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

CERC ^ | DENNIS PRAGER

[nyyankeefan]

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

Leviticus 18:22
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

regarding male homosexuality — female homosexuality is not mentioned — this Bible speaks in such clear and direct language

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I thought there was some type of reference to female homosexuality. Perhaps not in such explicit terms as those of male homosexuality.

[onedoug]

Thanks, NYer. Great post!

[Greg F]

Romans 1:26-27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

Very clear also in the verses regarding the marriage bed. Sex is for married couples; marriage is between a man and a woman.

[roamer_1]

But also certainly most of the roots of western civilization, from democracy to science, roads, entertainment and even politics, corruption and other “western” evils were present before Christianity conquered Rome.

True, but one could equally argue that Rome developed those concepts from Greece, and that Greece, in her infancy, learned those concepts from elsewhere.

If one accepts the dating present in the Bible, The Hebrews (while a sort of theocracy by way of it's priestly sect) sported a form of republicanism from their very beginnings. While this republicanism was based upon tribal affiliation and a patriarchy, it is undoubtedly there- Representative counsels within families represented in each tribal counsel, and each tribe represented in the national council.

One must also remember that it was rebellion against this original system that caused Jehovah to acquiesce to their wishes and provide them with a king...Thereafter their body politic was still parliamentarian.

Their (the Hebrews) interaction with their neighbors, especially the Phoenicians and the Greeks might lend some credit to where the Greeks got such strange, "new" concepts...

[Larry Lucido]

“Why Judaism . . . Rejected Homosexuality”

Just a wild guess, but I would think that the treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah would have gotten Lot’s attention, and the rest is history.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Romans 1:26-27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

Thank you. I knew it was there. How could this so-called theologian miss that?

[don-o]

bump mark

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

it is this male homosexual lifestyle, more than the specific homosexual act, that disturbs most people

Uh, no. Really, no. It's using the exit shute in a way that wasn't intended. (I guess it's ok to write that, given the graphic nature of the article.)

[Greg F]

I think that some dispute that “the natural use” means female on female relations but only other things. I would say that the statement is intentionally broad. Also, I think the writer of the article is Jewish so less focused on New Testament scripture. Not sure he’s Jewish, just my impression.

[ModelBreaker]

That’s a different definition of Western civilization than I had in mind and certainly different than taught in the “Origins of Western Civilization” I studied at a conservative Christian school... but that doesn’t make you wrong. And if the author is using your definition then I can see how he reached his conclusions.

We have no disagreement. Clearly, the Greek and Roman empires were a key part of our "origins." But they were a key part of the origins in Asia Minor also. What made Western Civilization different from the evolution the Roman heritage took in the east was Christianity.

Of course, the influence was not all one way. Much of Christianity was, and remains, Hellenized.

Just a couple of examples, one searches in vain for any concept of the "soul" in the Old or New Testaments--that is, something separate from the body that somehow attaches and detaches from the body at birth and death but who is, nevertheless, us. So there is no support in the Bible for widespread notions such as angels with harps playing music to disembodied souls. Yet that image is firmly planted in Christian culture. It is a very Hellenistic concept. So too, Purgatory. The Hellenization of Christianity makes a lot of modern Christians very unclear on what the New Testament actually says about life after death.

[ModelBreaker]

If things had happened differently, could we have gotten to somewhere like where we are today, still praying to the Roman pantheon?

Well, the Romans did not. Nor did the inheritors of the Roman empire in Asia Minor and the East.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"[The Torah] was also among the first time that chattel slavery was abolished. The slavery described in the Torah is more generally along the lines of indentured servitude..."

I am interested in learning about the similarities and the important distinctions between different forms of dependent labor: chattel slavery, Abrahamic slavery, serfdom, indentured labor, apprenticeship, domestic labor (the working family), monastic labor, etc.

I say "interested" because I actually don't know much, but would like to learn and understand more.

Could you please elabaorate a little more on your above statement?

And if you know of anyplace on the Internet where there is a more in-depth discussion, could you recommend it? Thanks.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Or one could argue that people are naturally (i.e., biologically) bisexual (and given the data I have seen on human sexuality, this may well be true).

Again, making their points for them. Why does he do that?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Yes, Dennis Prager is Jewish.

[Wuli]

No matter how well intended, the totality of the article makes a poor argument, for what it believes is a good cause.

It is often anti-historical, filled with exaggeration and hyperbole, conflates anecdotal aspects of human sexual occurrences, past and present to be innate and foundational to natural male human sexuality; as if, in grave historical error, the anecdotes it mentions were the frequent and standard norm in most earlier societies.

Prager should stick to the religious-philosophical arguments, from today, because he’s not a good historian in any sense and therefor should refrain from his broad statements of what exactly earlier social conditions were.

[roamer_1]

Or one could argue that people are naturally (i.e., biologically) bisexual (and given the data I have seen on human sexuality, this may well be true).

Again, making their points for them. Why does he do that?

I find myself quite willing to believe there is a biological imperative for an homosexual nature. But then, I would also argue the same for pedophilia, murder, rape, incest, theft, and any other nastiness one might offer.

Face it, without God we are no better (or perhaps even less) than animals.

[MHGinTN]

Um, I find it difficult to see where you get some of your wild assertions:

"... one searches in vain for any concept of the "soul" in the Old or New Testaments--that is, something separate from the body that somehow attaches and detaches from the body at birth and death but who is, nevertheless, us." And yet, here are a few Old Testament passages one may quickly cite, passages which speak of the spirit/soul/ and body and God's interaction with spirit and soul of the individual; and these are but a few from the OT, there are many more in the New Testament and in fact the entire foundational basis for the NT is God's interaction with the spirit/soul of man! ...

Numbers 27:18 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.

Ecclesiastes 2:26 For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.

Ecclesiastes 8:8 There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Daniel 5:11 There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

While such a man may be a healthy and fine human being in every other area of life, and quite possibly more kind, industrious, and ethical than many heterosexuals, in this one area he cannot be called normal.

Why is he attributing extra virtues to homosexuals? "Healthy, fine, more kind, industrious, ethical." Healthy? We already know that the average homosexual is more than likely not healthy. Possibly infected with HIV, AIDS, Kaposi's sarcoma, etc. Ethical? We know that many gays are actively lobbying to lower the age of consent. They also want to infiltrate and be accepted into traditionally non-gay associations (Boy Scouts, etc). Also, the gay "rights" that are infecting every area of society ("hate" crimes; teaching children about homosexuality; making it a crime to speak negatively about homosexuality; etc). What's fine and ethical about that?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I find myself quite willing to believe there is a biological imperative for an homosexual nature. But then, I would also argue the same for pedophilia, murder, rape, incest, theft, and any other nastiness one might offer.

A biological imperative for pedophilia, murder, rape, incest, etc? What you're saying is that these people can't help themselves. There's a biological imperative for them to murder or rape or commit pedophilia. Why are you tossing the concept of Evil out the window?