted to that action, and eventually they don't even have a choice anymore.

If you beleive in God, doing something purely for pleasure means that you aren't doing something because you love God, and that is bad. Forgetting the part about Jesus being God, if you beleive in what he taught, doing things solely to pleasure yourself in no way helps you fellow man, and in many cases can hurt others. Raping and murdering someone might feel good to them, but any objective observer can say this action is wrong.

Basically what I am saying is that passions are not bad, but they have to be properly ordered. Hunger--it may feel good to eat McDonalds and cake and icecream every day, but your going to get fat. Tiredness--it might feel good to sleep, but you can't sleep all the time or you miss school and work. In the case of sex, the only responsible time and place for it is with someone you are married to, with the intention of creating a baby.

Gee, I sure hope you don't get pleasure from loving God.

Are you being sarcastic?
Nope, I'm serious. I usually add [/sarcasm] tags when I'm being sarcastic.

Gee, I sure hope you don't get pleasure from loving God.

I lol'd

Nope, I'm serious. I usually add [/sarcasm] tags when I'm being sarcastic.

Just wanted to be sure ;)

We have a lot talk about Christians and homosexuality and often Christians refer to passages of the Old Testament to back up their statements against it.

Torah says it's "unclean", not an "abomination". Much of Torah's admonitions on homosexual behavior was deliberately translated to be worse when Paul took it to the Greeks (those famous cornholers). Torah is very specific in that matter. Of course, it says a woman on her period is "unclean" in the same fashion.

Being unclean isn't a sin. It simply means you're not allowed to do certain things at the Temple until the end of a certain period of time.

Oh, and yes, Jewish sabbath is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Torah says it's "unclean", not an "abomination". Much of Torah's admonitions on homosexual behavior was deliberately translated to be worse when Paul took it to the Greeks (those famous cornholers). Torah is very specific in that matter. Of course, it says a woman on her period is "unclean" in the same fashion.

Well we all know Paul was a self-loathing homophobe who was probably gay himself.

Oh, and yes, Jewish sabbath is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

My bad. Either way, there is a Sabbath day and you are not supposed to work on it.

We have a lot talk about Christians and homosexuality and often Christians refer to passages of the Old Testament to back up their statements against it.

So I'd like to know what the stance(s) of Judaism on homosexuality are.

Homosexuality is a sin in Judaism, although in general Jewish groups tend to be more open to gays and homosexuality than Christians. Even though it is a violation of law, you aren't going to find many Jewish groups kicking their homosexual members out of services or protesting gay marraige on the side of the road like the Christians do.

You can find some parallels in Jewish culture to things in Christian culture taught about gays. When I read the conservative Israeli newspaper Artuz 7 they have banners for "curing Jews of homosexuality." So, the idea that it is something that can be "cured" crosses culture lines here. Of course, this is a culture issue rather than an issue of Halacha. I don't think it would be fair to say that Judaism teaches that homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured, only that some Jews believe this like many Christians do.

You should also keep in mind that Jewish law applies pretty much only to Jews. We aren't that interested in what the rest of the world goes out and does. Because there are mitzvot that forbid homosexuality and require us to marry and have children, this does not mean they apply to non-Jews. Most Christians don't realize when they read through the Torah that most of those laws were never given to non-Jews, but only to the Israelites.

And while there are many interpretations of what the verses in the Bible alone mean, gay Christians, gay non-Christians, etc. interpreting them however they like, it is important to realize that our Torah consists of more than just the Bible. If the Bible seems ambiguous about homosexuality (and I really don't think it does, I think people just don't want to admit that it is against it), the Talmud and rulings of rabbis throughout the ages is quite clear.

This is a good article that sums up various Jewish positions on homosexuality:

http://www.betham.org/kulanu/iansilver.html

King David and Jonathan had a physical homosexual relationship (see thread entitled "Homosexuality").

pfft, I hope you don't really believe that. There isn't a single shred of serious scholarship to support it. It is what we call "historical revisionism." You've taken a text, interpreted it, and revised it to mean something that it did not mean in its linguistic, cultural, or historical context.

Its like when Christians reinterpret verses that were never about Jesus or the messiah to be "messianic prophecies."

The Book of Leviticus however says homosexuality is an abomination. So I can see Jews not liking it. But if you are going to hate one abomination, you better hate them all, such as:

-touching the skin of a dead pig
-eating shellfish
-wearing clothing made from blends
-working on the Sabbath (Sunday)
-adopting the customs of foreign lands (which we are all guilty of)
-cutting your hair/trimming your beard

You're absolutely right. And this is where Christians go wrong; they take one Jewish law that was never intended for Goyim, but only for Jews, while ignoring the rest of them. Its really quite absurd.

In the article I linked to in a previous post Rabbi Shmuel Boteach confirmed exactly what you've stated, "Homosexuality is a sin like any other sin: because someone eats a ham and mayo sandwich does not in any way impair their ability to participate fully in Jewish life." For a Jew, eating ham is a sin. So is homosexuality. A sin like any other sin, as he stated, that does not condemn a Jew to "hell" or even exclude them from Jewish life.

pfft, I hope you don't really believe that. There isn't a single shred of serious scholarship to support it. It is what we call "historical revisionism." You've taken a text, interpreted it, and revised it to mean something that it did not mean in its linguistic, cultural, or historical context.

That's what religion is all about. You think the stories in the Torah were originally intended (by the creators of the stories, not the writers of the Torah) to be interpreted the way they are now? Stuff like the Creation Myth, essential idolatry in the desert (the statue of the serpent), and so on were all incorporated into a certain religious framework with their original meanings distorted. Or the Exodus from Egypt, for that matter.

The point is not that any of those things happened in the way described, though they might have; the stories are adapted to prove a moral and religious point, and thus questions of accuracy and original intent are irrelevant.

I don't know why the story of David and Jonathan is in the Bible, but I think it's conceivable that if God exists, He put it there to provide an example of same-sex love that was not the sort of idolatrous religious ritual condemned in Leviticus, but rather is an affirmation of God's wish for human beings not to be alone.

Homosexuality is a sin in Judaism, although in general Jewish groups tend to be more open to gays and homosexuality than Christians.


That's because we don't have the whole "do it our way or die" attitude that Christians have.

Torah says it's "unclean", not an "abomination".

"Toevah" is usually translated as "abomination", actually.

Edit: By the other references to "toevah" (and the way the Rabbis treat homosexuality in the Talmud) it seems to be a kind of religious restriction, something not done so as not to imitate the pagans, and not because it is necessarily a moral crime.

pfft, I hope you don't really believe that. There isn't a single shred of serious scholarship to support it. It is what we call "historical revisionism." You've taken a text, interpreted it, and revised it to mean something that it did not mean in its linguistic, cultural, or historical context.

I have to agree here. David's love for Jonathon was a deep and spiritual love, but there has never, in any sense of any Jewish teachings, been a law that says a man cannot *love* another man as he can a woman.

If anyone thinks love can only equate to sex, then they have never known real, deep, and true love.

"Toevah" is usually translated as "abomination", actually.

Aye ... sort of ... but not in the sense of being something we should cast out, despise, and hurt people over. I'll delve more into this later (or perhaps tomorrow) as Hebrew is a strange and mystical language and I am too tired to give it its proper due at this time.

However, this is subscribed so that I will remember.

