The Law and homosexuality

[meltzerboy]

It is not a demonization! I can conceive of an emotional and caring committed love between a married man and a woman who is not his wife. Does that mean that if they engage in sexual activity, it is not adultery? I absolutely believe that two members of the same sex can emotionally care and love each other to the moon and back. Does that render their sexual activity ‘sinless’? No! You’re listing a lot of things here that may be true, but they are irrelevant. It is possible for someone to genuinely love, and still sin. It is possible for someone to believe in G-d, and still sin. Claiming that someone isn’t a secular atheist or that they are in a committed relationship is not an argument that homosexual activity is moral or harmless. It’s just a distraction from the actual issue: it is sinful.

My response is in reaction to your statement that homosexuals in love are violating the first and second commandments by behaving in an idolatrous way. I am saying they are not doing so: they still worship G-d and they do not worship their own carnal desires. In other words, the commandments are NOT being violated.

 

[1neophyte]

My response is in reaction to your statement that homosexuals in love are violating the first and second commandments by behaving in an idolatrous way. I am saying they are not doing so: they still worship G-d and they do not worship their own carnal desires. In other words, the commandments are NOT being violated.

You can say it all day long, but it doesn’t make it correct.

As someone far, far wiser than me put it:

"When the people gathered before Moses to receive the covenant at Mount Sinai, they said: “All the LORD has spoken we will do and we will hear” (na’aseh ve’nishmah: נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע). Note the order: first comes the decision to obey (na’aseh), and then comes understanding (ve’nishmah).

The heart of faith is willing to do what G-d asks before hearing what exactly is required. Many people operate the other way round, sitting in judgment of G-d’s word, demanding to understand why they should obey. You cannot understand apart from faith, however, and that is categorically true of all forms of knowledge, which is usually defined as “justified true belief.”

 

[meltzerboy]

You can say it all day long, but it doesn’t make it correct.

Then please prove me wrong by contradicting the correctness of my argument.

 

[1neophyte]

Then please prove me wrong by contradicting the correctness of my argument.

I already did, and you ignored it. G-d’s command regarding sexuality: “Be fruitful and multiply”. Man’s desire: Fruitless pleasure with no consequence. You can only obey one or the other.

 

[NonTimendum]

It is not a demonization! I can conceive of an emotional and caring committed love between a married man and a woman who is not his wife. Does that mean that if they engage in sexual activity, it is not adultery?

I understand your point and I think it is a good one, but for a small counter-point I would raise this:

If those two people truly loved each other (in the supernatural sense) then they would not engage in those behaviors because to do so risks condemning themselves and their partners to an eternity in Hell. I am sure there is plenty of emotion (read: passion) in those types of relationships, but I don’t think I would classify it as love. Lust is not love!

There is the “love” of the natural man, which is actually better translated to: “the satisfaction of the personal passion” and there is the “love” of the supernatural man which desires only the best for the object of their love, and is actually for the sake of God and not the object at all.

Any “love” professed by the unrepentant sinner, unbeliever, and natural man is simply an amalgamation of sensational impulses and habitual “residue” (so to speak) from the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Such “love” would (and will) immediately cease the moment the body is destroyed, or the moment God withdraws all Grace. Those suffering the fires of Hell have no love at all, which proves there was never anything within them that actually “loved” but only a sad reflection of God’s love working through them.

Hence I think it absolutely fair to say that there is no such thing as a “loving” sodomite relationship.

 

[meltzerboy]

I understand your point and I think it is a good one, but for a small counter-point I would raise this:

If those two people truly loved each other (in the supernatural sense) then they would not engage in those behaviors because to do so risks condemning themselves and their partners to an eternity in Hell. I am sure there is plenty of emotion (read: passion) in those types of relationships, but I don’t think I would classify it as love. Lust is not love!

There is the “love” of the natural man, which is actually better translated to: “the satisfaction of the personal passion” and there is the “love” of the supernatural man which desires only the best for the object of their love, and is actually for the sake of God and not the object at all.

