No same-sex hugs allowed

[Eliyyahu]

Wolf,

And... EDIT 2: Eliyyahu, this reminds me that I need to admonish the participants in this debate about language... again. Everyone has been using the word "twisting the words of X" to signal their disagreement with someone else's interpretation regarding a particular piece of textual language. Let me make this clear:

If someone has an interpretation that could reasonably be believed from the text, then it is not "twisting" the text, by any means, whatsoever. You can disagree on what you think is reasonable or not, but "to twist" connotes intentional deception. Make sure you're right about it when you use it, otherwise it's just slanderous. Incidentally, regarding Ham, it seems to be part "twisting" on the part of American racists, and a translation error on the part of even earlier sources:

If someone does not have the knowledge of the original language to be translating or interpreting a text and they do so anyway presenting themself as if they do, I consider that to be intentional deception.

The text itself says that Canaan is cursed, but says nothing about Ham being cursed, or Ham being black, or black people being cursed to enslavement, nor is this ever used in the OT to justify enslaving Ham, or black people.  So yeah, I think it takes a good deal of twisting to arrive at a Biblical justification of enslavement of blacks, and someone at some point was responsible for it.

Furthermore, there are reliefs of Canaanites in Egypt and elsewhere, and they are portrayed as Asiatics, not black.  On the other hand, Kush is explicitly shown in the OT to represent the ancient great black civilization south of Egypt (Sudan and Ethiopia), which itself supplied rulers over Egypt for a time.  Kush and Mitzrayim (Egypt) represent two of the two greatest civilizations of the ancient world.

FYI, the Hebrew word for black is Shahor (and appears in such a context throughout the OT).  Ham does not mean black in Hebrew.  These two words are in no way interchangeable (black/hot).

[Wolf]

That admonition wasn't necessarily directed at you, Eliyyahu. And in any case, there's no need for you to be defensive. The issue of enslavement of Africans in the Old Testament is secondary to the issue of human enslavement in the Old Testament, period. Or for that matter, the New Testament. We regard such treatment of others to be inherently barbaric and inexcusable: it is a crime of the highest order. However, it seems to me that there's more textual support in the Bible for human slavery (sexual & otherwise) than there is for a divine condemnation of homosexuality... The point I'm trying to illustrate should be obvious. I'm glad that you regard the enslavement of African people in the Old Testament to be pure fiction, but how do you address the issue of human enslavement in general? Is it any less wrong because it's not targeted at a specific group?

[Eliyyahu]

Wolf,

The treatment blacks faced would have never been allowed by the Torah laws regarding servants (slave in that sense is a mistranslation), period.  They refer to two different things.  Don't get me wrong, I harbor no illusions that I am going to convince anyone here to accept the Torah's guidelines on servants, but your average white slave owner would have been put to death under Torah law for doing the things white slave owners did to blacks slaves.  And while the Torah certainly puts guidelines around having a servant (accepting it as a reality of the time), there is no mitzvah to take a servant, just as there is no mitzvah to take multiple wives (though there are guidlines for those who do).

I did not come here to harp on homosexuality as others have.  Homosexuality is not a choice.  However, it would be misleading to say that the Torah's condemnation of homosexual sex is vague in any way.  It just isn't.  If one believes that the OT never applied to anyone, or that Jesus and the NT came and did away with the OT, so be it.  Jews do not, nor do we consider some laws to be fulfilled and nullified and others to be in effect.

[ErasOmnius]

Wolf,

The treatment blacks faced would have never been allowed by the Torah laws regarding servants (slave in that sense is a mistranslation), period.  They refer to two different things.  Don't get me wrong, I harbor no illusions that I am going to convince anyone here to accept the Torah's guidelines on servants, but your average white slave owner would have been put to death under Torah law for doing the things white slave owners did to blacks slaves.  And while the Torah certainly puts guidelines around having a servant (accepting it as a reality of the time), there is no mitzvah to take a servant, just as there is no mitzvah to take multiple wives (though there are guidlines for those who do).

I did not come here to harp on homosexuality as others have.  Homosexuality is not a choice.  However, it would be misleading to say that the Torah's condemnation of homosexual sex is vague in any way.  It just isn't.  If one believes that the OT never applied to anyone, or that Jesus and the NT came and did away with the OT, so be it.  Jews do not, nor do we consider some laws to be fulfilled and nullified and others to be in effect.

So, does the God of the Old testament in Leviticus condemn male homosexuality?

[Eliyyahu]

Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does God condemn homosexuality.  This would imply a choice and the Hebrew Bible implies no such thing.  But homosexual sex is forbidden to the Israelites.

