Why did homosexuality become a sin?

July 10, 1465.

I’m guessing because things like AIDS and Monkeypox happened back then as well, so the stigma developed.

It started with the Trans Woman of Sodom.

I’m an atheist so it doesn’t apply to me

I'd say that it's vaguely all of these.

One thing that has always struck me is how religion and religious teachings have been used to propagate various behaviors in communities. "Kosher" and "halal" eating habits would all be extremely healthy and dramatically reduce food borne sickenesses, especially in the hot middle eastern climate. If you wanted people to adhere to various behaviors, tell 'em god want them to do it.

In a period when infant mortality rates were high, you'd want people to have lots of children. At the same time, they also insisted that women remain virgins until marriage. You'd want to prevent men from simplifying their lives and hooking up to satisfy their urges if it were seen as in direct competition with having sex with women.

Religion. In the early catholic church priests could be married and one priest was married to another man and they performed some type of same sex marriage rite in churches.

Interestingly enough, so-called "primitive" societies such as NA tribes had no particular stigma on homosexuality.

[quote]Was it because it's a sexual act that does not result in reproduction of the species?

Yes, all old world religions have a problem with the Big Three that can (in theory) result in decreased birth rates -- divorce, abortion, homosexuality. That stance made perfect sense back when infant mortality was incredibly high and women needed to keep birthing babies so communities wouldn't collapse, but isn't useful in modern times anymore. These days, it's just hatred because of the ick factor and because it's very easy to get the majority to hate something that only a small minority engages in. You have no idea just how strong a democratic country needs to be to protect its minorities, and should it at any point collapse, we'd be among the first ones on the menu.

Both disease prevention and need for children.

Thank God I’m an atheist

Homosexuality as a 'stigma' is one thing - Muslim and Buddhist cultures decried it mostly because of a need to propagate the species.

But when you are talking about 'sin' you are describing Judaism/Christianity (Old and New Testament). So, if we're talking about that religion, then we have to think about controlling the populace in every way possible. Christianity is about control more than any other religion, which seems quite ironic when Christ was not an example of control himself.

When talking about Christianity specifically (and not Judaism), the answer is simple when it comes to discussing anything labeled a sin. It's literally always about manipulating the people under a religion by labeling certain activities as 'sinful', as in, aligned with Satan and not the Holy Trinity. The overarching principle here is to create FOLLOWERS of the religion by any means necessary. This is why abortion is seen as sinful right along with homosexuality.

Gay long term relationships were not a common practice like they are today. Men simply had wives, and would mess around with their male friends on the side, and it was in and of itself very normal and not directly stigmatized (this is how it is in Muslim society). If a man could be trusted to keep fathering children to follow Christ, then some side piece with the boys in a discrete place could be tolerated (and it was). But there had to be a precedent set under the umbrella of Christianity, whereby men really couldn't be trusted after all. That's what is interesting to me. What happened back then to make the Roman Catholic church clamp down on this behavior? Was it linked to the Priesthood and the tendencies we are all too familiar with? Respected church elders were caught diddling altar boys, and then they projected that all homosexuality is therefore a sin and must be preached as such to the flock?

Then, when you get into the Old Testament, you see the often quoted Leviticus passages. This was another thing entirely. The idea of laying with a man like you would a woman was labeled an 'abomination' akin to any other abomination (murder, deceit, unclean food, false idolatry). When we talk about Old Testament, I think it's more about protecting a fragile society, as stated above, and create more babies. But when we get to Christianity, we are clamping down even harder and creating more religious followers (to compete with other religions we were at war with).

R2 and R8 seem to believe that disease was linked to homosexuality during antiquity, but there is no evidence of this.

Christianity is more about control than Islam?

OP Go pray at your Westboro Baptist "alter" you ridiculous, bipolar, Trumptard freak, and leave this site!!! Get thee behind me, Satan!!!!

R11–no antibiotics, no anti-virals, no running water—do the math.

In Abrahamic doctrine human sexuality is a curse God put on us in punishment for Eve's disobedience. It exists to punish women with suffering and to serve as the devil's agent by tempting men to damnation. The worst crime is having sex for pleasure and the only God-approved sex act is for a husband to ejaculate into his wife for purposes of reproduction. So men who have sex with other men are seen as trying to get around God's judgment through a loophole and THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.

I'll take Anal Sex for 300, Mayim.

