4
   

Why Judaism rejected homosexuality

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 08:48 pm
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Miller wrote:

Simple facts, read the Bible. Learn from the ancient Hebrews.



Sorry. I have learned more valuable knowledge from modern Jewish New Yorkers. Instead of the bible, I would recommend some Woody Allen movies and reruns of Seinfeld.


You missed the point, Foofie. The question is why did ancient Jewish law prohibit homosexual activity among the population?



You mean it wasn't so as not to upset the mother?

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 09:05 pm
@Miller,
Quote:
The question is why did ancient Jewish law prohibit homosexual activity among the population?


Probably the same reason that ancient Jewish law mandated killing girls for not bleeding correctly on their wedding night.


Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 09:08 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
The question is why did ancient Jewish law prohibit homosexual activity among the population?


Probably the same reason that ancient Jewish law mandated killing girls for not bleeding correctly on their wedding night.





Even after the ancient times, I thought it was customary to show the blood on the sheets the next day, so everyone would know that the bride was a virgin. And, from that social custom grew the sleight of hand of sewing some chicken gut together into a small pouch with some chicken blood. Voila, a virgin on the wedding night.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 09:12 pm
@Foofie,
The fact that young girls were to be dragged out and publicly killed if they didn't bleed correctly still seems a tiny bit barbaric to me.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 09:18 pm
Is there some relation between virignity on one's wedding night and the prohibition of homosexuality by Jewish law.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 09:21 pm
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

Is there some relation between virignity on one's wedding night and the prohibition of homosexuality by Jewish law.


Only if the dowry was wholesale, not retail. Lighten up. Have a sense of humor.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 09:49 pm
@Miller,
Of course there is a relation between killing someone for not bleeding correctly on their wedding night, and the prohibition of homosexuality by Jewish law.

Killing people for Homosexuality and virginity are two areas where the Ancient Hebrews were quite barbaric.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 10:16 pm
@maxdancona,
As usual you tee up targets you can't help but hitting.

But then you are a science/math teacher and not one who attempts to educate our children about history or literature.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2013 10:34 pm
@Foofie,
Russian Jews are mainly the ten missing tribes which the Assyrians carried off to never-never land beyond the Caucasus.

The popular thinking is that the Khazar kingdom originally amounted to Turkish tribes which had adopted Judaism in the early middle ages... That's wrong; the entire culture of the Khazar kingdom was that of ancient Israel and not that of Hellenistic Jews who somebody might have learned Judaism from circa 500 or 600 AD:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/baalbek/khazars.htm
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 06:05 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The fact that young girls were to be dragged out and publicly killed if they didn't bleed correctly still seems a tiny bit barbaric to me.


I cannot assume your information is correct. You do know there have been many canards about Jews over the centuries. Plus, the referencing to what people might have done a few millenia ago, could have started by those that wanted to claim that their current faith has the moral high ground today?

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 06:07 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Of course there is a relation between killing someone for not bleeding correctly on their wedding night, and the prohibition of homosexuality by Jewish law.

Killing people for Homosexuality and virginity are two areas where the Ancient Hebrews were quite barbaric.



Back then Jews did not go to college. It proves that Jewish mothers are correct, and it is important to go to college. Case closed.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 06:08 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Russian Jews are mainly the ten missing tribes which the Assyrians carried off to never-never land beyond the Caucasus.

The popular thinking is that the Khazar kingdom originally amounted to Turkish tribes which had adopted Judaism in the early middle ages... That's wrong; the entire culture of the Khazar kingdom was that of ancient Israel and not that of Hellenistic Jews who somebody might have learned Judaism from circa 500 or 600 AD:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/baalbek/khazars.htm


Then call me Khazarish.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 06:21 am
@Foofie,
It is in the Bible Foofie; the Book of Deuteronomy. This is part of the books of Moses. You can read it for yourself.

Quote:
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.

Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.


This is Deuteronomy 22: 13-20.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 01:29 pm
@Setanta,
How does your theory address the fact that peoples like the Babylonians, Sumerians and Egyptians are far more often credited with the flourishing of civilization than Israelites? Were these Judeo-Christian indoctrinated archeologists and historians giving them credit because they were in the vicinity of Jerusalem?

I agree that their has long been tunnel vision about the importance of that region and Europe as well, but this probably has more to do with simple chauvinism and practical access, then any religious bias.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 03:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Why shouldn't peoples like the Babylonians, Sumerians and Egyptians be credited with the flourishing of civilization? These civilizations contributed important cultural, scientific and agricultural advancements that are still important.

The Israeli kingdom at its height of power covered a very small geographic location, and it didn't last very long before falling. The only reason that the Israeli culture is important to us now is that it is the basis of the brand of Christianity that has dominated European culture for centuries.

I have nothing about Israeli culture. But there isn't anything special about it.


Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 05:03 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
It's not a theory, it's a recognized reality in historiography.