Edit: By the other references to "toevah" (and the way the Rabbis treat homosexuality in the Talmud) it seems to be a kind of religious restriction, something not done so as not to imitate the pagans, and not because it is necessarily a moral crime.

Oh never mind ... you already got it. Heh. *whew*

Saved me some work. Hooray!

Oh never mind ... you already got it. Heh. *whew*

Saved me some work. Hooray!

My knowledge of Judaism is pretty extensive; I actually paid attention to what my teachers back at the Jewish school I went to taught me (unlike everybody else, which is why I left), to all the little minutiae Rabbis sometimes mention, and to the stuff you just pick up over time by reading and thinking a lot.

Being the kind of person I am I tend to see it all in a rather heretical manner, though.

My knowledge of Judaism is pretty extensive; I actually paid attention to what my teachers back at the Jewish school

Hooray! Someone else who paid attention at Yeshiva. If I didn't, my mother could throw a shoe with sniper accuracy. :D

Being the kind of person I am I tend to see it all in a rather heretical manner, though.

Oh ... forgot this sentence ...

*aherm*

*response commencing*

You wouldn't be a Jew if you didn't. Look how much Abraham argued with Hashem.

I have to agree here. David's love for Jonathon was a deep and spiritual love, but there has never, in any sense of any Jewish teachings, been a law that says a man cannot *love* another man as he can a woman.

If anyone thinks love can only equate to sex, then they have never known real, deep, and true love.

Right, a deep love for your brother isn't a violation of any law as far as I know. I hope I didn't sound like I was implying it was.

Right, a deep love for your brother isn't a violation of any law as far as I know. I hope I didn't sound like I was implying it was.

No you weren't. I was agreeing with your interpretation. :)

Aye ... sort of ... but not in the sense of being something we should cast out, despise, and hurt people over. I don't know about 'hurt people over' , but 'toevah' definately refers to something hated, despised, and reviled.

Basically homos are just as big a no-no in Judaism as in Christianity. If you care for bigoted religions in the first place.

Basically homos are just as big a no-no in Judaism as in Christianity. If you care for bigoted religions in the first place.

Not in the same sense. You have to remember that Torah is a living thing. Only 10 things were carved in stone by the "hand of God". The rest of it is changeable, living, and breathing. It's like the Constitution ... it can be amended and adapted.

Leviticus 18:22 was never a "carved in stone" comandment.

They may have been a big no-no in the past, but not so much anymore.

We're not Christians, for cryin' out loud. We don't see "The BIBLE" (flare of trumpets and farting angels) as perfection acheived.

Basically homos are just as big a no-no in Judaism as in Christianity. If you care for bigoted religions in the first place.

I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. Keep in mind that many forms of popular Christianity in the US teach things like "God hates gays" and "gays burn in hell." Judaism teaches no such thing. It may still be considered a sin, but like Rabbi Boteach stated, it is a sin on par with other sins, like eating lobster. I've never heard a Jew espouse the form of bigotry and hatred toward homosexuals that is found in Christianity.

And on that note, we tend to restrict the mitzvot and "sin" to ourselves. We don't go around saying "Hey you, non-Jews, you're all a bunch of hellbound sinners" like Christians do. If we consider it sinful, its sinful to us as Jews (like keeping kosher) rather than a crusade where we feel that it is sinful to non-Jews and that we need to push it upon them.

Not in the same sense. You have to remember that Torah is a living thing. Only 10 things were carved in stone by the "hand of God". The rest of it is changeable, living, and breathing. It's like the Constitution ... it can be amended and adapted.

Leviticus 18:22 was never a "carved in stone" comandment.

They may have been a big no-no in the past, but not so much anymore.

We're not Christians, for cryin' out loud. We don't see "The BIBLE" (flare of trumpets and farting angels) as perfection acheived.While this is true, (since the official laws in Judaism are determined by rabbis, not the bible), tell that to to the folks that put together the latest version of the Shulchan Aruch, and get laughed out of town. Many Jewish communities are very accepting of homosexuals, as many christian ones are too, but the official orthodox party line remains negative.

If we consider it sinful, its sinful to us as Jews (like keeping kosher) rather than a crusade where we feel that it is sinful to non-Jews and that we need to push it upon them.

Exactly. I bitch at my Jewish friend all the time when he orders the ham omelet when we go to Waffle House, but I would not dream of bitching at my non-Jewish wife for having a BLT.

You wouldn't be a Jew if you didn't. Look how much Abraham argued with Hashem.

I'm not sure how much I believe in "Hashem" at this point, though that uncertainty didn't stop me from attending synagogue an inordinate number of times during the first three days of Passover, but it's precisely that spirit, added to the shocking number of leftists we have produced, that keeps me associating with Judaism.

but the official orthodox party line remains negative.

Yeah but who really gives a rat's ass about them? There's like, what ... 5 of them?

I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. Keep in mind that many forms of popular Christianity in the US teach things like "God hates gays" and "gays burn in hell." Judaism teaches no such thing. It may still be considered a sin, but like Rabbi Boteach stated, it is a sin on par with other sins, like eating lobster. I've never heard a Jew espouse the form of bigotry and hatred toward homosexuals that is found in Christianity.

And on that note, we tend to restrict the mitzvot and "sin" to ourselves. We don't go around saying "Hey you, non-Jews, you're all a bunch of hellbound sinners" like Christians do. If we consider it sinful, its sinful to us as Jews (like keeping kosher) rather than a crusade where we feel that it is sinful to non-Jews and that we need to push it upon them.I honestly don't know the degree of severity that gay people experience within orthodox communities. I imagine that it is not pretty at all. While yes, Jews tend not to shove their religion down other people's throats quite as much, what is sinful is not necessarily sinful to only Jews. There are the nine "mitzvot benei noah" that all humanity must supposedly fulfill.

But that's a bit off-topic already. I think that liberal-minded Jews need to work from the ground up to change the 'official' policy on homosexuality among the various movements.

Not in the same sense. You have to remember that Torah is a living thing. Only 10 things were carved in stone by the "hand of God". The rest of it is changeable, living, and breathing. It's like the Constitution ... it can be amended and adapted.

According to some views. The Orthodox tend not to think so, though the Rabbis may well have.

Leviticus 18:22 was never a "carved in stone" comandment.

hey may have been a big no-no in the past, but not so much anymore.

Well, it's in the Torah, so it's not like we can just ignore it. At least some justification has to be advanced for relaxing the restriction.

We're not Christians, for cryin' out loud. We don't see "The BIBLE" (flare of trumpets and farting angels) as perfection acheived.

But add the Bible to the Rabbinic halachot, and there are plenty who will say it is exactly that.

I'm not sure how much I believe in "Hashem" at this point, though that uncertainty didn't stop me from attending synagogue an inordinate number of times during the first three days of Passover

Such is the fun of being Jewish. Believe or not believe. Knock yourself out.

Remember the plight of Elijah.

Elijah lamented that the Jews of his day weren't being Jewish enough and what was his fate? He now has to be called to every Brit Milah and every Seder. Whether that Brit Milah is done out of tradition, rather than belief, and whether that seder is done out of tradition ... etc etc ....

Elijah must show his ass up at every one.

Don't lament the Jews breaking away from "Jewishness" or you may too end up being cursed to show up at every yeshiva mecha.

There are the nine "mitzvot benei noah" that all humanity must supposedly fulfill.