R10 at some point the early Catholic church banned marriage even to women because quite often priests were powerful and rich. They did not want those priests leaving their wealth to offspring so they proclaimed no more marriage to women. Some prominent priest at the time objected saying if they did not it would force priests into "unnatural" acts aka kiddie diddling. At that point I'm convinced the priesthood became a safe haven of sorts for pedophiles and attracted many of them as it was a profession giving them easy access.

r17, I don't know about that because up until comparatively recently it was customary for Catholic families to pledge one of their sons to the priesthood when they were still children and they didn't have any say about it. Cardinal Richelieu of "Three Musketeers" fame had to join the clergy in order to claim property that belonged to his family, but like others who saw it as a job rather than a calling felt no qualms about having a full sex life.

I do think in late 20th century America the priesthood became a dumping ground for sexual predators, as in, you either go to jail or join the Church.

'Was it because homosexual males tend to be far more promiscuous and thus became vectors for disease at a time when medical knowledge was extremely limited?'

Fuck you, OP.

Most people with the most diseases in the world are heterosexuals.

When bathing facilities were not widely available anal sex must have been pretty dirty.

Some ancient frau named Karen of Nazareth got tired of getting sloppy seconds, complained to the manager and the rest is history 😉

I think there was so much death back in the dark ages that people thought the human race would disappear. So masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, etc. were considered abominations.

Now it's just used politically.

A sin in some cultures but widely practiced everywhere.

R21 Love love love you. Most original comment I've seen in sometime. What do you do for a living.

Because prejudice and bigotry focused on groups of people who are “different” is part of the human condition.

Men who have sex with men ARE generally more promiscuous than men who have sex with women. It’s easier.

This must have been especially true before birth control and economic self-determination for women. Women could lose everything if they got pregnant or a reputation for being sexually open.

@r24, I fight for truth, justice and the American way... aka a nerd with a cape

You need to discern between a homosexual identity and sex between males. Historically, sex between males has been tolerated and even encouraged, often as a form of birth control. Generally, it was sex between men and boys, with the older man being a mentor. The older man was expected to give it up once he was established enough to marry. To a lesser degree same sex relationships were often overlooked later in life as long as the men were doing their social duties as a husband, father, and provider. There were no bastards to worry about.

What has been historically considered unacceptable is effeminacy. Men who acted like women and voluntarily took the passive role were not tolerated. Boys were expected to take the passive role, but once one reached manhood, that had to stop.

R28, if only they could stay twinks forever.

Jehovah did not revise nor abridge his rule on immoral acts in the New Testament. We must please our loving father should we expect eternal bliss on paradise earth. I’m not saying that it is an easy sacrifice.

I recall Jesus not having much to say about homosexuality, but he sure had plenty to say about adultery and divorce. All you thumpers come back when you get that little issue worked out 🙄

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"... Christians don't like talking about that one too much

r28, I'll be honest, I've never understood that. We pretty much know now that homosexuality is an in-born characteristic, and that the vast majority of gay men are attracted to other men, not boys. What has been described as the Greek pederasty tradition strikes me as primarily practiced by the elites of society, not by the ordinary people -- the workers/slaves, the farmers, the soldiers, etc., the gay members of which would've hooked up with other adult men, driven by their desire to suck cock or get fucked, regardless of how the elites were demanding they define themselves into certain roles. But because they weren't the elites, their attitudes, desires, and practices are far less recorded.

Basically, there have always been men who liked to get fucked in the ass throughout history. In Ancient Rome, homosexuality was reportedly only "accepted" if the man was the top; but it takes two to tango, so for the bottom -- and let's assume he's of the same strata of society as the top -- how does he navigate such a cultural proscription? And, I'm sorry, but no, I don't accept the notion that a "gay identity" is a modern invention; again, homosexuality is a naturally occurring, in-born characteristic, so a young man in Ancient Rome who is exclusively attracted to other men is going to have a "gay identity," even if it lacks the modern tropes we associate with it or he lacks the modern terminology with which to express it.

That's nice r30 but Jevovah did not write the old or new testaments. It's all man-made.

Wait until you all find out about what God really thinks of the left-handed. Better start using the right or it's off to hell for you 😒

The Ten Commandments were basically a simplified Code of Hammurabi. The first few books of the Old Testament we're just a rehash of Canaanite, Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian folk tales and theology. The Bible and Quran are all just mishmash of prior religious beliefs just with the added bonus of monotheism which they got from Zoroastrianism.

^ The Ten Commandments is a joke. Half of them deal with how to treat your slaves

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's maid servant" As a kid I seriously thought my mother would go to hell for hiring the same housekeeper as the people had next door

R32 Yes I agree. Gay men back then didn't identify as gay for their own safety but it didn't mean they didn't exist. But there was a concept of exclusive homosexuals with terms like "men who like men" or "woman hater." Teenage boys having male lovers was tolerated up until they become adult men. All men were expected to marry women and procreate. Same deal with lesbians, women were married off to men and marriage wasn't about love or physical attraction. Young girls having lovers again was tolerated but once they become marriageable, that was nixed.