[Dante]

But not, then, to anyone else?

[Eliyyahu]

The only explicit prohibition in the written Torah is given to the Israelites.  Jewish tradition does hold that it was a prohibition for the descendants of Adam and then Noah as well.  But obviously someone who does not believe in the notion of an Adam or a Noah let alone the surrounding traditions is not going to put much weight in associated prohibitions, and I can understand that.  Personally, it is not for me to tell other people what to do, and I think it is most important the kind of impact we make on the world around us.

[ErasOmnius]

The only explicit prohibition in the written Torah is given to the Israelites.  Jewish tradition does hold that it was a prohibition for the descendants of Adam and then Noah as well.  But obviously someone who does not believe in the notion of an Adam or a Noah let alone the surrounding traditions is not going to put much weight in associated prohibitions, and I can understand that.  Personally, it is not for me to tell other people what to do, and I think it is most important the kind of impact we make on the world around us.

So you don't believe that Jews should adhere to the Hebrew Bible?

[Eliyyahu]

Don't insult me, I never said or implied any such thing.

[ErasOmnius]

Don't insult me, I never said or implied any such thing.

I'm not insulting you. I am trying to find out if you believe you should tell another Jewish person to not engage in male homosexual sex.

[athanasios]

Slavery in the OT? Let me laugh, because all of you are slaves.

Is the widow, whose husband was tortured and by the fascist regime and who lost her son  1 1/2 year ago, who because didn't have the proper license for the little house she built (2 rooms, 2 kitchens and 2 bathrooms for 3 families) the Satanic Government started pulling it down (this was on the news today) a free person, when the Masters ordained by Satan himself (Ministers, Counselors and the rest of their Doggish Race) live in villas with dozens of rooms and luxuries built illegally inside forests, on public beaches, and natural protected areas, with the money they stole/strained from the poor=slaves and continue to?

Open your eyes and at least understand the events leading to Armageddon, to be set free. Because a free man is the one who has knowledge.

Hmm, time to open a new thread, and because I know that there are unbelievers here I will not request the unlocking of my previous one. A new title to fit all, so whoever protests will be inexcusable.

[Edric O]

Although some American jurisdictions do not consider sexual orientation to be a Constitutionally protected class (only 17 states consider it to be Constitutionally protected, but it's worth noting that they are generally the more populous states), employers generally cannot fire an individual for an arbitrary non-business reason. Although this is not prohibited by statute, it may give rise to a cause of action in tort for breach of contract or other pecuniary injury. Without a non-arbitrary business reason for terminating an employee, an employer would have little defense in this situation.

In other words, although it is technically legal to fire someone for being gay in 33 states, the fired employee could then sue the employer, and probably win.

Probably. But it's not guaranteed. And, most important, vulnerable workers generally can't afford to sue anyone in the first place. I personally know two people in the US who were fired for arbitrary reasons (unrelated to sexuality, but still arbitrary), and who would have easily won a lawsuit against their former employer - except they couldn't afford to start one, so they didn't.

The right to sue is no protection for people who are too poor to sue. This is a general problem with any society that relies too much on litigation (and too little on explicit legal statutes) to solve injustice. Whenever possible, it should be the job of the state - not the job of the victim - to pursue wrongdoers.

[Eliyyahu]

Eras,

I would advise a Jew not to if asked for advice, but it is not my decision to make for someone else.  It is something that is personal, and which takes place in private.

Let me direct your attention to a quote from King Solomon.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (KJV)

13. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Every work, Eras, not just the ones you personally dislike.  The point of this is that it is not people who are judged as good or evil, but each of their deeds.  We all do good and we all do some bad.  Each person does different levels of each, but most people fall somewhere between totally righteous and totally evil. 

I don't think the policy of aggressively targeting homosexuality is creating better Christians as a result.

I also remind you that in Deuteronomy 25, God calls unjust weights and measures an abomination to the Lord your God (to'avat adonai elohecha), and the list of animals which follow "Thou shalt not eat any abominable (to'avah) thing" earlier in Deuteronomy, which I imagine you have not refrained entirely from eating.  These things are explicitly called abominations to the Israelites, yet you do not treat them all equally.  You pick and choose which you desire to have weight today.

[ErasOmnius]

Eras,

I would advise a Jew not to if asked for advice, but it is not my decision to make for someone else.  It is something that is personal, and which takes place in private.

Let me direct your attention to a quote from King Solomon.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (KJV)

13. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Every work, Eras, not just the ones you personally dislike.  The point of this is that it is not people who are judged as good or evil, but each of their deeds.  We all do good and we all do some bad.  Each person does different levels of each, but most people fall somewhere between totally righteous and totally evil. 