Actually that was right there in the back of my mind. One of those does prohibit "sexual immorality", although I'm not sure what all that consists of.

I honestly don't know the degree of severity that gay people experience within orthodox communities. I imagine that it is not pretty at all.

I suppose it varies, but for many, it most assuredly is not. Growing up gay among, say, the Haredi would not be an experience I would wish on anyone.

According to some views. The Orthodox tend not to think so, though the Rabbis may well have.

I was raised Breslov Chassid. Show me anyone more "Orthodox" and I'll eat my hat.

Well, it's in the Torah, so it's not like we can just ignore it.

Actually ... we can ... Free Will. Sucks for us, sucks for God. Regardless, it's there. We can ignore whatever we damn well please.


But add the Bible to the Rabbinic halachot

Oops ... so some man somewhere decreed what "God meant" and we must automagically believe it? I think not. :p

Yeah but who really gives a rat's ass about them? There's like, what ... 5 of them?Maybe where you live, but *newsflash*, in Israel and bigger cities, what they think matters in a material way to a great many people.

But add the Bible to the Rabbinic halachot, and there are plenty who will say it is exactly that.Well no. The whole idea of the Mishna and Gemara (what comprises the main body of halachot) is to extrapolate, interpolate, get around, or invent laws that are existing from the torah, or missing, respectively. The act of legislation is very empowering towards humans in fact. The Rabbis were quite radical in the power they gave themselves to decide and change - the very opposite of believing in a 'perfect' bible. Now they may justify this attitude by all manner of creative interpretation and conjecture from biblical text -but the underlying theme of active, creative, legislation is there throughout.

I was raised Breslov Chassid. Show me anyone more "Orthodox" and I'll eat my hat.

And you were taught that the law was ever-changing? Isn't that the chief difference between Conservative and Orthodox Judaism - this idea of continual revelation?

Actually ... we can ... Free Will. Sucks for us, sucks for God. Regardless, it's there. We can ignore whatever we damn well please.

Yes, of course. I meant in the Jewish context. We can't say it doesn't violate the halacha unless we have a reason.

Oops ... so some man somewhere decreed what "God meant" and we must automagically believe it? I think not. :p

Nor do I, but there are plenty who do.

I beleive that the jewish sabbath is saturday not sunday, but i might be mistaken.

Anyway, my point of view is you can never argue something because it says so in the bible, or your religion teaches it, you have to argue something on its own merrits. Sex is unitive and procreative--it strengthens a couple's relationship and is also for baby making. A child with two loving parents is going to be better off than with one loving parent who has to work double shifts. If you have sex with someone you don't love, and are doing it for just pleasure, it takes away the unitive part, and you also are having the possibility of creating a child which you aren't prepared to take care of. If you have sex using a condom, or with a person of the same sex, it takes away the procreative part--very little or no possibility of having a child.

So if you have a one night stand using a condom, or have a homosexual one night stand, you are taking away both the procreative and unitive natures of sex, and all that remains is the pleasure. When people do something purely because it gives them pleasure, they get enslaved or addicted to that action, and eventually they don't even have a choice anymore.

If you beleive in God, doing something purely for pleasure means that you aren't doing something because you love God, and that is bad. Forgetting the part about Jesus being God, if you beleive in what he taught, doing things solely to pleasure yourself in no way helps you fellow man, and in many cases can hurt others. Raping and murdering someone might feel good to them, but any objective observer can say this action is wrong.

Basically what I am saying is that passions are not bad, but they have to be properly ordered. Hunger--it may feel good to eat McDonalds and cake and icecream every day, but your going to get fat. Tiredness--it might feel good to sleep, but you can't sleep all the time or you miss school and work. In the case of sex, the only responsible time and place for it is with someone you are married to, with the intention of creating a baby.


I'm curious, Chuge. I'm assuming, based on your statement, that you disagree with the concept of gay marriage and/or homosexuals adopting children (though if I'm mistaken, please correct me). For the sake of argument, let's assume that you don't disagree with it, and that it is perfectly legal for gays to marry and adopt children wherever you are; it is still a loving, two-parent household with the aim of raising children (otherwise-unwanted children, no less), would homosexuality then be okay? Suppose it was a heterosexual couple who, for whatever reason, could not conceive? Would sex-for-pleasure then be okay? What about an unmarried couple? Would sex-for-pleasure not bring unity to them? After all, sex-for-pleasure is not only about one's own satisfaction, but that of one's partner as well (and that unity could be a big step in the decision to procreate at a later date).

Also, yes, the Jewish Sabbath is Saturday.

I'm curious, Chuge. I'm assuming, based on your statement, that you disagree with the concept of gay marriage and/or homosexuals adopting children (though if I'm mistaken, please correct me). Hi Keddie, welcome to NS.

Please though, don't make this into a gay marriage debate, there are SOOOO many threads devoted to that already. This thread relates to Judaism and homosexuality.

Maybe where you live, but *newsflash*, in Israel and bigger cities, what they think matters in a material way to a great many people.


Technically, Israel shouldn't exist. What stands now was taken by military might and not by the Will of God and, thus, we can accept ceaseless war (as written in Talmud) or walk away.

I choose to walk away. The current State of Israel may be legal in the UN's eyes, but not in Holy Law.

And you were taught that the law was ever-changing? Isn't that the chief difference between Conservative and Orthodox Judaism - this idea of continual revelation?

Not at all. Don't confuse us with the Chabad.

Nor do I, but there are plenty who do.

Aye ... but very, very few people listen to them. :D

I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. Keep in mind that many forms of popular Christianity in the US teach things like "God hates gays" and "gays burn in hell." Judaism teaches no such thing. It may still be considered a sin, but like Rabbi Boteach stated, it is a sin on par with other sins, like eating lobster. I've never heard a Jew espouse the form of bigotry and hatred toward homosexuals that is found in Christianity.



There are a couple issues with this statement...

1. There are a number of "popular US Christian denominations" that are NOT Christian at all but are instead nothing more than trumped up cults (no I'm not joking, yes I am serious, and yes there is proof). The major two examples are Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. So I would submit that because they are in fact not Christian, their views on any and everything should not be generalized as Christian.

I believe you will find many (certainly not all, but many) Christian church organizations that condemn (and rightly so) the sin of homosexuality. However the statement that "God hates all gays" is totally innaccurate, for God loves all his creatures. God certainly does hate the sin, and will punish the sinner, but for the saving grace of Christ. (I realize this devles deeply into the heart of Christian doctrine and I welcome any questions, though I will refrain from going further as this is certainly not the thread to discuss such an issue, I simply wanted to give a short summary of what the Christian perspective on homosexuality should be).

2. You are exactly correct it stating homosexuality is a sin like all other, HOWEVER, as sinful human beings we tend to trivialize our sins. So instead of bringing homosexuality to the level of say, taking the Lord's name in vain, we should rather think of it the opposite way. Taking the Lord's name in vain is just as bad as homosexuality. Every human ever concieved is sinful and sins. And even 1 sin is enough to damn to hell.


Homosexuality is wrong, and can (like any other sin) damn a person to hell. And thankyou to whomever pointed out that David and Johnothan were not homosexual, you are absolutely correct.

Technically, Israel shouldn't exist. What stands now was taken by military might and not by the Will of God and, thus, we can accept ceaseless war (as written in Talmud) or walk away.

