Why is the nationalist right hallucinating a ‘communist enemy’?

[seer]

I believe that Jesus would not judge a man or woman based on their sexual orientation as sinners and historically he never did, he seemingly never thought it important enough to even give a single mention. You continually bring up rape and beastiality but you miss the difference between them and homosexuality: rape is a violent act that does not see the other person as a person, as a child of the Father - of course it's wrong, who would ay it's right? It literatly violates love of neighbor. And beastiality is wrong because it inflicts a similar abuse on an animal. Again, who would say it's right? It violates the command to love God and his creation. Both heterosexual and homosexual use of another human being for one's own purposes, using another as a thing, as an object by which to 'get off' is obviously wrong. Who would say such actions are right? Why would Jesus need to address any of these if he has already told us to simply love others as we love ourselves?

However, if one is born with a homosexual orientation, does not use another as an object but enters into a truly loving relationship with that person - where is the violation of love of God and neighbor? There is none.........there is love, the only love that such a person is 'oriented' to by their very nature. Perhaps it is a good lesson for Christians who search the scriptures to support their positions against homosexuality: be silent like he who is the very Word of God.

Again, you are just pouring your own meaning into the texts. Perhaps love of one's neighbor means telling them to repent. Perhaps the woman caught in adultery really had a loving relation with the man in question. And yes Jesus forgives her, but says go and sin no more. And Scripture makes no distinction about homosexual relations being loving or not. And beastiality can be practiced without abuse (see Peter Singer), I mean after all we kill and eat animals - which is worse.

You bring up an interesting point about Jesus violating the Torah since a goodly number of his contemporaries thought he did just that: working on the Sabbath and gathering with the unclean and sinners. And there is that pesky little saying for the legal eagles among us: the law is made for man, not man for the law. And that other pesky saying about Love (of God and neighbor). There is no violation of the command to love in one's natural (thus unchosen) sexual orientation and there is no violation of love if one is actually in a love relationship. To say otherwise is simply absurd.

So you think Jesus could violate the Torah for things like homosexuality and adultery?

The Council of Jerusalem (49CE) settled the issue that the pagans or gentiles (virtually all present day and past days Christians are gentiles) do not have to become Jews first in order to become Christians. - Salvation is found not in the Law but in accepting the death and resurrection of Jesus for the Christian. Simply we are not Jews - how many Jewish laws do Christian not follow? We are not Jews, we are Christians; the old covenant has been (for Christians) superseded by the new covenant/relationship. Most legal eagles nitpick the laws that they support and totally ignore other laws and regulations found in the Torah that they consider 'Jewish' or irrelevant for them.

The Word that is God is a living word that echoes in each generation and is understood anew within that generation. Who - except the legal eagles and those that demand a pound of flesh - would look upon a gay or lesbian individual, realizing that sexual orientation is not a choice, and condemn that sexual orientation? And if the only person that s/he can be fulfilled with, the only person that s/he can 'fall in love' with, the only person s/he can build a life with, is a person of the same sex - who, in the name of the God of Love, would deny love for such a child of the Father?

And what if homosexuality is a sin leading to death? There is no Biblical reason to think otherwise - think of the harm you are doing by suggesting that they need not repent.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It makes no difference to me if Christ was married or not, but if you are claiming that remaining unmarried violated the Torah it is on you to show it.

I am asking you to provide evidence from first century Judaism that supports what you contended in the highlighted section of your reply at post #212 where you wrote: "It would have been perfectly acceptable for Jesus not to be married, or to be married, and perhaps he was, nothing to air brush."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again, you are just pouring your own meaning into the texts.

Have you considered you might be doing the same thing?

And what if homosexuality is a sin leading to death?

There is general agreement among Hebrew scholars that the word "toevah" as used in Leviticus is not a moral term but a cultic one implying ritual uncleanness. Any action, including the eating of pork or shellfish, or having sex with your wife while she was menstruating, would have been "toevah" to the ancient Israelites. Any one who committed toevah would need to be ritually purified before they could join the community for worship.