I don't think the policy of aggressively targeting homosexuality is creating better Christians as a result.

I also remind you that in Deuteronomy 25, God calls unjust weights and measures an abomination to the Lord your God (to'avat adonai elohecha), and the list of animals which follow "Thou shalt not eat any abominable (to'avah) thing" earlier in Deuteronomy, which I imagine you have not refrained entirely from eating.  These things are explicitly called abominations to the Israelites, yet you do not treat them all equally.  You pick and choose which you desire to have weight today.

Please, this is a simple Yes or No question.

I do not pretend to have any sway, or right to guide, those who do not call themselves followers of Yahweh. I can only give them the Bible, and proofs, and they have to decide.

I simply ask these questions because this is a thread that deals with homosexuality. What I choose to give weight to is my own doing, and I shall answer to Yahweh myself personally one day. Do not be worried about my soul -- I have placed myself in the firing line of defending the First Covenant [Old Testament] and Second Covenant [New Testament]

So, is the physical practice of male homosexuality a sin?

[Eliyyahu]

I answered both the question about what I would tell a fellow Jew, and what the Torah says about homosexual sex.  Please do not ask me questions which you have already asked and which I have already answered honestly.

[Wolf]

Eras: Please, stop quoting entire posts of other users and then going off on your own tangent. It wastes space. If you want to respond to a specific user, use his handle to call him out.

Eliyyahu: I think you have the right of it there, and I wish it had occurred to me to draw a parallel between the prohibition of homosexual behavior and the prohibition against eating certain animals in the Old Testament. Most humans, and, indeed, many Jews that I know personally, do not strictly follow these rules (no pork, no fish, no "cooking a lamb in her mother's milk"). If we choose to follow some rules and not others, we ought to recognize that we are making a choice on which rules to follow. That choice is informed by our own values, our own reason, and our own desires. There's nothing wrong with this, and I think you've rightly stated that God will judge each person in the context of himself.

If people choose to condemn homosexuality for the sole reason that it is (debatably) viewed unfavorably in scripture, then, unless those same people follow every other rule, law, prohibition and obligation in scripture to the letter, they are making a negative judgment informed only by their own inner prejudices. There is no other excuse: indeed, it is necessarily so. It would even apply to the person who said, "well, I wish I could not condemn homosexuality, but the book says so, so I must." Here, people arguing for a divine condemnation of homosexuality have gone further--calling it "perverse," "an abomination," "depraved," "miserable," and "sad." I think this supports the notion that these people have chosen to support a vague, subjugative and harmful view solely because of their own prejudices. It cannot be otherwise: they do not follow every other law to the letter, meaning that they inherently choose (by choosing, they transfer responsibility from the scripture to themselves) which laws to follow, and no other justification beyond scripture is suggested for that choice.

[chatfsh]

Sorry, but once again, I am obliged to turn your attention to the scriptures, to the words of the Apostle Paul:

"Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17).

Wolf, according to the scriptures, Christians are not required to keep any of the ceremonial type laws since Christ fulfilled the law. (Read the whole chapter for further clarification).  Whereas, the New Testament scriptures make it abundantly clear that the prohibitions against ALL forms of sexual immorality (with homosexual sex specifically mentioned) remained in full force.

[Eliyyahu]

Hwi,

Interestingly, Acts records that even after Jesus' death, when the Temple still stood, the followers of Jesus still made offerings in the Temple and observed the Torah.

Acts 21:20-26 (NIV)

20. When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

21. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

22. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come,

23. so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.

24. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

25. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

26. The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Here we see the actual followers of Jesus continue to observe the Torah, and continuie to make offerings in the Temple after Jesus, while Paul is said to have a reputation of not observing the Torah and teaching other Jews not to as well.  Meanwhile, gentile followers are not required to convert to Judaism, or to observe the Jewish laws, but only those laws which are considered to apply to the descendants of Noah.

[athanasios]

They had made a vow. This vow may have been made prior to becoming Christians. Breaking a vow made to YHWH is unthinkable to Christians.

The final verification that we are done away with the Law was the destruction of the temple in 70CE. Christians were warned by Jesus to flee and so they escaped the destruction of Jerusalem.

Aren't you puzzled that the temple was never rebuilt?

[Eliyyahu]

They had made a vow. This vow may have been made prior to becoming Christians. Breaking a vow made to YHWH is unthinkable to Christians.