The Abrahamic religions are called the Abrahamic religions because all three claim either actual hereditary (Judaism and Islam) or spiritual (Christianity) descent from Abraham. Abraham was said to be descended from Noah (it was important, but an often failed effort, for the writers of scripture to keep all their ducks in a row). He was said to come from Ur of the Chaldees. The Chaldeans were a Semitic people who briefly ruled Babylon. Essentially, the chronology doesn't work if Abraham was supposed to be a Chaldean, but it does work if he were Sumerian. Since the Chaldeans are known to us from Hellenistic sources, it's entirely possible that this is a designation of a Sumerian tribe.

Talking about Babylonians is essentially meaningless. About 4000 years ago, the Akkadians (a Semitic people) founded Babylon. It was overrun by the Assyrians, briefly by the Chaldeans, and then finally by the Medes and Farsi (the Persians). Who the Babylonians were depends upon what time in hsitory you are referring to. The Jews had been carried off into captivity by the Chaldeans about 3000 years ago. It was not uncommon for whole tribes to be taken into captivity for use in completing monumental architectural projects. When the Medes ovrran Babylon, the Jews were allowed to return to western Palestine. At that time, they revised the Pentateuch, and as there is no evidence of these stories previously, and as they wrote now in Hebrew rather than Israelite script, it is very likely that they incorporated the flood story and several other lively and entertaining stories they had picked up while living near Babylon (see the Gilgamesh Epic). They returned to Palestine and revised the Pentateuch between 2600 and 2500 years ago.

No matter how you slice it, there just isn't any good evidence that the Jews were important economically, socially, militarily or even religiously, until the Arameans came along. They spread confessional Judaism throughout the middle east and into central Asia, eventually carrying it to China, just as they would subsequently do with Nestorian Christianity. The evidence for this is reinforced by Marco Polo's narrative. It is because of the great commercial and economic importance of the Arameans that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the region at the time when the putative Jesus was alleged to have lived. The nasty stereotype of Jews as greedy, grasping, pushing commercial vultures also very likely comes from a confusion of the Arameans with the Jews.

If, as you quixotically claim, Europeans were motivated by chauvinism, why would they impute to the middle east developments which archaeology has shown occurred in Europe either first or contemporaneously with those same developments in the middle east? You're not making sense here.

For the religiously obsessed Christians of the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea of the Sumerians, succeeded by the Akkadians, and both being at least close cousins to the Jews, as the founders of our civilization was paramount. They were willing to fudge the evidence and ignore any contradictions to continue to peddle a false importance for the Jews in particular and the middle east in general as the fount of all civilization. As i've already pointed out, it was necessary for them to ignore China entirely to forward that thesis.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 06:12 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.

Her father will say to the elders.......


That was nothing more than contract lawyers do in trying to write contracts to cover worst possible cases. Wedding night virginity problems in ancient Israel probably came up about once every 25 or 30 years in the whole country, sort of like having some sort of a Kalashnikov-action rifle jam or misfeed in the Russian military, i.e. rare enough that reporters would go investigate if it ever happened.

Meanwhile, you have to ask yourself about the other thing which Israelites figured out 1500 years before anybody else did which was that they didn't need to be fighting wars or sacrificing children to dwarf stars (Jupiter/Saturn) or stone idols representing dwarf stars...

In the countries surrounding Israel, a lot of boys and girls never got as far as having to worry about possible wedding night problems:

Quote:
LEV 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

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


Both problems dealt with in successive verses of Leviticus...

Quote:
DEU 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.


Quote:

2KI 16:3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.


Quote:

2KI 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and
used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought
much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.


Quote:

2CH 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.


i.e. a few of the Israelite kings were trying to be cool/cosmopolitan in following the child sacrifices of the surrounding peoples, but were invariably condemned for it.

Quote:

EZE 16:21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

...
EZE 16:23 And it came to pass after all thy wickedness, (woe, woe unto thee!
saith the LORD GOD;)


There's a lot of that in the OT. The major sin/crime in the OT was idolatry. Israelites figured it out 3000 years ago. Lithuanians by way of contrast were still worshiping Odin 800 years ago.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 07:50 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Wedding night virginity problems in ancient Israel probably came up about once every 25 or 30 years in the whole country


I don't imagine that people back then were different then people are today. But, that isn't really the issue.

The real issue is that the Law of Moses demanded that men drag a young girl out of her house to kill her with rocks. Under the law she wasn't even innocent until proven guilty. Once her husband made the accusation her father had to prove her innocence to prevent her from being killed. If there was no evidence either way, she was still killed.

The only point is that the ancient Hebrew law was pretty barbaric and can't be applied to modern society.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 10:22 am
@maxdancona,
The only point is that you never miss an opportunity to denigrate the predominant Judeo-Christian culture of the United States.

Think you'd be better off in ancient Babylon or Assyria??
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 10:35 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The only point is that the ancient Hebrew law was pretty barbaric and can't be applied to modern society.



Duh!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 07:27:11