Judaism Psychology Of The Mind - Soulmates, Dating & Relationships

[Ismq]

I agree with you.i'm not giving christian explanations to the torah.one no needs to be a genius to realize that God disaprove that behaviour.

I’m still waiting for you to provide those passages in the Tanakh that you believe support your contention that female homosexuality is condemned.

By the way, who said anything about Christian explanations?

You mean the act itself?

[Jason]

You mean the act itself?

Any condemnation of lesbianism at all would suffice, I think.

[Ismq]

Throughout the book of leviticus one can see the HOLYNESS of God.if one reads chapters 18 and 20 one can deduce that God is not pleased with those behaviours.

[Robis]

You can't ignore what Hashem is speaking here. Of course, every single man has a choice, if to be against Jews or for Jews, and they get what they choose. But Hashem is using those, who chose to be against as a punishment.

And therein lies the rub. I don't see that there is a choice for gay people to NOT be gay. It's not an action that one does. It's part and parcel of the personality and the identity of the individual, and it's way beyond a sex act and a choice to violate a religious precept. The problem is that this is all you can see. "Gay" means "having sex in the bum." Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what gay means, and the hypersexualization of gay people, allowing them to be nothing more than a perceived sex act, is the root of the problem.

You are unable to choose to be gay. A gay person is unable to choose to be straight. A bisexual person may choose to engage in a relationship with either sex, and a pansexual with people from the gender spectrum. The fact that some people have choice in their sexuality doesn't mean that everyone does. If you are straight and can choose to be gay, then I'll change my mind on this issue.

Guys, who are attracted to masculine, they have to find a woman, who is of masculine character and vice versa. That's simple.

[RabbiO]

In the absence of a face palm emoji this will have to suffice.

[RabbiO]

Throughout the book of leviticus one can see the HOLYNESS  of God.if one reads chapters 18 and 20 one can deduce that God is not pleased with those behaviours.

In other words you cannot provide anything in the Tanakh that condemns female homosexuality.

Now that we’ve got that settled hopefully I’ll be able to ignore you.

[Robis]

Throughout the book of leviticus one can see the HOLYNESS  of God.if one reads chapters 18 and 20 one can deduce that God is not pleased with those behaviours.

In other words you cannot provide anything in the Tanakh that condemns female homosexuality.

Now that we’ve got that settled hopefully I’ll be able to ignore you.

I wouldn't even be surprised, that you also think, that masturbation is allowed...

[Dana]

When I was an Evangelical Christian I would not have listened to much information outside my theological circle that would contradict some beliefs that held to innerancy of the bible.

The process of opening up to say a biblical scholar such as Bart Ehrman would only come later, and now I love reading and learning from his books. I am amazed to learn just how ferocious the early century writers fought over what went into the New Testament.

Another biblical scholar, Idan Dershowitz, had written a piece called The Secret History of Leviticus I thought appropriate to the subject of the thread.  A careful consideration on what he wrote could change ones perspective if they are not locked within the framework of fundamentalism.  Is what he wrote plausible?  


A couple snippets that stood out after reading.

"Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men."

And "If a later editor of Leviticus opposed homosexual intercourse, you might wonder, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him (and it was probably a him) to leave the original bans on homosexual incest intact?

No. The key to understanding this editorial decision is the concept of “the exception proves the rule.” According to this principle, the presence of an exception indicates the existence of a broader rule. For example, a sign declaring an office to be closed on Sundays suggests that the office is open on all other days of the week.

Now, apply this principle to Leviticus 18: A law declaring that homosexual incest is prohibited could reasonably be taken to indicate that non-incestuous homosexual intercourse is permitted."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opini...y-sex.html

The full article.

[Jason]

When I was an Evangelical Christian I would not have listened to much information outside my theological circle that would contradict some beliefs that held to innerancy of the bible.

The process of opening up to say a biblical scholar such as Bart Ehrman would only come later, and now I love reading and learning from his books. I am amazed to learn just how ferocious the early century writers fought over what went into the New Testament.

Another biblical scholar, Idan Dershowitz, had written a piece called The Secret History of Leviticus I thought appropriate to the subject of the thread.  A careful consideration on what he wrote could change ones perspective if they are not locked within the framework of fundamentalism.  Is what he wrote plausible?  


A couple snippets that stood out after reading.

"Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men."

And "If a later editor of Leviticus opposed homosexual intercourse, you might wonder, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him (and it was probably a him) to leave the original bans on homosexual incest intact?

No. The key to understanding this editorial decision is the concept of “the exception proves the rule.” According to this principle, the presence of an exception indicates the existence of a broader rule. For example, a sign declaring an office to be closed on Sundays suggests that the office is open on all other days of the week.

Now, apply this principle to Leviticus 18: A law declaring that homosexual incest is prohibited could reasonably be taken to indicate that non-incestuous homosexual intercourse is permitted."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opini...y-sex.html

The full article.

Definitely an interesting perspective.

[Jason]

I wouldn't even be surprised, that you also think, that masturbation is allowed...

Good grief.