Any “love” professed by the unrepentant sinner, unbeliever, and natural man is simply an amalgamation of sensational impulses and habitual “residue” (so to speak) from the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Such “love” would (and will) immediately cease the moment the body is destroyed, or the moment God withdraws all Grace. Those suffering the fires of Hell have no love at all, which proves there was never anything within them that actually “loved” but only a sad reflection of God’s love working through them.

Hence I think it absolutely fair to say that there is no such thing as a “loving” sodomite relationship.

That word “sodomite” will raise a few eyebrows. But otherwise, I think you are presenting a valid Christian argument. This thread, however, revolves around the Torah Law, and in Judaism there are other concepts which come into play regarding lust, passion, love, hell, marriage, and homosexuality. For one thing, lust is not necessarily something bad; it does not have the completely negative meaning it has in Christian theology. For another, hell has a somewhat different connotation in Judaism. I think we are speaking in different vocabularies.

 

[meltzerboy]

I already did, and you ignored it. G-d’s command regarding sexuality: “Be fruitful and multiply”. Man’s desire: Fruitless pleasure with no consequence. You can only obey one or the other.

The primary value of marriage, according to Jewish teaching, is mutual love; the secondary value is procreation.

 

[1neophyte]

The primary value of marriage, according to Jewish teaching, is mutual love; the secondary value is procreation.

Does G-d get to define “love”? Or do we?

 

[1neophyte]

That word “sodomite” will raise a few eyebrows. But otherwise, I think you are presenting a valid Christian argument. This thread, however, revolves around the Torah Law, and in Judaism there are other concepts which come into play regarding lust, passion, love, hell, marriage, and homosexuality. For one thing, lust is not necessarily something bad; it does not have the completely negative meaning it has in Christian theology. For another, hell has a somewhat different connotation in Judaism. I think we are speaking in different vocabularies.

What concepts come into play regarding homosexuality in Judaism? Are they concepts that originated thousands of years ago, or hundreds? (Or dozens?)

 

[jcrichton]

Which of the Ten Commandments does homosexual behavior, particularly a loving homosexual relationship, and better yet a same-sex marriage, transgress? I am the Lord thy G-d, thou shalt have no other G-d before me? No. Thou shalt not make graven images? No. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy? No. Honor thy father and thy mother? No. Thou shalt not murder? No. Thou shalt not steal? No. Thou shalt not commit adultery? No. I think you get the idea. The Ten Commandments still remain.

Ah, but what about the details within the Law? What about Leviticus? Well, what about it? The Law forbids and also requires a lot of things which most non-Jews do not participate in, with no one commandment more important than another: such as the laws of purity in dietary matters, the law of observance of the Sabbath Day (also one of the Ten Commandments, as you know), the laws regarding the major Holy Days and festivals, and so forth. These laws are violated on a daily basis by both Jews and non-Jews alike. So should we throw out the Law altogether, particularly since it has been either fulfilled or superseded by Jesus and His commands? I think both Jews and Christians would say no. Why not? Many Christians might say because Jesus created a New Covenant, which is at once the fulfillment and embodiment of the Old Covenant, and we follow this. Some Jews might say because it gives us something good to strive for, an ideal, even if we fall short. Other Jews might say because certain moral principles are still worth following, such as those listed in the Ten Commandments, while some of the details of the Law can be interpreted in different ways, just as Jesus, a revolutionary rabbi, interpreted the Law in a different way. Homosexuality is one of these topics that may be and have been interpreted according to the Hebrew Bible in more than one way. I have discussed this on several threads (maybe even this one) and therefore I will not go into detail here. However, Christians might then protest: but what of Jesus’ interpretation of homosexuality in the Gospels? What of it? Christians are not bound by the details of the OT, and Jews are not bound by the details of the NT. And so on.

Hi, Metzerboy!

…perhaps I was not clear enough… throw out the Word of God for one faction/group/agent and you might as well throw out all of the Word of God (sorry for my misunderstanding of Judaism, I thought that the Mosaic Law was hinged upon the Ten Commandments–I did not know it was so fluid that it could exist outside of them and/or in spite of them).