I choose to walk away. The current State of Israel may be legal in the UN's eyes, but not in Holy Law.and, how is this relevant to the discussion of at hand? Not that I really want to get into it, but weren't you just dismissing Jewish law as interpretive and plastic? Where do you pull your HOLY LAW out of, exactly?

Homosexuality is wrong, and can (like any other sin) damn a person to hell. And thankyou to whomever pointed out that David and Johnothan were not homosexual, you are absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, and very sadly, you are taking the Jewish idea of "sin" and trying to capture it as your own. This is the problem with worshipping a zombie who claims to be the "Jewish Messiah".

You are wrong, your whole post is misguided, and I genuinely hope you come to that realisation.

Whatever.

and, how is this relevant to the discussion of at hand?

It's not ... just being argumentative. :p

If you want to take me seriously, you picked the wrong Jew. :D

It's not ... just being argumentative. :p

If you want to take me seriously, you picked the wrong Jew. :DSo you want to be argumentatively not-serious? Or just squirm out of a tight spot.


*shrug*

There are a couple issues with this statement...

1. There are a number of "popular US Christian denominations" that are NOT Christian at all but are instead nothing more than trumped up cults (no I'm not joking, yes I am serious, and yes there is proof). The major two examples are Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. So I would submit that because they are in fact not Christian, their views on any and everything should not be generalized as Christian.

I believe you will find many (certainly not all, but many) Christian church organizations that condemn (and rightly so) the sin of homosexuality. However the statement that "God hates all gays" is totally innaccurate, for God loves all his creatures. God certainly does hate the sin, and will punish the sinner, but for the saving grace of Christ. (I realize this devles deeply into the heart of Christian doctrine and I welcome any questions, though I will refrain from going further as this is certainly not the thread to discuss such an issue, I simply wanted to give a short summary of what the Christian perspective on homosexuality should be).

2. You are exactly correct it stating homosexuality is a sin like all other, HOWEVER, as sinful human beings we tend to trivialize our sins. So instead of bringing homosexuality to the level of say, taking the Lord's name in vain, we should rather think of it the opposite way. Taking the Lord's name in vain is just as bad as homosexuality. Every human ever concieved is sinful and sins. And even 1 sin is enough to damn to hell.


Homosexuality is wrong, and can (like any other sin) damn a person to hell. And thankyou to whomever pointed out that David and Johnothan were not homosexual, you are absolutely correct.
there are a great many errors in your post, which I will not address in this thread.

The one that I will address is your concept of sin. You read the Torah with cultural backnoise. You read "sin" in the Christian sense. It was written more accuratly in the modern Jewish sense (although, that has picked up a bit of the cultural backnoise itself). Judaism has no clearly defined hell, and therefore, no sin that is worthy of damnation. It falls under the same heading as touching dead pig, mixing milk and meat, menstruating, etc.

So you want to be argumentatively not-serious? Or just squirm out of a tight spot.

Wait ... do you honestly think NS General is a good place for true debate over points of Toah?

Errr ... ouch.

I just would like to remind everyone that at the time that the levitical law was written, many of these sins that are listed as toevah were punishable by stoning

Technically, Israel shouldn't exist. What stands now was taken by military might and not by the Will of God and, thus, we can accept ceaseless war (as written in Talmud) or walk away.

I choose to walk away. The current State of Israel may be legal in the UN's eyes, but not in Holy Law.

Not exactly a "reishit smichat ge'ulateinu" person, are you?

Sometimes right-wing Zionism sounds to me like "let's be just as mean and cruel as everyone else," and that sentiment runs pretty much as contrary to Judaism as you can get. Beyond that, I don't know what I think, in religious terms, of the State of Israel.

Not exactly a "reishit smichat ge'ulateinu" person, are you?


No, I'm not. I'm one of those crazy Jews that think I'll get a personal invitation from the Messiah (with cool font and gilded envelope) when it's time.

Wait ... do you honestly think NS General is a good place for true debate over points of Toah?

Errr ... ouch.Not the best- oral discussion is always preffered. But I don't see why not - plenty of other complex topics are discussed here. I also don't see why you would bring the issue of Israel's religious (il)legality up as a joke, since it is a serious allegation which some people definately subscribe to.

I just would like to remind everyone that at the time that the levitical law was written, many of these sins that are listed as toevah were punishable by stoning

The Rabbis were strongly opposed to the casual use of the death penalty. Taking such injunctions literally is unwise.

The Rabbis were strongly opposed to the casual use of the death penalty. Taking such injunctions literally is unwise.
Hevean forbid we should take The Law seriously.

The Rabbis were strongly opposed to the casual use of the death penalty. Taking such injunctions literally is unwise.levitical law=book of leviticus. He/she is reffering to pre-rabbis.

though yes, Jewish law, for all its outward harshness, often takes pains to find the most lenient manner of going about something.
As the famous expression goes: a Sanhedrin that gives one death penalty every sevently years is a bloody one.

Hevean forbid we should take The Law seriously.

Heaven forbid that we should ignore the Rabbis and basic moral principle for the sake of a cruel and ruthless ethic of vengeance.

U'bacharta ba'chaim, lema'an tichye.

levitical law=book of leviticus. He/she is reffering to pre-rabbis.

I know. I was pointing out that the Rabbis, according to whom the Law is supposed to be interpreted, did not interpret those injunctions literally.

though yes, jwish law, for all its outrward harshness, often takes oains to find the most lenient manner of going about something.

One of its most admirable features.

Unfortunately, and very sadly, you are taking the Jewish idea of "sin" and trying to capture it as your own.
What's wrong with stealing someone else's idea of sin? The whole idea of Christianity is that it is supposed to be the fullfillment of the law, the jewish tradition, in fact all of Judaism. That's why there are so many references to it in the new testament. The original church fathers thought of their religion as the natural outgrowth of Judaism. (If of course you accept the basic premise that Jesus was, in fact the Messiah. Cause if he's not then he is just another dead heretic and all of christianity is bogus anyway)

I also don't see why you would bring the issue of Israel's religious (il)legality up as a joke, since it is a serious allegation which some people definately subscribe to.

Because a sense of humor is all we've got. What did we do in response to the Nazis? We wrote plays and musicals. What will we do in response to the Arabs? We'll write plays and musicals.

The lesson of Yom Hashoah is that we will prevail.

Hevean forbid we should take The Law seriously.

We should only take the law seriously when it's funny.

What's wrong with stealing someone else's idea of sin? The whole idea of Christianity is that it is supposed to be the fullfillment of the law, the jewish tradition, in fact all of Judaism. That's why there are so many references to it in the new testament. The original church fathers thought of their religion as the natural outgrowth of Judaism. (If of course you accept the basic premise that Jesus was, in fact the Messiah. Cause if he's not then he is just another dead heretic and all of christianity is bogus anyway)
It's wrong to steal the concept of sin, for the purposes of this thread, because the question is how does Judaism deal with homosexuality. Therefore, using the Christian concept of sin answers the wrong question.

Because a sense of humor is all we've got. What did we do in response to the Nazis? We wrote plays and musicals. What will we do in response to the Arabs? We'll write plays and musicals.

