Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

To: hellinahandcart

41 posted on 02/21/2004 6:11:39 PM PST by hellinahandcart

To: MrsKentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

What exactly is homophobia?

42 posted on 02/21/2004 6:18:28 PM PST by ocean

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development.

Someone should tell this to Mark Morford.

43 posted on 02/21/2004 6:26:35 PM PST by Democratshavenobrains

The dictionary says it is a fear or dislike of homosexuals.

44 posted on 02/21/2004 6:31:51 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Excellent article. Monogamy was probably one of Judaism's main contributions to Western civilization, and probably one of the least recognized.

When the Church took this and translated it to Europe, it totally transformed social and sexual relationships and was, essentially, the social framework for individual freedom. This includes that of women, who were no longer cattle but could not be married unless they gave their free consent. Granted, there were many times when this was overlooked in practice, but the idea was there.

I think few people realize what is at stake in the rejection of marriage.

45 posted on 02/21/2004 6:37:48 PM PST by livius

46 posted on 02/21/2004 6:41:32 PM PST by djreece

That's a great question! I agree with you that God revealed his true nature rather than the way described in this article. Why don't you ask Dennis Prager himself? He does a lot of interfaith dialogue and I'm sure would be open to questions. If you're not familiar with Mr. Prager, here's a link to his bio: Dennis Prager Bio

If you want to contact him by email: dennisprager.com contact page

47 posted on 02/21/2004 6:48:53 PM PST by arasina (So there.)

"It condemns homosexuality as a grave sin."

Although the BSA is likely not getting that impression, at the moment.

48 posted on 02/21/2004 6:49:35 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

50 posted on 02/21/2004 7:00:10 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)

To: KantianBurke

55 posted on 02/21/2004 7:38:24 PM PST by Bernard Marx (In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is.)

I think few people realize what is at stake in the rejection of marriage.

Or that women are its primary beneficiaries.

56 posted on 02/21/2004 7:43:05 PM PST by independentmind

You might enjoy the book, "The Sexual Lives of the Ancients"

57 posted on 02/21/2004 7:48:31 PM PST by redangus

I teach my daughters to dress modestly, but should a harlot strip in front of my husband or sons, I expect them to act virtuously.

I've told my son to run like Joseph did from his employer's wayward wife!

You realize, of course, that there are more than a few FReepers who believe that chastity is unnecessary, unnatural and unattainable. :)

58 posted on 02/21/2004 7:56:11 PM PST by demnomo

Don't you believe that the NT, at least, has statements about chastity and purity? If one isn't even supposed to lust in one's heart, do you really think it's ok to have premarital sex? :(

The original article referred to The Torah's prohibition. The New Testament is not the Torah.

Also, I think it should be clear that the lack of a prohibition of certain behaviors does not mean those behaviors were 'right'. Simple summary:

If a man sleeps with his neighbor's wife, he is likely to mess up his neighbor's family and do doing great harm to his neighbor.
If a man sleeps around with unmarried women, he is likely to mess up his own family and do great harm to himself.
For a man to do great harm to his neighbor is prohibited. For a man to do great harm to himself is stupid but permissible, for any harm that befalls the man will be just and adequate punishment for his foolish actions.

To say that the Torah expresses disapproval toward sexual promiscuity by anyone, married or not, would be accurate. To say that it prohibits it in all cases (as opposed to specific cases, such as sex with another man's wife) is not accurate. Most accurate would be to say that it is prohibited in some cases and is strongly discouraged even when not prohibited.

BTW, I have a feeling that many churches need to consider better the Lesson of the Prodigal Son. It seems some churches are worried that if they take a stand on moral issues they'll lose members. To my mind, the right attitude for a church to take would be to let errant people know that the path they're taking is foolish and self-destructive, but rather than either condemning or condoning the behavior, acknowledge that some people just have to find things out the hard way. Churches need to make clear to people that they will welcome back those who thought they could find happiness in their wayward lifestyles and have instead found their lives desperately empty.

I have a funny feeling that there are a lot of people who over the years have left the church because they thought it too 'uppity moralistic' who, if properly welcomed back, could find salvation. The key is to recognize that many people aren't ready for Christ's message, but to attract those that are.

59 posted on 02/21/2004 7:59:36 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Are you going to ask the mods to please delete #49?

60 posted on 02/21/2004 8:01:44 PM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794