As I noted earlier, various behaviours apart from homosexual practices carried the death penalty, including repeated disobedience of parents by children, or the picking up of sticks on the Sabbath

[seer]

I am asking you to provide evidence from first century Judaism that supports what you contended in the highlighted section of your reply at post #212 where you wrote: "It would have been perfectly acceptable for Jesus not to be married, or to be married, and perhaps he was, nothing to air brush."

That was first in reply to thormas about the Torah, there is no law that I know of that being single violated. You would have to show me from Torah. If not why wouldn't it be acceptable? Where is the violation of the Law?

[seer]

Have you considered you might be doing the same thing?


There is general agreement among Hebrew scholars that the word "toevah" as used in Leviticus is not a moral term but a cultic one implying ritual uncleanness. Any action, including the eating of pork or shellfish, or having sex with your wife while she was menstruating, would have been "toevah" to the ancient Israelites. Any one who committed toevah would need to be ritually purified before they could join the community for worship.

As I noted earlier, various behaviours apart from homosexual practices carried the death penalty, including repeated disobedience of parents by children, or the picking up of sticks on the Sabbath

Well homosexual behavior is condemned in both Testaments, that is fact. There is no positive affirmation of the behavior. So you think having sex with animals is merely "toevah" - having sex with your father, sister, mother? All are in the same chapter. Sacrificing your child? "Toevah?"

[thormas]

Again, you are just pouring your own meaning into the texts. Perhaps love of one's neighbor means telling them to repent. Perhaps the woman caught in adultery really had a loving relation with the man in question. And yes Jesus forgives her, but says go and sin no more. And Scripture makes no distinction about homosexual relations being loving or not. And beastiality can be practiced without abuse (see Peter Singer), I mean after all we kill and eat animals - which is worse.



So you think Jesus could violate the Torah for things like homosexuality and adultery?



And what if homosexuality is a sin leading to death? There is no Biblical reason to think otherwise - think of the harm you are doing by suggesting that they need not repent.

Actually it seems you have not read or chosen to seriously consider the contributions of others on this topic - nor have you said you are interested in learning what scholars are saying about the language and understanding of 'homosexuals' in the 1st C CE (different from our present understanding) that I have offered. That is on you and you simply hold fast to 'your' understanding (without input from others) and continue to judge others - a violation of the 2 great commandments.

What does a homosexual who is so oriented and in a loving relationship - blessed by some churches - have to repent for? This is an incomplete understanding of the the God who is Love. Your reliance on the insights of 1st C (and earlier) people who had no inkling of what we understand in the 21st C inhibits your decision to simply love these, your neighbors.

Jesus spoke about adultery not homosexuality, simple reality.

Please, I don't need Singer to inform me how a guy boinking an animal is not an abuse of that animal - unless of course the animal has self-consciousness and informed said man that he was a willing partner. Are you seriously equating boinking an animal with legitimate hunting to provide food for self or others? Really?

I have already made comments on Jesus and spoken about Christians not being Jews - obviously you didn't deal with those realities either.

If one is naturally oriented to the same sex there is no culpability, there is nothing for which such an individual could or should be blamed. Such does not lead to death. To love and support a gay or lesbian individual or couple - how can such love and support cause harm? The intolerance of homosexuals by some is more damaging than any loving homosexual man or woman have ever caused by their sexuality.



You must really enjoy the entirety of the LGBTQ community and the diversity in sexuality that they live out:+}

Love and leave the rest to God, you're not the repentance enforcer.

[thormas]

Well homosexual behavior is condemned in both Testaments, that is fact. There is no positive affirmation of the behavior. So you think having sex with animals is merely "toevah" - having sex with your father, sister, mother? All are in the same chapter. Sacrificing your child? "Toevah?"

Seek out experts on the history, culture and language of the time of Lev. and the 1st C CE.

[Sparko]

The Bible says marriage is for a man and a woman and not a between two men or two women, and any sex outside of marriage is a sin, therefore homosexual sex is a sin. Just like adultery is.

Also Romans 1 describes Homosexuality as shameful lusts and shameful acts without having to use the word Arsenokoitai.