The lesson of Yom Hashoah is that we will prevail.How totally superficial. Gross keruvalia, really gross. 'Plays and musicals' were not the most important legacies of the Nazis - though why you've brought *this* up, I really have no idea. I guess all I can say is that Godwin's law pwns you.


anyway, bedtime. g'night all

The whole idea of Christianity is that it is supposed to be the fullfillment of the law

It is impossible to fulfill the law by breaking the 1st Utterance.

U'bacharta ba'chaim, lema'an tichye.
Dont speak hebrew what does this mean?

Dont speak hebrew what does this mean?
"And you must chose life, so that you may live"

I guess all I can say is that Godwin's law pwns you.


*sigh*

Vay’khal Elohiym ba-yom ha-shviyiy melakhto asher asah ....

Take a break. The Eternal did.

There is nothing by the Nazis you could ever compare me to.

How totally superficial. Gross keruvalia, really gross. 'Plays and musicals' were not the most important legacies of the Nazis - though why you've brought *this* up, I really have no idea. I guess all I can say is that Godwin's law pwns you.


anyway, bedtime. g'night all
that isn't a godwin...all Keru said is that Jews dealt with the Nazis through comedy...Mel Brooks being the shining star of this, but pretty much all Jewish Comedians following his lead. That is how we dealt with it, and that is how we will continue to deal with it ("it" being quite vague here). Jews have always been known for a self-depricating sense of humor.

It is impossible to fulfill the law by breaking the 1st Utterance.

Isn't it the 2nd, in the Jewish version?

Dont speak hebrew what does this mean?

"Choose life, that you may live," from Deuteronomy 30:19. Next to "love your neighbor as yourself," I think of it as the most important clause in the Torah.

"And you must chose life, so that you may live"
interesting. bye

Seriously ... are we just gonna keep fighting? Are we going to let the Christians decide our "scripture"?

Fine ... I'm going to have some ribs with awesome BBQ sauce ...

Seriously ... are we just gonna keep fighting? Are we going to let the Christians decide our "scripture"?

Fine ... I'm going to have some ribs with awesome BBQ sauce ...
*shrug*

it never seems to be understood...the Jewish interpretation is the correct one for Judaism, Christian interpretation for Christianity, Muslim for Islam.

Just because a christian says it is so does not make it so for the others.

Christians pick and choose which parts of the Torah to follow, and thereby get a very different interpretation. Jews tend to atleast acknowledge all the laws of the Torah, and thereby get yet another very different interpretation. They are both correct for their particular set of followers.

*shrug*

it never seems to be understood...the Jewish interpretation is the correct one for Judaism, Christian interpretation for Christianity, Muslim for Islam.

Just because a christian says it is so does not make it so for the others.

Christians pick and choose which parts of the Torah to follow, and thereby get a very different interpretation. Jews tend to atleast acknowledge all the laws of the Torah, and thereby get yet another very different interpretation. They are both correct for their particular set of followers.

The real problem arises when one or more of the religions come with a missionary attitude...

Sorry if it's been mentioned already, but there is an excellent documentary about homosexual Orthodox Jews, Trembling before G-d (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278102/), from 2001.
Obviously only relating to the Orthodox community but very, very interesting.

There are a couple issues with this statement...

1. There are a number of "popular US Christian denominations" that are NOT Christian at all but are instead nothing more than trumped up cults (no I'm not joking, yes I am serious, and yes there is proof). The major two examples are Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. So I would submit that because they are in fact not Christian, their views on any and everything should not be generalized as Christian.

This is an example of the "no true scottsman" fallacy. The fact of the matter is, they are Christian denominations weather you like it or not. And all forms of Christianity are cults, by definition. Look the word up.

I believe you will find many (certainly not all, but many) Christian church organizations that condemn (and rightly so) the sin of homosexuality. However the statement that "God hates all gays" is totally innaccurate, for God loves all his creatures. God certainly does hate the sin, and will punish the sinner, but for the saving grace of Christ. (I realize this devles deeply into the heart of Christian doctrine and I welcome any questions, though I will refrain from going further as this is certainly not the thread to discuss such an issue, I simply wanted to give a short summary of what the Christian perspective on homosexuality should be).

Right, the Christian perspective of homosexuality should be exactly as.. hey.. your perspective! What a coincidence! Surprise surprise!

2. You are exactly correct it stating homosexuality is a sin like all other, HOWEVER, as sinful human beings we tend to trivialize our sins. So instead of bringing homosexuality to the level of say, taking the Lord's name in vain, we should rather think of it the opposite way. Taking the Lord's name in vain is just as bad as homosexuality. Every human ever concieved is sinful and sins. And even 1 sin is enough to damn to hell.

There is no "hell" In Judaism as there is in Christianity. The Christian version of hell was borrowed from the Zoroastrian religion, like virtually everything else.

It seems that you've been brainwashed by fear of an everlasting punishment for 1 sin that everyone has committed. Did you say something about cults a minute ago?

I beleive that the jewish sabbath is saturday not sunday, but i might be mistaken.

Anyway, my point of view is you can never argue something because it says so in the bible, or your religion teaches it, you have to argue something on its own merrits. Sex is unitive and procreative--it strengthens a couple's relationship and is also for baby making. A child with two loving parents is going to be better off than with one loving parent who has to work double shifts. If you have sex with someone you don't love, and are doing it for just pleasure, it takes away the unitive part, and you also are having the possibility of creating a child which you aren't prepared to take care of. If you have sex using a condom, or with a person of the same sex, it takes away the procreative part--very little or no possibility of having a child.

So if you have a one night stand using a condom, or have a homosexual one night stand, you are taking away both the procreative and unitive natures of sex, and all that remains is the pleasure. When people do something purely because it gives them pleasure, they get enslaved or addicted to that action, and eventually they don't even have a choice anymore.

If you beleive in God, doing something purely for pleasure means that you aren't doing something because you love God, and that is bad. Forgetting the part about Jesus being God, if you beleive in what he taught, doing things solely to pleasure yourself in no way helps you fellow man, and in many cases can hurt others. Raping and murdering someone might feel good to them, but any objective observer can say this action is wrong.

Basically what I am saying is that passions are not bad, but they have to be properly ordered. Hunger--it may feel good to eat McDonalds and cake and icecream every day, but your going to get fat. Tiredness--it might feel good to sleep, but you can't sleep all the time or you miss school and work. In the case of sex, the only responsible time and place for it is with someone you are married to, with the intention of creating a baby.
Homosexuals do not have sex only for pleasure, but also love. People both straight and gay can have sex for much more than pleasure, yet can still not want to have a child.

This is an example of the "no true scottsman" fallacy. The fact of the matter is, they are Christian denominations weather you like it or not.


Hahaha... And I remember a post of yours not so long ago in which you went to quite some trouble to explain to all of us how all the 'other' types of Judaism that claim to be out there 'really' aren't Jews afterall.

We have a lot talk about Christians and homosexuality and often Christians refer to passages of the Old Testament to back up their statements against it.

So I'd like to know what the stance(s) of Judaism on homosexuality are.
Well, the Torah is very similar to the Old Testament anyway

Well, the Torah is very similar to the Old Testament anyway
maybe because it is the old testament.

Hahaha... And I remember a post of yours not so long ago in which you went to quite some trouble to explain to all of us how all the 'other' types of Judaism that claim to be out there 'really' aren't Jews afterall.

Or looked at an entire page of rabbi's names and said that none of them were actually Jewish anyways, since they weren't the same version of Judaism....

If Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian (something I would not dispute), then Progressive or Liberal Jews are just as Jewish as Conservative or Orthodox or Chassidic Jews.

Unfortunately, and very sadly, you are taking the Jewish idea of "sin" and trying to capture it as your own. This is the problem with worshipping a zombie who claims to be the "Jewish Messiah".

You are wrong, your whole post is misguided, and I genuinely hope you come to that realisation.

Whatever.


I made my post from a decidedly Christian perspective. I stated it up front, I never attempted to portray it as anything but decidely Christian. There were a number of others who brought up a few sweeping generalities about their take on Christianity and I wanted to clear those up.

My post is not misguided, it serves exactly the purpose I intended it to and I'm sorry if I didn't give you any real ammunition to blast anyone else.

I made my post from a decidedly Christian perspective. I stated it up front, I never attempted to portray it as anything but decidely Christian. There were a number of others who brought up a few sweeping generalities about their take on Christianity and I wanted to clear those up.

My post is not misguided, it serves exactly the purpose I intended it to and I'm sorry if I didn't give you any real ammunition to blast anyone else.

At least you're honest about being biased and religiously guided.


... Really, though, it doesn't mean you're any less wrong.

I made my post from a decidedly Christian perspective. I stated it up front, I never attempted to portray it as anything but decidely Christian. There were a number of others who brought up a few sweeping generalities about their take on Christianity and I wanted to clear those up.

My post is not misguided, it serves exactly the purpose I intended it to and I'm sorry if I didn't give you any real ammunition to blast anyone else.

You cannot at the same time claim to merely be giving a Christian perspective and claim that perspective is the only right one.

You can be, and are, wrong.

Please though, don't make this into a gay marriage debate, there are SOOOO many threads devoted to that already. This thread relates to Judaism and homosexuality.

I'm not trying to make this a gay marriage debate, I was just using that as an example of the "sins" mentioned in the referenced post being commited in such a way as to benefit society. I can see how it may have been misconstrued. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear; it was late and I was rather tired.

You cannot at the same time claim to merely be giving a Christian perspective and claim that perspective is the only right one.

You can be, and are, wrong.

I never claimed to be giving a Christian perspective, if you would have taken the time to look back at the original post you would see that I stated that what I posted should be the Christian perspective, but for any variety of heresies it may not be. And that is what I was clearing up.

There are any number of people from a variety of denominations from any number of religions that may take offense at the statement that homosexuality IS sin and is enough to damn to hell. Its not meant to be inoffensive. The Law hurts, it stings, it burns at people, thats what God (Elohim) intended it to do.

I never claimed to be giving a Christian perspective, if you would have taken the time to look back at the original post you would see that I stated that what I posted should be the Christian perspective, but for any variety of heresies it may not be. And that is what I was clearing up.

There are any number of people from a variety of denominations from any number of religions that may take offense at the statement that homosexuality IS sin and is enough to damn to hell. Its not meant to be inoffensive. The Law hurts, it stings, it burns at people, thats what God (Elohim) intended it to do.

And yet homosexuality is not a sin. that's where you go wrong.

And I love how your personal views are The Law.

And yet homosexuality is not a sin. that's where you go wrong.

And I love how your personal views are The Law.


You can attempt to rationalize it any way you like, but when you look at it, search the scriptures and your heart, you can only know it is wrong. Anything else is the dulling of your conscience to sin.

True.
Technically,even by most restrictive law, homosexual sex would be the sin in question here and not homosexualty itself, and anyone who claims otherwise is almost certainly homophobic.
And what you THINK should be The Law =/= The Law.

By the way, why is the word homophobic? Doesn't that mean fear of stuff that's the same as you? Why is it hatred of gay people?
EDIT:
Going by the tone of your post, you seem to think The Cat-Tribe is gay. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that's true.
And may I remind you,since you're christian. if the law against homosexual sex still applys, then all the laws that apply to Kosher still apply, as well as pretty much all of Leviticus except the parts intended to be read by preists.

You can attempt to rationalize it any way you like, but when you look at it, search the scriptures and your heart, you can only know it is wrong. Anything else is the dulling of your conscience to sin.

"If you don't agree with my viewpoint, it is obviously because you are wrong, because I am infallible."

Yes, yes, you are God, no? If not, then you cannot know that your own conscience has not been dulled, leading you to condemn those who should not be condemned.

Strangely enough, I have looked at it, searched the Scriptures and my heart, prayed over it, and come to the opposite conclusion.

By the way, why is the word homophobic? Doesn't that mean fear of stuff that's the same as you? Why is it hatred of gay people?

No. The root -phobic can mean "fear of", but can also mean, "intolerance or aversion to/for." "Homo" being the same root in homosexuality, is used to describe what one is phobic to. It certainly could be homosexualphobic, but that is a rather long word, no?

No. The root -phobic can mean "fear of", but can also mean, "intolerance or aversion to/for." "Homo" being the same root in homosexuality, is used to describe what one is phobic to. It certainly could be homosexualphobic, but that is a rather long word, no?

Ok. Just wondering.

I have no idea if The Cat-Tribe is gay. I would tend to think not, but it doesn't much matter.

Oh and the part about the Kosher Laws, I see where your coming from, but to try and make an extremely lengthy point short and concise:

There are 3 types of law referred to in the OT (Torah): Moral, Ceremonial, Civil.

Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law and stated that we are no longer bound by it. Peter showed this in one way when he declared that all foods are clean and in and of themselves are ok to eat (Acts 10:9-23).

One of the main purposes of the civil law was to keep the Jews separate from their neighbors, this portion of the law was never meant to apply to anyone but the OT Jews.

The moral law (10 commandments) still does apply today.

I hope that clears some things up, if not please let me know and I'll try and elaborate.


And now for Dempublicents1:

I never claimed to know if anyone conscience has been dulled. I simply stated that anyone who can declare with a clear conscience that something is not sin when God has clearly said that it is, this can only be the work of Satan. (No I am not claiming anyone is Satan, the antichrist, or anything else, I am simply stating that it is the work of Satan to convince humans that sinning is ok).

You can attempt to rationalize it any way you like, but when you look at it, search the scriptures and your heart, you can only know it is wrong. Anything else is the dulling of your conscience to sin.

Boy are you making several wrong assumptions.

I have read your scripture, but I don't believe in it.

I am not gay.

Nothing in scripture nor my heart says being gay is a sin.

My conscience is fine.

Pride, btw, is a sin.

I have no idea if The Cat-Tribe is gay. I would tend to think not, but it doesn't much matter.

Oh and the part about the Kosher Laws, I see where your coming from, but to try and make an extremely lengthy point short and concise:

There are 3 types of law referred to in the OT (Torah): Moral, Ceremonial, Civil.

Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law and stated that we are no longer bound by it. Peter showed this in one way when he declared that all foods are clean and in and of themselves are ok to eat (Acts 10:9-23).

One of the main purposes of the civil law was to keep the Jews separate from their neighbors, this portion of the law was never meant to apply to anyone but the OT Jews.

The moral law (10 commandments) still does apply today.

I hope that clears some things up, if not please let me know and I'll try and elaborate.


And now for Dempublicents1:

I never claimed to know if anyone conscience has been dulled. I simply stated that anyone who can declare with a clear conscience that something is not sin when God has clearly said that it is, this can only be the work of Satan. (No I am not claiming anyone is Satan, the antichrist, or anything else, I am simply stating that it is the work of Satan to convince humans that sinning is ok).

