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

CERC ^ | DENNIS PRAGER

[monkeycard]

Thanks for posting this very informative article.

[roamer_1]

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?

I am not. Since we all fall under the curse of Adam, all of humanity IS evil by nature. We are born to selfishness, and tend to feed the beast within. It is only when we aspire to follow the Only Way that God has given us that we rise above the flesh.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

We ... tend to feed the beast within.

I totally subscribe to that concept, and almost in those exact words. (I use the word 'demon').

[mountainlyons]

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The bible says men burning in lust for me and women burning in lust for women is an abomination.

It does not take me 100 pages to say that.

[trane250]

I’m surprised that Prager used slavery as an example of moral regressiveness of Judaism. Just as the Torah was the first time these distinctions in sexual relations were set forth, it 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, rather than the modern American conception of slavery.

I recommend that you read Leviticus 25:44. This tells the ancient Israelites whom they may enslave and whom they may not (generally other Israelites) and for how long. This biblical passage was oft cited by southerners as a justification for slavery.

After reading the above Text, you may wish to read Exodus 21:20 and 21:21. This tells the ancient Israelites that they will be punished if they beat their slaves and slave girls to death. However, if those ancients were to beat their slaves or slave girls to death slowly over several days, they will suffer no punishment, because they are his property.

Very enlightened, wouldn't you say?

[roamer_1]

I totally subscribe to that concept, and almost in those exact words. (I use the word 'demon').

While I can see what you are driving at, I cannot go so far as to suggest that all humanity is demonic, or at least in the sense that each_and_every_one is or must be possessed at some level. I DO believe that many, many are in fact possessed- Many more than our society is prepared to admit.

That we are influenced by demonic forces is unquestionable. Combine that to the thought that we are evil by nature (in the milder sense), and one can certainly see why the default "low" in human governance is anarchy. And so we go, ever slouching toward Gomorrah.

That our nation has almost certainly succumbed to the idea that Christianity is a personal thing seals our doom. Western Civilization, and Britain (and her whelps, to include the USA) particularly have succeeded because of a national sense of Christendom. We as nations subscribe to the Judeo-Christian Ethic as a societal sense of right and wrong.

Look not only to the laws written upon the books (which are enough to prove a sure connection to the Hebrew God), but look also to the laws written upon the heart: Note the close affinity between the early Brit concept of "the Stations of a Noble Heart" and the "Cowboy Code (Code of the West)" or the "American Way".

That societal norm is why kids here have been raised up to be good men and good citizens, and why for the longest time we could prevail against the evils that beset nations, families, and individuals, and even show progress in the war to bring about the Kingdom (it is all about the Kingdom, after all).

The infection of our society by the rotted root of Rome (by way of the Constitution of the French Republic's bastardization into the Socialist concept) is what makes these ills so prevalent in our nation- The supplanting of Rome's root for our Natural root is the direct cause.

The more that Natural root is cut away from us, the more we are grafted to the unnatural one, and why I can admit with good evidence, a fair subscription to the basis of this article.

[aberaussie]

bttt

[Dick Vomer]

Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

Let's see.... how about the fact that some guy can go to the beach and see some other guy's hairy rear end and say..."Hey, I gotta get me some of that!"

Yeah that's a good reason right there.

But the fact that it's mentioned specifically in the Bible as wrong should be the big hint.

I've got enough problems with my own pathetic soul I'll let the homosexuals figure it out on their own. I would just like them not to throw it in my face or my kid's faces that it' "natural" and "not bad". Cause it's sick and shows low impulse control, poor sexual identity and narcisistic/sociopathic personality disorder. That was before the American Psychiatric Association turned into a political and not a medical association.

[William Terrell]

He keeps saying Jewish. It is Israelite, Judah being only one of the tribes.

If he makes a mistake of this simplicity, what others has he made?

[Coleus]

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

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[goldstategop]

There is but female homosexuals do not lead debauched lives. That's why little attention was given to it. Male sexuality can be destructive because men are capable of desiring to penetrate virtually anything with their sex organ; there is no such corresponding urge among women. That is why the Bible lays down such strong controls on male sexuality and why male homosexuality was deemed to be subversive of the family and true holiness before God.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

A lot of people have known a homosexual relative. They may be outwardly conscious of their obligations to others but their sexual choice prevents them from being fully human. A man incapable of making love to a woman will in a way remain forever incomplete by nature since he has cut himself off from experiencing the opposite of his own being.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

The biblical regulations humanized slavery in a world where it was accepted practice to hold human beings as property. The Bible however, never calls slavery good or suggests in any way its the ideal state of the human condition. On the contrary, it exalts human freedom and places emphasis on the importance of individual dignity before God. The Bible more than any other book in history, changed forever how the world views human nature.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Mrs. Don-o]

I await mvpel's reply, since I'm no expert on this topic.

What I do know is that slavery was already an established institution in Israelite society when the Scriptures were being written, and if you follow the moral teachings, which were, I believe, gradually revealed, you will see over a span of time stronger and stronger teachings that incrementally limit or are in tension with slavery ("remember that you, too, were slaves in Egypt" "do not oppress the stranger or the foreigner..") up through, say, Philemon, where Paul tells Philemon to accept his runaway slave Onesimus back, not as a slave but as a dear brother.

[onedoug]

It could be too that since polygamy was accepted in Judaism (erroneously, I believe), it would have been "inconvenient" to proscribe lesbianism outright.

That said, I feel that Prager's paper herein is a major contribution to homosexual dissuasion and to Torah study.

[txzman]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

[Irish Rose]

Okay, got it. I understand your point.

[Irish Rose]

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis's The Four Loves? In the chapter "Friendship", he argued that friendship - which he distinguishes from having allies or companions - is a love. He wrote that Friendship is different from Eros; the two loves can co-exist (your spouse can be your friend as well as your lover) but they can also be separate. He spent several pages arguing against the theory that close friendships between men (people don't suspect it of women) are homosexual.

[vladimir998]

Yes, I know the book. I think Lewis was right. I remember, way back when, having to dispell the myth of ‘homo-eroticism’ between Gilgamesh and Enkidu to colleagues in university department meeting.

Moonbat: “Well, it’s clear that The Epic of Gilgamesh is saturated with homo-eroticism.”

Me: What evidence do you have for that?

Moonbat: “Come on! The text says that Gilgamesh loved Enkidu.”

Me: The text also says Gilgamesh loved his sword. That doesn’t mean he was having sex with it.

Idiots.