The second we transgress against the Ten Commandments we transgress against God… the very first Commandment compels us to love Yahweh God Above all else; this by necessity includes self-love which includes Eros (sexual/romantic love).

…since God’s Word is not empty and it is patent (remains) once He Commanded that man should not take another man as his sexual companion (ditto for woman to woman or man/woman to animal) then the love of self must be, obedient to God’s Command, in direct Fellowship with God’s Command.

…so tell me, when does loving self trumps Loving God?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[meltzerboy]

Does G-d get to define “love”? Or do we?

There are a whole variety of different kinds of love in Jewish theology and Jewish ethics, just as there are in Christian theology and ethics. The answer to your question is that, in Judaism, we interpret G-d’s Word in the Written Law and also apply it to modern culture in the Oral Law. The Law exists but it must be interpreted, and sometimes there is more than one valid interpretation of a concept.

 

[1neophyte]

There are a whole variety of different kinds of love in Jewish theology and Jewish ethics, just as there are in Christian theology and ethics. The answer to your question is that, in Judaism, we interpret G-d’s Word in the Written Law and also apply it to modern culture in the Oral Law. The Law exists but it must be interpreted, and sometimes there is more than one valid interpretation of a concept.

How does one know if a particular interpretation is invalid? Is there a way to tell?

 

[meltzerboy]

How does one know if a particular interpretation is invalid? Is there a way to tell?

Good question. In general, the interpretation must not contradict the plain meaning of the Written Law. In cases where there is no plain meaning, it becomes trickier to decide; however, challenging passages should be interpreted in light of context, language, culture, style of writing, and other influences. It is difficult, and that is why rabbis and scholars literally spend their lives studying the Torah and growing in their understanding of its multifaceted meanings. One further point: while studying the Law is both profound and sacred, the most important aspect of Judaism is living the Law in one’s daily life.

 

[NonTimendum]

That word “sodomite” will raise a few eyebrows. But otherwise, I think you are presenting a valid Christian argument. This thread, however, revolves around the Torah Law, and in Judaism there are other concepts which come into play regarding lust, passion, love, hell, marriage, and homosexuality. For one thing, lust is not necessarily something bad; it does not have the completely negative meaning it has in Christian theology. For another, hell has a somewhat different connotation in Judaism. I think we are speaking in different vocabularies.

I used the word to distinguish between people who engage in the behavior and people who suffer from the affliction.

I don’t know about the Torah. In the original Scriptures, lust is obviously viewed as a bad thing; starting with the days of Noah before the Flood, going through Joseph and the adulterous wife, and plenty of other examples that evade my memory at this moment.

Anyway, Christ was the Law and he definitively interpreted all of those Scriptures as absolutely condemning lust, so there really can’t be any other argument. Judaic Law condemns lust, according to the man who encompasses the entirety of the Law.

 

[1neophyte]

Good question. In general, the interpretation must not contradict the plain meaning of the Written Law. In cases where there is no plain meaning, it becomes trickier to decide; however, challenging passages should be interpreted in light of context, language, culture, style of writing, and other influences. It is difficult, and that is why rabbis and scholars literally spend their lives studying the Torah and growing in their understanding of its multifaceted meanings. One further point: while studying the Law is both profound and sacred, the most important aspect of Judaism is living the Law in one’s daily life.

I realize that this is a rabbit hole that likely has no end, but who decides what is plain and what is challenging? Any idea, whether it comes from the Torah, or the Constitution, or some minor municipal ordinance, can be interpreted (read: twisted) into anything that suits oneself, if one is creative enough. We’re human beings. We play games. If the most important aspect of Judaism is living the Law daily, is there any consequence if one violates the Law while pretending that there is some sort of imaginary nuance that changes something obviously plain into something “challenging” or “open to interpretation”?