Which of the 10 commandments does homosexuality violate?

Which of the 10 commandments does homosexuality violate?
Easy: none.

It was probably one of the extra 5 commandments on the tablet Moses dropped in that Simpson's episode :p

Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law and stated that we are no longer bound by it. Peter showed this in one way when he declared that all foods are clean and in and of themselves are ok to eat (Acts 10:9-23).

Considering that the OT prohibition against same sex relations (if it is translated correctly in the first place) is a part of the same set of laws that contained the food and clothing laws and declared menstruating women "ceremonially unclean", it would appear that this would be another law that was done away with.

I never claimed to know if anyone conscience has been dulled. I simply stated that anyone who can declare with a clear conscience that something is not sin when God has clearly said that it is, this can only be the work of Satan. (No I am not claiming anyone is Satan, the antichrist, or anything else, I am simply stating that it is the work of Satan to convince humans that sinning is ok).

I have yet to see anything in which God "clearly" says that homosexuality is a sin.

/snip/

One of the main purposes of the civil law was to keep the Jews separate from their neighbors, this portion of the law was never meant to apply to anyone but the OT Jews.

The moral law (10 commandments) still does apply today.

I hope that clears some things up, if not please let me know and I'll try and elaborate.


/snip/
First of all, from the posts a few people made before about the exact meaning of the hebrew word "toevah", it can be argued that the ban on homosexual sex was part of the civil law catagory and not the moral law catagory.
Secondly, it's generally agreed that homosexuality is not immoral and the ban is not one of the ten commandments.
Third, none of it was meant to apply to anybody but the Jews. Rabbinical tradition has a whole different set of laws for non-jews, and homosexuality is not included in those.

Homosexual sex is not condemned in the 10 commandments, HOWEVER...

IF you ascribe to the Jewish faith:

Then the rest of the OT applies to you and Homosexual Sex is a sin. Like it or not, if you only believe in the Jewish law then all of the Jewish laws apply. Homosexual sex is condemned in the OT.


IF you ascribe to the Christian faith:

In that case the NT is clearly in effect and homosexuality is condemned in many places in the NT. Homosexuality is still a sin.


Whether you ascribe to the Christian faith or Jewish faith, on this point it doesn't much matter. Homosexuality is still a sin.

Then the rest of the OT applies to you and Homosexual Sex is a sin. Like it or not, if you only believe in the Jewish law then all of the Jewish laws apply. Homosexual sex is condemned in the OT.

Actually, "a man lying with a man like a woman," is condemned, assuming the translation is correct. This would not condemn all homosexual sex, just one particular type.

IF you ascribe to the Christian faith:

In that case the NT is clearly in effect and homosexuality is condemned in many places in the NT. Homosexuality is still a sin.

Actually, homosexuality is never clearly condemned. There are passages that can be seen in that light, especially with current English translations. But, when looking at these passages in the context of the time and the language used (at least one word seems to have been made up by Paul, and is thus unclear as to meaning), it isn't at all clear that a loving, homosexual relationship would be condemned.

Not only that, as pointed out elsewhere, Paul also condemns ALL sex, including marital, somewhere. So, if you say that homosexual sex is a sin by the NT, then ALL sex is a sin by the NT.

Not only that, as pointed out elsewhere, Paul also condemns ALL sex, including marital, somewhere. So, if you say that homosexual sex is a sin by the NT, then ALL sex is a sin by the NT.

Indeed. According to Paul, it is best to never have sex at all. Only if you cannot control your lusts should you enter marriage, so that you don't fornicate.

Actually, "a man lying with a man like a woman," is condemned, assuming the translation is correct. This would not condemn all homosexual sex, just one particular type.

Actually, homosexuality is never clearly condemned. There are passages that can be seen in that light, especially with current English translations. But, when looking at these passages in the context of the time and the language used (at least one word seems to have been made up by Paul, and is thus unclear as to meaning), it isn't at all clear that a loving, homosexual relationship would be condemned.

Fine, good. "a man lying with a man like a woman" is a sin. With that translation it seems clear that this is talking about sex. If you can offer any conclusive evidence that it is talking about anything else I would be open to hearing it.

A man simply loving(not the Greek eros) a man is not a sin. God tells us to love our fellow brothers in Christ and there are certainly relationships in which 2 males get extremely close and there is nothing wrong with that. If the relationship ever turned to a sexual nature or possessed a sexual facet it would be wrong.

Fine, good. "a man lying with a man like a woman" is a sin. With that translation it seems clear that this is talking about sex. If you can offer any conclusive evidence that it is talking about anything else I would be open to hearing it.

Well it clearly isn't talking about lesbian sex. It doesn't seem to be talking about oral sex, since oral sex isn't really what is generally referred to as "lying with."

Meanwhile, looking at the Hebrew itself, which I don't have here, and I have to look at others' translations of the words anyways, it could be a prohibition against a man lying on a woman's menstrual bed, or lying with a woman who is menstruating. Go figure.

A man simply loving(not the Greek eros) a man is not a sin. God tells us to love our fellow brothers in Christ and there are certainly relationships in which 2 males get extremely close and there is nothing wrong with that. If the relationship ever turned to a sexual nature or possessed a sexual facet it would be wrong.

That is your opinion. I think that there is a type of love which is best expressed by sex in a committed relationship, and that love can exist between any two adults.

/snip/
Meanwhile, looking at the Hebrew itself, which I don't have here, and I have to look at others' translations of the words anyways, it could be a prohibition against a man lying on a woman's menstrual bed, or lying with a woman who is menstruating. Go figure.

/snip/


I've looked it over, and whatever it is, it definitally seems to refering to male-male. So neither of those is right.

We must speak right, God didn't make the girl with 1 of our rib to see how a guy drills another one.. When the commandments were writed, they not speaked about homosexuality, but they weren't aprobing it eather. A man can't reproduce with another man, we need womans for that so homo's are not in their sane mind in my opinion.

I've looked it over, and whatever it is, it definitally seems to refering to male-male. So neither of those is right.

I've seen the various possible meanings of each word. Grave_n_Idle can explain better than I can.

The thing is that the Hebrew doesn't include the types of articles and such that English does, so the wording comes out being something like:

"Man bed female abomination." (not exact, since I'm doing this from memory), with a few possible meanings for several of the words. You have to abstract a bit to bring it into English.

We must speak right, God didn't make the girl with 1 of our rib to see how a guy drills another one.. When the commandments were writed, they not speaked about homosexuality, but they weren't aprobing it eather. A man can't reproduce with another man, we need womans for that so homo's are not in their sane mind in my opinion.

How very enlightening.

But taking your thinking seriously God made Adam's sex partner out of part of Adam. Should we all follow that example?

Is everything that is allowed mentioned in the commandments? I think not.

The exact wording of that verse(translated literally into english) is:
(Article) man no (probably lie) (unsure) woman (that word that's usually translated abomination but really means paganistic) (article)
So maybe you're right, actually. Not too clear that way. You could even see it as prohibiting heterosexual sex, but that's very unlikely, as it encourages that in other parts.

"ve'et zachar lo tishkav mish'kevei ishah: toevah, hih"

And ("ve'et") you shall not lie ("lo tishkav") with mankind ("zachar") as with womankind (lit. "from the lyings of womankind", "mishkevei ishah", that is, from the way you would lie with womankind): it is an abomination ("toevah, hih").