IT BECAME A SIN BECAUSE SOME GAYS FIND CHALAMET ATTRACTIVE!!! I TOLD YOU IT WOULD HAPPEN!!!

R14, that is true when you talk about general disease, not STDs. Do you really think 'no running water' had anything to do with "AIDS" or "MONKEYPOX" or even syphillis contracted through gay sex hundreds of years ago???

I think it was caused by brave trans womyn of color !! The Church couldn't handle all these fierce warriors of gender identity, and so they declared all of us sinners!

R32 is clearly not aware of the tradition of poor people raping and molesting their own family. Pederasty was not an exclusively elite practice. How silly.

I really don't think gay men were blamed for diseases back then. Straight men were sticking dicks in butts of women, animals, kids and other things. Sodomy laws were just about butt sex. Not other forms of gay sex like blowjobs or rubbing dicks against thighs.

Regarding STDs (or STIs, as they are referred to today): there are some references in ancient texts that appear to refer to STDs, most likely gonorrhea:

The Romans, Jews and Arabs all have documents referring to gonorrhea and each society had their own description of symptoms and treatment. The Roman physician Galen in 130 AD described the disease as an "involuntary escape of semen". The word itself derives from the Greek, meaning "the flow of seed". (see link)

But syphilis apparently didn't emerge until the 16th century, alleged to be one of the few diseases that traveled from the Americas to Europe during the Columbian exchange rather than the other way around (as in the case of smallpox).

r41, I'm fully aware of it; I just don't equate sexual abuse of minors with homosexuality.

I was watching a doc on the Restoration period under Charles II one night and it struck me that more than half of the population had to have had some STD back in those days. Sex would have been terrifying I would think but as the host said people lived for the moment back then because they were constantly surrounded by death.

because, even in ancient times, lesbians came along and ruined it.

You can have thread after thread honoring them and there's always a contingency of them waddling through protesting this isn't funny, that is too feminine, that is too masculine, wah, wah, wah, where are the nutloaf options on the menu?

Not until after the fall of Rome .

[quote]One thing that has always struck me is how religion and religious teachings have been used to propagate various behaviors in communities. "Kosher" and "halal" eating habits would all be extremely healthy and dramatically reduce food borne sickenesses, especially in the hot middle eastern climate. If you wanted people to adhere to various behaviors, tell 'em god want them to do it.

The didn't know what bacteria was, they didn't have refrigerators, etc. If you ate pork thousands of years ago you probably would die. They thought it was God's punishment because they didn't know any better. None of this is relevant in the modern world, but they still cling to these ancient, superstitious ways of thinking.

Jews and Muslims wore long loose robes and head-coverings because they kept you cool against the hot dry climate of the desert. It's a style of dress that predates those religions by thousands of years. Most married women did cover their hair to indicate marriage and that was in many cultures. In modern day with air conditioning and the fact many people don't even live in the deserts, the practice being religious and expressed as a form of modesty is outdated too

r48 you also had a sect of buddhists refusing to drink water because they recognized there were micro organisms in the water. But I see your point, the whole of civilization is meaningless to the modern world. none of it is relevant.

tis the evils of mankind, if women (insert favored group) ruled the world there would be no wars.

r49 it is outdated, now let's us delve into how to advert the male gaze

That's known that STDs existed back then. My point here is that HOMOSEXUALITY could not have been viewed as 'sinful' for any reason to do with STDs, if everyone was getting them anyway, straight or gay.

R51, your a touchy cunt. It seems to reason that all nonreproductive forms of sex would be viewed as more nasty and more likely to be causing these mysterious unexplainable diseases.

The rate at which you get STDs depends on the number of people you have sex with. If homosexuality were not prohibited, men who had sex with men would be as promiscuous as gay men are today. Women have powerful reasons to limit the number of sexual partners. Men are men.

r51, unfortunately, homosexual males tend to have a greater incidence of STDs compared to the heterosexual population, it's an uncomfortable truth; and if it's true today, why couldn't it have been true back in the early days of humans developing tribes, communities, and civilizations, a majority of the population observing this, and with their limited knowledge, making a correlation and saying, no, this can no longer continue, and thus codifying homosexual behavior as a sin/stigma/proscription?

"Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer."

Wait! What? Anal cancer? Nobody told me about anal cancer.

R54, that's fine, and universally understood in today's society (at least by people who think or care about these things like we do), but that article wasn't written hundreds of years ago, and I doubt that this kind of knowledge was common back then. Some of us are projecting today's health understandings and reporting reliability onto antiquity.