^{Romans 1:26} Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[thormas]

The Bible says marriage is for a man and a woman and not a between two men or two women, and any sex outside of marriage is a sin, therefore homosexual sex is a sin. Just like adultery is.

Also Romans 1 describes Homosexuality as shameful lusts and shameful acts without having to use the word Arsenokoitai.

^{Romans 1:26} Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

What does Jesus say?

Where does Jesus say it is not between those of the same sex and does the text explain it or do we need further analysis such as Hypatia provided or that I have offered to present from critical biblical scholars?

How about divorce and adultery? Isn't there that little passage about not divorcing because the husband or the wife is then committing adultery? How many Christians, heterosexual all, get divorced today and have throughout history and are thus committing adultery by this very fact? And isn't Jesus against divorce? So that is a twofer: divorce and adultery! Also doesn't Jesus talk about all sexual immorality? So how about all those Christians (heterosexuals all) who have had sex outside marriage? It seems if it is inconvenient to a a heterosexual, the rules, the Law and the very word of the Christ is ignored. How odd??

Why don't they offer the same indulgence to homosexuals? Because it doesn't serve the heterosexual?

You do know that what was also condemned and ignored by heterosexuals was: any kind of sex that was not with your “legitimate” wife for purposes of procreation, sex with one's wife if she is from a different tribe (so no mixed marriages??), sex with a wife who is menstruating or pregnant, sex on a Sabbath and, my favorite, sex only in order to fulfill “passion and lust” – rather than to make babies and sex that only can make babies (so no oral sex or other sex acts - I'll let you use your imaginations)). Ruh-roh. Have these prohibitions been heeded by heterosexuals?

So where is the uproar, where are all those Christians who rail against homosexuality, regarding these heterosexual actions that violate the Law and the Christ and yet are consistently ignored, even laughed at? The heterosexuals keep on doing it - so there is no repentance that is actually meaningful, there simply is no repentance - and thus there must be death (as seer indicated for the unrepentant homosexual). Interesting how all that worked out:+}

Why the focus on homosexuality?

[Sparko]

Where does it say it is not between those of the same sex and does it say why? Or is that 'covered' in other passages that have been analyzed by Hypatia? Or passages that I have offered to present from critical biblical scholars?

How about divorce and adultery? Isn't there that little passage about not divorcing because the husband or the wife is then committing adultery? How many Christians, heterosexual all, get divorced today and have throughout history and are thus committing adultery by this very fact? Also doesn't Jesus talk about all sexual immorality? So how about all those Christians (heterosexuals all) who have had sex outside marriage? It seems if it is inconvenient to a a heterosexual, the rules, the Law and the very word of the Christ is ignored. How odd??

Why don't they offer the same indulgence to homosexuals? Because it doesn't serve the heterosexual? You do know that what was also condemned and ignored by heterosexuals was: any kind of sex that was not with your “legitimate” wife for purposes of procreation, sex with one's wife if she is from a different tribe (so no mixed marriages??), sex with a wife who is menstruating or pregnant, sex on a Sabbath and, my favorite, sex only in order to fulfill “passion and lust” – rather than to make babies or in ways that can make babies (so no oral sex or other sex acts - I'll let you use your imaginations)). Ruh-roh. Have these prohibitions been heeded by heterosexuals?

So where is the uproar, where are you guys on such sex that violates the Law and yet is totally ignored? Yet the heterosexuals keep on doing it - so there is no repentance that is actually lived consistently and thus there must be death (as seer indicated for the unrepentant homosexual). Interesting how all that worked out:+}

Why the focus on homosexuality?

Did you not see that I said it was the same as adultery??? They are both sins of sex outside of marriage. And whenever the bible discusses marriage it is always between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman, like Mark 10:6-8. If you can find an exception where it is between two men, then please show me. And if you bother to read Romans 1 that I quoted above, it calls sexual relations between same sexes as "shameful acts" and "shameful lusts" so that right there says it is a sin.