That's the best I can do.

Hahaha... And I remember a post of yours not so long ago in which you went to quite some trouble to explain to all of us how all the 'other' types of Judaism that claim to be out there 'really' aren't Jews afterall.

According to Judaism, many aren't. However, there are many legitimate forms of Judaism. A Christian movement who suddenly attempts to change its name to "Messianic Judaism" doesn't magically become a Jewish group, ethnicity simply doesn't change in that fashion. Furthermore, a Jew that converts to Christian doesn't fit either the secular or halachic defintions of "Jew" or "Judaism."

Christianity, on the other hand, is less well define. There is no Christian halacha. Sects of Christianity, like Catholicism, are well define. You could easily say if someone is a real catholic or not. But by definition, any person who professes faith in Jesus is a Christian. This includes Mormons, JWs, etc.

All you have to do is look up the words "Christian" and "Judaism" in the dictionary to see how the two are radically different in respects to who is a Jew and who is a Christian.

Or looked at an entire page of rabbi's names and said that none of them were actually Jewish anyways, since they weren't the same version of Judaism....

If Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian (something I would not dispute), then Progressive or Liberal Jews are just as Jewish as Conservative or Orthodox or Chassidic Jews.

I've never disputed that any form of Judaism, no matter how liberal, is in fact a form of Judaism and its adherents Jews. What I have disputed is that Jews who convert to other religions are no longer Jewish, as Judaism in virtually all the above mentioned define, and that non-Jewish groups who try to steal the Jewish ethnicity are not real Jewish groups. Like "Messianic Jews" and "Jews for Jesus" - predominately Christian organizations, most of whom were never Jewish to begin with, but Goyim who wanted to feel Jewish due to their view of Christianity.

I would also keep in mind that the question "Who is a Jew?" is far more well defined in Judaism overall, and by secular authorities like the State of Israel and Webster's Dictionary, than the question "Who is a Christian?"

You could even see it as prohibiting heterosexual sex, but that's very unlikely, as it encourages that in other parts.

The verse in 18:22, at least, assumes that the audience is male.

"Tishkav" in this context (but not in others) is like the euphemism "penetrate" in English (or the more literal "fuck", for that matter); it refers to something someone does to someone else, instead of what someone does with someone else. The "zachar" is referring to the penetrated and not to the penetrator. "And mankind you shall not penetrate from the penetrations of womankind: it is an abomination."

All of this is further confused by the fact that prepositions in Biblical Hebrew vary in meaning. Modern Hebrew is far easier.

I've never disputed that any form of Judaism, no matter how liberal, is in fact a form of Judaism and its adherents Jews.

Now you are flat-out lying. I linked you to a page signed on by quite a few rabbis as an obvious statement of what at least some Jews believe. Your response was that they didn't count because they weren't Orthodox Jews. In other words, that they weren't Jews.

Now you are flat-out lying. I linked you to a page signed on by quite a few rabbis as an obvious statement of what at least some Jews believe. Your response was that they didn't count because they weren't Orthodox Jews. In other words, that they weren't Jews.

No, I never stated that they "didn't count because they weren't Orthodox Jews." If I recall correctly, at one point you linked me to a Messianic group that had people who called themselves "rabbis."

Messianic groups don't fit the definition of Judaism, as I've stated before. Secular or halachic definitions.

No, I never stated that they "didn't count because they weren't Orthodox Jews." If I recall correctly, at one point you linked me to a Messianic group that had people who called themselves "rabbis."

Messianic groups don't fit the definition of Judaism, as I've stated before. Secular or halachic definitions.

I didn't link you to any such group. I linked you to a statement by Jewish rabbis that, although they disagreed on how to worship God and the nature of Jesus, they still worshipped the same God. There was nothing Messianic about it, since the rabbis in question clearly denied that Christ was the Messiah.

What you basically said was, "This isn't the doctrine of Conservative Judaism," suggesting that any other type of Judaism, "didn't count."

I even brought up at the time that what you were essentially saying was, "Only my personal version of Judaism is really Judaism."

No, I never stated that they "didn't count because they weren't Orthodox Jews." If I recall correctly, at one point you linked me to a Messianic group that had people who called themselves "rabbis."

Messianic groups don't fit the definition of Judaism, as I've stated before. Secular or halachic definitions.

Let's see exactly what you said:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10661910&postcount=183



Here's a site for you:

http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html

Signed by quite a few rabbis: http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/signers.html

You going to call them all?

It doesn't seem like this site is Orthodox, Conservative, or that it conforms to Halacha. Therefore, it does not represent Judaism by definition.

And who are we to look to as the authority on Judaism?

When studying Judaism, my advice would be to go to the sources. See the sages, the Talmud, and modern Orthodox Rabbis.

Hmmm, it would seem that you were discounting other versions of Judaism.

No, I never stated that they "didn't count because they weren't Orthodox Jews." If I recall correctly, at one point you linked me to a Messianic group that had people who called themselves "rabbis."

Messianic groups don't fit the definition of Judaism, as I've stated before. Secular or halachic definitions.

Oooh. Feel the burn.

Has anybody noticed that Tropical Sands hasn't returned to the debate?
Of course I could not be waiting long enough, but it seems like it.

A man can't reproduce with another man, we need womans for that so homo's are not in their sane mind in my opinion.
Gays aren't trying to reproduce when they have sex. I can hardly think of ANYone who does it just for that.

King David and Jonathan had a physical homosexual relationship (see thread entitled "Homosexuality").

The Book of Leviticus however says homosexuality is an abomination. So I can see Jews not liking it. But if you are going to hate one abomination, you better hate them all, such as:

-touching the skin of a dead pig
-eating shellfish
-wearing clothing made from blends
-working on the Sabbath (Sunday)
-adopting the customs of foreign lands (which we are all guilty of)
-cutting your hair/trimming your beard

Oh, keeping slaves as well as selling your daughter to slavery is OK. Hey, some Jews want the money (HEYOOOO)

...ooh even I found that to be in bad taste...

Anyway, once you realize the book of Leviticus was written to keep control over the Jews and stabilize their numbers during the Exodus, you might not take it so literally.

NOTE: I WAS JOKING ABOUT THE JEWS WANTING THE MONEY SO PLEASE DONT ACCOST ME.

For the Jewish people, Sabbath is actually on Saturday. Also, their "day" begins at our evening...see Genisis where it clearly outlines this. And yes, according to the old testiment, the have a full list of what is considered "unclean" and should not be touched. The reason why they have..er..stricter rules is because they are the "chosen peoples". If you actually study the bible and get the connections of all of it, all the answers are there.

Not in the same sense. You have to remember that Torah is a living thing. Only 10 things were carved in stone by the "hand of God". The rest of it is changeable, living, and breathing. It's like the Constitution ... it can be amended and adapted.

Leviticus 18:22 was never a "carved in stone" comandment.

They may have been a big no-no in the past, but not so much anymore.

We're not Christians, for cryin' out loud. We don't see "The BIBLE" (flare of trumpets and farting angels) as perfection acheived.
Talk about prejudiced...not all us Christians out there think that way. Funny how it irritates you when people generalise Islam to be a violent, bloodthirsty religion and not distinguish between the actions of radicals and the mainstream faithful, yet you do something along a similar line with Christians.