In other words, does G-d have the final say, or do we? If G-d makes something plain and obvious, such as this body part is for this, and that body part is for that, and this body part is definitely not for that, can we contradict it with no consequence? Can we make up whatever Law suits us, and follow it according to our own understanding? If so, why even bother with the Torah?

 

[Peter_J]

The stereotype is that homosexuals in love are worshiping the god of carnality rather than G-d

You mean unlike Protestants who are “led by the devil”?

Edit: For anyone who’s just joining us, “Protestants are led by the devil” is another claim made on CAF. Which makes it true right? (Internet discussion forums are sometimes better if yu don’t take them seriously, IMO.)

I guess that’s my butting-in for today. Butting-out emoji not found

 

[Peter_J]

I used the word to distinguish between people who engage in the behavior and people who suffer from the affliction.

I’ve seen MSM and WSW used. (That is, “Men who have sex with men (MSM)” and “women who have sex with women (WSW)”.) I don’t know if there are terms that are preferable to those, just relating what I have heard.

 

[Peter_J]

The stereotype is that homosexuals in love are worshiping the god of carnality rather than G-d

You mean unlike Protestants who are “led by the devil”?

Edit: For anyone who’s just joining us, “Protestants are led by the devil” is another claim made on CAF. Which makes it true right? (Internet discussion forums are sometimes better if yu don’t take them seriously, IMO.)

I guess that’s my butting-in for today. Butting-out emoji not found

 

[jcrichton]

You mean unlike Protestants who are “led by the devil”?

Edit: For anyone who’s just joining us, “Protestants are led by the devil” is another claim made on CAF. Which makes it true right? (Internet discussion forums are sometimes better if yu don’t take them seriously, IMO.)

I guess that’s my butting-in for today. Butting-out emoji not found

Hi, Peter!

…there are “Believers” who profess that unless you are able to speak in “tongues” you are not a true Christian… there are those who espouse poverty or dark skin with sin and rejection of God (reason for these people to suffer such calamities)… then there are those who profess that the are saved and will never lose their salvation no matter how many times they sin or how grievous their sins may be… then you have the ones who profess that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon… then the ones who profess that Catholics are not Christians… then the ones who profess that Jesus did not Come to Found One Church… then the ones who profess that Christ’s Church is invisible… then the ones who profess that the Old Testament God is different from the New Testament God… then the ones who profess that the Old Testament must not be read since it leads to witchcraft… then the ones with one or two or no Sacraments… then the ones who know when Jesus was being literal and when he was just employing exaggerated notions… are all these led by the Holy Spirit to bring confusion to the world?

…and let’s not forget the ones who profess that Jesus is not God and that God has not Revealed the Holy Trinity… and the ones who profess that a loving God does not and cannot employ hell as a means of correction… and the ones whose god loves the person but got it wrong when He Inspired His prophets to denounce unrighteousness and perversity… led by the Holy Spirit as well?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Thorolfr]

Hi, Peter!

…there are “Believers” who profess that unless you are able to speak in “tongues” you are not a true Christian… there are those who espouse poverty or dark skin with sin and rejection of God (reason for these people to suffer such calamities)… then there are those who profess that the are saved and will never lose their salvation no matter how many times they sin or how grievous their sins may be… then you have the ones who profess that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon… then the ones who profess that Catholics are not Christians… then the ones who profess that Jesus did not Come to Found One Church… then the ones who profess that Christ’s Church is invisible… then the ones who profess that the Old Testament God is different from the New Testament God… then the ones who profess that the Old Testament must not be read since it leads to witchcraft… then the ones with one or two or no Sacraments… then the ones who know when Jesus was being literal and when he was just employing exaggerated notions… are all these led by the Holy Spirit to bring confusion to the world?

…and let’s not forget the ones who profess that Jesus is not God and that God has not Revealed the Holy Trinity… and the ones who profess that a loving God does not and cannot employ hell as a means of correction… and the ones whose god loves the person but got it wrong when He Inspired His prophets to denounce unrighteousness and perversity… led by the Holy Spirit as well?

Maran atha!

Angel

So what’s your point?