And no, nowhere does it say having sex with your wife except for procreation is a sin. Have you even read the Song of Songs? What do you suppose is going on there? And the other nonsense were societal rules specifically for the Israelites. But adultery, sexual immorality, and homosexual relations are all condemned not only in the OT but in the NT too.

As to why the focus? I didn't start the derail. I got tired of reading you and seer and others argue about it and decided to put in my own two cents.

Why are you ignoring what Romans 1 is saying? That's pretty clear.

[seer]

Actually it seems you have not read or chosen to seriously consider the contributions of others on this topic - nor have you said you are interested in learning what scholars are saying about the language and understanding of 'homosexuals' in the 1st C CE (different from our present understanding) that I have offered. That is on you and you simply hold fast to 'your' understanding (without input from others) and continue to judge others - a violation of the 2 great commandments.

What does a homosexual who is so oriented and in a loving relationship - blessed by some churches - have to repent for? This is an incomplete understanding of the the God who is Love. Your reliance on the insights of 1st C (and earlier) people who had no inkling of what we understand in the 21st C inhibits your decision to simply love these, your neighbors.

First, I have debated thus issue a number of times and have read most of the arguments on your side, they don't hold up Biblically. Thormas do you really think that the God who deemed homosexual sin in the OT didn't understand orientation?

Jesus spoke about adultery not homosexuality, simple reality.

In the same chapter where Lev. condemns homosexual behavior it also does for sex with your mother. So if your mother was widowed would it be moral to do so if it was loving? Christ never speaks to that issue.

Please, I don't need Singer to inform me how a guy boinking an animal is not an abuse of that animal - unless of course the animal has self-consciousness and informed said man that he was a willing partner. Are you seriously equating boinking an animal with legitimate hunting to provide food for self or others? Really?

That makes no sense, you can't boink the sheep but you can kill and eat it. Which one would you rather happen to you?

If one is naturally oriented to the same sex there is no culpability, there is nothing for which such an individual could or should be blamed. Such does not lead to death. To love and support a gay or lesbian individual or couple - how can such love and support cause harm? The intolerance of homosexuals by some is more damaging than any loving homosexual man or woman have ever caused by their sexuality.

That is no more than your opinion - there are probably many sins that we are oriented to by nature, but that we don't have to act on.

[thormas]

Did you not see that I said it was the same as adultery??? They are both sins of sex outside of marriage. And whenever the bible discusses marriage it is always between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman, like Mark 10:6-8. If you can find an exception where it is between two men, then please show me. And if you bother to read Romans 1 that I quoted above, it calls sexual relations between same sexes as "shameful acts" and "shameful lusts" so that right there says it is a sin.

And no, nowhere does it say having sex with your wife except for procreation is a sin. Have you even read the Song of Songs? What do you suppose is going on there? And the other nonsense were societal rules specifically for the Israelites. But adultery, sexual immorality, and homosexual relations are all condemned not only in the OT but in the NT too.

As to why the focus? I didn't start the derail. I got tired of reading you and seer and others argue about it and decided to put in my own two cents.

Why are you ignoring what Romans 1 is saying? That's pretty clear.

I did see that but one can also commit adultery without being divorced so they are not (always) two side of the same coin.
Just as an aside, does the Bible ever say anything about lesbianism?

In the 1st C CE - as opposed to the 21st C - there was no conception of same sex marriage so that is a moot point. Thus the discussion must turn to same sex orientation and sex, i.e. homosexuality. And I am interested in first exploring what, if anything, is said about that and if what we read is how the experts understand it. Again, on this site, other have offered comments on this and I still have an outstanding offer that no one has taken up.

While we do this however, I brought up the apparent contradiction, or hypocrisy, that is evident regarding the prohibition or sinfulness of heterosexual acts which are ignored (along with the Law and Christ on them) while many of these same heterosexuals condemn homosexuals for ignoring the laws, the Bible and Christ- even as those who are straight continue, unrepentently, to do so. Odd that.

Any comment on all these continued sinful heterosexual acts? How did you determine which acts in the list were cultural or societal as opposed to universal?