That doesn't fit with the statement by James about thousands of believers, all zealous for the law.  The entire affair about Paul going to the Temple stems from the fact that Paul had a reputation for teaching Jews in the exile to forsake observance of the law.  If the law was believed by Jesus' Jewish followers to be done away with by that point then Paul teaching against the law would not be something in need of disproving.  Paul's part in it was supposed to show that the reputation he had wasn't true.  And the text shows that Paul went through with it.  This had to take place over a decade if not decades after Jesus' execution by the Romans.

The final verification that we are done away with the Law was the destruction of the temple in 70CE. Christians were warned by Jesus to flee and so they escaped the destruction of Jerusalem.

How do you figure?  The Torah was given and observed for nearly 500 years before a Temple was built, for 70 years between the destruction of the First and building of the Second, and has been observed for thousands of years after the Second Temple's destruction.  We learned and observed Torah for 40 years before we even had a land!

I suggest you read Ezekiel, whose prophecies all take place in exile, without a Temple.

The fact remains that Acts portrays the leader of the church in Jerusalem, James, as running an observant Jewish operation, whose followers still observed things such as the Nazarite vow and the surrounding offerings, which is totally at odds with the teachings of Paul.  In light of the accusations against Paul, James proposing that Paul go with the four to the Temple for these Torah-commanded offerings is sort of like inviting a suspected converso to dinner in 16th century Spain, and putting a plate full of pork in front of them.

Aren't you puzzled that the temple was never rebuilt?

I read and study the Hebrew Bible, why should I be puzzled by this?

Ezekiel describes a Temple which neither the returning exiles nor Herod ever built in a period of time which nobody has yet experienced.  This is the Temple of the Messianic Era, and any Jew of the First Century could perceive that neither of these things existed in their day.  This does not make the destruction of the Temple less tragic to us, but it was not going to be prevented.

[ErasOmnius]

I answered both the question about what I would tell a fellow Jew, and what the Torah says about homosexual sex.  Please do not ask me questions which you have already asked and which I have already answered honestly.

So, would you say that you are an Orthodox, Reformed, Secular Jew?

I ask this because you seem to want to pick and choose which parts of the First Covenant to strongly believe in, and which parts not to. I am not sure how much stronger Yahweh can put it, when he calls sexual intercourse between two men an 'abomination'.

I ask you belief system because there are many Temples and Synagogs in SE Michigan, USA, that believe a great deal differently. I am familiar with some of what they believe in this area. If you could say what branch of Judaism you adhere, I could get a better understanding.

[Wolf]

Hwi:

"Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17).

According to your interpretation. My reading leads me to believe that Paul is saying that no Old Testament laws remain in effect, and that salvation can only come through the grace of God. (Which is the position of several mainline Protestant sects--are they heretics, too?) Furthermore, as I've said before, this is only Paul's take on events--not Christ's. This is a point you continue ignoring. Where did Christ say it? Why I brought up the apocrypha earlier was to point out that it's humans--not God--who decide what scripture to keep and what to redact.

And even then, supposing this is true, I'm afraid that this quote does nothing for you. It doesn't address the slavery issues, the extensive use of capital punishment for crop-planting, or divorce. People still do those things, and scripture has been selectively employed to affirm or condemn those acts. You yourself have probably done something that doesn't fit in line with this comment nor is consistent with Old Testament law. Just because you can twist this rather vague and metaphorical language into something that might agree with you doesn't mean it has the full-force of a line-be-line amendment passed by both chambers of Congress. Can't have it both ways, Hwi.

Wolf, according to the scriptures, Christians are not required to keep any of the ceremonial type laws since Christ fulfilled the law. (Read the whole chapter for further clarification).  Whereas, the New Testament scriptures make it abundantly clear that the prohibitions against ALL forms of sexual immorality (with homosexual sex specifically mentioned) remained in full force.

Like I said, even assuming that's right and your interpretation of Paul's-not-Christ's-words isn't a bunch of BS resulting from prejudice and confirmation bias, this would only deal with "ceremonial type laws." (Yeah, you sound real professional.) It doesn't seem to address Slavery? Agriculture? Slaughter? Marriage? Until it does, you're still just picking and choosing. You know, I even remember Paul writing something about disapproving of the very notion of marriage at all. I need to go look that up, though. But what if he disapproved of that, would you automatically assume that not only would (because He didn't) Christ have said it Himself, but it's the very Word of God? Doubtful.

Eras:

So, would you say that you are an Orthodox, Reformed, Secular Jew?

I ask this because you seem to want to pick and choose which parts of the First Covenant to strongly believe in, and which parts not to. I am not sure how much stronger Yahweh can put it, when he calls sexual intercourse between two men an 'abomination'.