As for sex except for procreation, I would check again. I do like Song of Songs but it is not unusual for the Bible to contain contradictory positions from one book to another. Have you ever gone through the Bible to find what it says about why there is evil or why bad things happen? If I remember correctly there are about 7 or 8 very different answers. So too with the contradicting genealogies of Luke vs. Matthew vs. silence in Mark, John and Paul and so too sex for pleasure vs. sex only for making babies. How much better would we all be, including puritanical America, if we focused on the Song of Songs?

Societal rules for the Israelites? So why not homosexuality too? It is obvious that our societal understandings and norms are radically different from the ancient world of 1st C (we even have legalized homosexual marriage). So, why not? My take away from seer (he can clarify if he wants to) is that if it's in the Torah.........that all she wrote: thus his argument against homosexuality. If, however, it is simply cultural understandings then we can seeming pick and choose (as heterosexuals have done for centuries) since it is obvious that our culture, indeed all of western culture has a very different understanding of homosexuality that was found it the culture of the people the Bible. If that is the case, then we are at an end.

Good lord, the list I gave is assumed in the NT and refers to the OT: Jesus was a Jew and when he spoke about such matters he, like the rest of the Jews knew where to look in their sacred scriptures. On what basis are you saying X is cultural and Y is universal? It does make it easy if we dismiss all the inconvenient heterosexual stuff as merely cultural and blow it off...........but did Jesus?

The focus question was a general question not specific to you. Any 2 cents is always welcome and, in my mind can be helpful - but we are still not there. there is much to be answered.

Romans: I have no problem with considering that in addition to Jesus himself and Lev.
However, again I find it interesting that the focus is on homosexuality and ignores "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity...(to include) ...gossips,slanderers, (the) arrogant and boastful; they... (who).... disobey their parents; ................... they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Where is all the equal anger and concern over not only the sexual wrong previously listed but also everything listed above? NADA...........a few more homosexuals in loving relationships would be more valuable to the world than the many heterosexuals who continually engage in all the other evils listed previously and above.

[thormas]

Apologies for any repetition on my last comment. I guess I ran out of time while editing and trying to tighten it a bit more.

[Sparko]

I did see that but one can also commit adultery without being divorced so they are not (always) two side of the same coin.
Just as an aside, does the Bible ever say anything about lesbianism?

Again, Read Romans 1:26 onward.

^{Romans 1:26} Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

In the 1st C CE - as opposed to the 21st C - there was no conception of same sex marriage so that is a moot point.

Because it was a sin. Do you imagine people back then were dumber than people today so they couldn't think of same sex marriage but could think of homosexuality? Both were considered wrong. But at least someone could hide homosexuality. If they went around trying to get a priest to marry them, they would have been stoned.

Thus the discussion must turn to same sex orientation and sex, i.e. homosexuality. And I am interested in first exploring what, if anything, is said about that and if what we read is how the experts understand it. Again, on this site, other have offered comments on this and I still have an outstanding offer that no one has taken up.

Being attracted to the same sex isn't a sin, but acting on it is. Sins are behaviors. Actions.

While we do this however, I brought up the apparent contradiction, or hypocrisy, that is evident regarding the prohibition or sinfulness of heterosexual acts which are ignored (along with the Law and Christ on them) while many of these same heterosexuals condemn homosexuals for ignoring the laws, the Bible and Christ- even as those who are straight continue, unrepentently, to do so. Odd that.



Any comment on all these continued sinful heterosexual acts? How did you determine which acts in the list were cultural or societal as opposed to universal?

You keep trying to say that we are ignoring stuff like adultery, and such but nobody here is doing that. Adultery is just as bad of a sin as homosexual relations. Both I and Seer have said that. So you can drop that claim of hypocrisy. It's like you are not even reading our posts.

As for sex except for procreation, I would check again. I do like Song of Songs but it is not unusual for the Bible to contain contradictory positions from one book to another. Have you ever gone through the Bible to find what it says about why there is evil or why bad things happen? If I remember correctly there are about 7 or 8 very different answers. So too with the contradicting genealogies of Luke vs. Matthew vs. silence in Mark, John and Paul and so too sex for pleasure vs. sex only for making babies. How much better would we all be, including puritanical America, if we focused on the Song of Songs?