What, you mean, just like you? Since when did Fed2k become populated by the faith Gestapo? Do any of you know how offensive this entire thread has been to the common sensibilities of human flipping beings? So, let me get this straight. You all start talking about how homosexuals are abominable snowmen. We flip out. You proffer highly debatable and questionable scriptural standards, even though scripture is inconsistent, and none of you are religious scholars, theologians or translators by any stretch of the imagination. When we challenge you on those interpretations, you basically do everything you can to call us "false X" (X can stand for Christian, Jew, Sikh, whatever the person who happens to be challenging you is). Why do you care where he's coming from? So you can sneakily insinuate that he's a "false Jew?" Who gave you that authority? I thought it was God's alone. Forget about buttsex, Eras, isn't pride the most mortal of sins?

No, because he disagrees with your interpretation, you don't get to call him a false Jew like you and Hwi have called me a false Christian. Quite frankly, I think that says all that needs to be said on this topic. There are times I wonder why I continue throwing pearls to swine.

[chatfsh]

Here we see the actual followers of Jesus continue to observe the Torah, and continuie to make offerings in the Temple after Jesus, while Paul is said to have a reputation of not observing the Torah and teaching other Jews not to as well.  Meanwhile, gentile followers are not required to convert to Judaism, or to observe the Jewish laws, but only those laws which are considered to apply to the descendants of Noah.

It is helpful to read the whole book of Acts in order to obtain a proper appreciation for the transition that the early Jewish Christians underwent as they adjusted their view toward the ceremonial requirements of the law.  One can certainly understand the difficulty associated with leaving behind age old customs and traditions that defined your culture, your very nation.  One does not part ways with such customs overnight.

So initially, even Christ's Apostles had difficulty accepting that they were no longer under the ceremonial restrictions of the law.  Christ himself had to open their eyes to make them understand this truth.  When He decided that it was time to begin declaring the Gospel to the gentiles, Christ approached the Apostle Peter in a vision.  He presented Peter with all sorts of ceremoniously unclean food that was forbidden to be eaten under the law.  Peter adamantly refused to eat any of it, saying

[Wolf]

Wolf

[Eliyyahu]

Eras,

So, would you say that you are an Orthodox, Reformed, Secular Jew?

I would say that I am an observant Jew, but others would say I am Orthodox.

I ask this because you seem to want to pick and choose which parts of the First Covenant to strongly believe in, and which parts not to.

Your use of "First Covenant" is misleading.

There are many "covenants" (b'rit, which means an agreement) in the Torah and in the Prophets.  God makes a covenant with Noah and his descendants.  God and Abraham make a covenant regarding circumcision and the promise of the land of Canaan.  Two centuries later God delivers the Israelites based on that covenant, and He and the children of Israel make a covenant where they are given the Torah.  In that same space there are covenants made between Abraham and the king of Gerar, between Isaac and the king of Gerar, between Jacob and Laban.  Later God makes a covenant with Phineas and his descendants to be a priesthood forever. Jonathan and David made a covenant.  God made a covenant with David.  There are many different covenants, covenants between God and a whole nation, covenants between God and individuals, covenants between individuals, covenants between nations.

Now, your accusation against me about picking and choosing (presumably speaking of the covenant regarding the Torah) is totally false, and I think my previous post to you shows that.

I am not sure how much stronger Yahweh can put it, when he calls sexual intercourse between two men an 'abomination'.

I am not sure how much stronger God can put it, when He commands us not to eat any abominable thing, and then lists many things which many Christians have no issue consuming.  This is fine for Christians, as Jews do not hold that non-Jews are obligated to refrain from eating any animal.  But observant Jews do not pick and choose which of these are actually prohibitions to us.  They are all prohibitions for us, and one of the lessons in these prohibitions is that they are forbidden actions which stem from very real desires or impulses.

All Jews don't inherently detest the smell or taste of pork or shellfish products just because ingesting them is forbidden, nor are all Jews inherently born with an inclination toward women just because the Torah forbids homosexual sex.  What the Torah deals with is acting on those inclinations, and for a Jew acting on either of these is a violation of the Torah.  So too are the other hundreds of prohibitions in the Torah which are not called abominations.

I am not picking and choosing, on the contrary, my point is to show that one cannot pick and choose.  There is no partial-Torah.  You are arbitrarily raising the status of homosexual sex (which, if I recall correctly, is a recent modification from what started off as the "sin" of being homosexual) above other things the Torah calls abominations, which are forbidden using the same language in the Torah.