I see no contradictions in the bible. You need to keep context in mind.

Societal rules for the Israelites? So why not homosexuality too? It is obvious that our societal understandings and norms are radically different from the ancient world of 1st C (we even have legalized homosexual marriage). So, why not? My take away from seer (he can clarify if he wants to) is that if it's in the Torah.........that all she wrote: thus his argument against homosexuality. If, however, it is simply cultural understandings then we can seeming pick and choose (as heterosexuals have done for centuries) since it is obvious that our culture, indeed all of western culture has a very different understanding of homosexuality that was found it the culture of the people the Bible. If that is the case, then we are at an end.

Because there are some rules that were just relevant to the Israelites and some that are relevant and applicable to all mankind. The fact that homosexuality is reiterated in the NT shows that it was applicable for everyone. We don't even have tribes any more so how would that rule apply to us?

Good lord, the list I gave is assumed in the NT and refers to the OT: Jesus was a Jew and when he spoke about such matters he, like the rest of the Jews knew where to look in their sacred scriptures. On what basis are you saying X is cultural and Y is universal? It does make it easy if we dismiss all the inconvenient heterosexual stuff as merely cultural and blow it off...........but did Jesus?

You realize he came to fulfill the law and free us from it right? But he did reiterate many things that we are NOT free of, like the 10 commandments, sexual immorality, murder, etc.

Romans: I have no problem with considering that in addition to Jesus himself and Lev.
However, again I find it interesting that the focus is on homosexuality and ignores "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity...(to include) ...gossips,slanderers, (the) arrogant and boastful; they... (who).... disobey their parents; ................... they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Again NOBODY is ignoring anything.

Where is all the equal anger and concern over not only the sexual wrong previously listed but also everything listed above? NADA...........a few more homosexuals in loving relationships would be more valuable to the world than the many heterosexuals who continually engage in all the other evils listed previously and above.

You seem to be stuck on this "whataboutism" kick. Where instead of dealing with the points we are discussing you try to deflect to something else. And poorly at that. Nobody is excusing any sins. If you want to discuss those sins, fine, but right now we are discussing homosexual behavior.

[thormas]

First, I have debated thus issue a number of times and have read most of the arguments on your side, they don't hold up Biblically. Thormas do you really think that the God who deemed homosexual sin in the OT didn't understand orientation?



In the same chapter where Lev. condemns homosexual behavior it also does for sex with your mother. So if your mother was widowed would it be moral to do so if it was loving? Christ never speaks to that issue.



That makes no sense, you can't boink the sheep but you can kill and eat it. Which one would you rather happen to you?




That is no more than your opinion - there are probably many sins that we are oriented to by nature, but that we don't have to act on.

Seer,

I have no doubt of your sincerity but I simply ask if you have referred to any biblical experts for detailed explanations on the language and meaning of much of what we're talking about?

Concerning your comment on God: not that he didn't understand but he certainly didn't give that understanding to the writers and that's why we don't find it in the Bible, Old or New. However it seems he has given such understanding (and compassion) to us since so many people today, good people, including many religious people, accept a loving relationship between gay or lesbians and we have been inspired and guided to legalize such relationships as marriages. To each is given what they can understand. We do now and I argue that such wisdom is not possible without the Word which challenges and calls us to Wisdom.

Seer, first beastility and now incest? Please.

Exactly: no boinking sheep but if you need warm clothes go to the sheep and if at some point you need food, go to the sheep - kill it and eat it. Much easier to explain the latter to God on judgment day than the former. But, hey, that might just be me:+}

The part on culpability is not opinion, it's actually from books and grad courses on Christian Ethics.........taught by Christians. The other part about who causes the most harm is simply common sense and observation.

Hey, you seen to value the Bible and theTorah, do you think the list I provided about other acts that are sinful is merely cultural or are they universal for all people in all times? And if the former, on what do you base your decision to disagree with the Bible/Torah?