I still don't see why STDs were a factor in labeling homosexuality a sin back in the Dark Ages...especially when many folks didn't even know that disease was caused by any sex at all. They often thought disease was punishment by the Gods...

R52, I think it's clear who the cunt is. Love you, mean it.

You don’t need to understand disease to observe that certain behaviors lead to illness.

Jews were acting nuts. The Bible was created to get them under control.

r56, I'm not talking about the Dark Ages, I'm talking about the very first emergence of humans out of the savannas of Africa into the Fertile Crescent, where civilization --and the first laws, reinforced by religion -- began. As villages and cities emerged, isn't it possible that there was an observation that "Hey, those men who are having promiscuous sex with each other appear to have a higher incidence of disease compared to everybody else" and, lacking modern medical knowledge and safe sex practices, said to the population, "This will no longer be permitted," and so codified it into religious belief?

Because of the song "Muskrat Love," obviously.

there's a theory of tribal sexuality which would suggest homosexuality was permissable in youth and old age because of the lower amount of females, the higher risks in pregnancies... while 'adulthood' one was expected to be hetero to increase the tribe. . . save during times of war where such intimate bonds were considered more helpful, less likely to end in desertion.

Comparatively across history, where we see homosexuality is first discouraged is when populations thin....

in a healthy, flourishing society, homosexuality reigns high... however, when said society begins to fail, homosexuality ialong with other sexual permissiveness outside of the nuclear family structure are among the first scapegoated. . . and also where women are more prone to be treated as commodities.

R61, excellent points.

Jeeez because back then Homosexuality and masturbation didn't do the one thing needed to keep every religion, book club, cult going....produce more of them.

Which of course is ridiculous now because there are gay families and millions running around where Dad was in one room with the Kim Kardashian video and Mom was down the hall in stirrups with a doctor. But hey, they need a villain and that's us.

r62 And it holds true today, whether we look at the economic crisis and a hostile regression towards opinions on homosexuality. . . or look at more at the differences of being gay in most metropolitan cities vs a rural small towns.

the greater the hardships, the more the nuclear or traditional family structures becomes the ideal. . .

we could also pair this up with those nations that had restrictions on child birth but ended up with a significant age gap...

now homosexuality has merits even in a deappreciated society but for many, the need for production (or bodies on the assembyline) outweighs most of those benefits.

R59, I doubt that because I doubt it ever happened. Gay sex doesn't spontaneously generate disease. Early humans may have believed in magic and the supernatural, but social norms were enforced, not by concepts of sin or religion, but by fear of being thrown out of the cave and being forced to fend for yourself. That's how modern hunter-gatherer societies work. They are surprisingly egalitarian and don't seem to have a lot of sexual taboos, which makes sense: children are a good thing, but no one wants to risk running out of food. Religion seems to have taken off when people started farming. Then you needed gods to pray to for rain and priests and excuses for when the rain didn't come or the crops weren't good.

There is no such thing as "sin" unless you're a mentally ill religionist.

r66 the sin of being "a religionist"

the same paradigms can shift to apply to virtually any non-religious format to express the similar, if not the same conflicts....

[quote] the need for production (or bodies on the assembyline) outweighs most of those benefits.

is why even in those nations that are/were against religion, they still ended up becoming homophobic.

honestly, we can delve into the great atheist homophobes.. . albeit, much of their influence comes from more neopagan sentimentality, which is funny given how many engaged in homosexual practices yet were quite homophobic in general. -- post transcendentalists, early gardnerian on the western front.... though similiarties abound in eastern philosophies. And this is also the time when homosexuality began becoming more formally pathologized with the rise of psychology...

as much as one might despise religion it cannot be removed from the whole of the human experience nor even it's influences on modern atheistic philosophy and debate even if that has largely been reduced to launching protests every time someone so little as utters an "oh gawd" in porn.

When white, straight males realised how mediocre and low achieving they are.

Most of you don’t know gay history, in the distant past anal sex was not very popular. Most gay sexual interactions were oral, jo, or frotting (rubbing dicks or fucking thighs). Anal sex didn’t really take off until the last century, particularly after WWII.

R67 is right. Religion cannot wholly explain homophobia. Why is Russia so homophobic? Religion was used as the foundation of morality for already existing beliefs or suspected causes and effects. Homophobia emerged out of society's need to increase its population, sustain itself, and fend off disease.

Also it would explain why homophobia is almost universal with some exceptions--,native Indian tribes and progressive Christianity. Buddhism is a very peaceful religion but even historically frowned upon homosexuality.

Actually, r69, I recall reading a book about homosexuality in the 16th to 18th centuries and it claimed that anal sex was more popular than oral sex among the homosexual subculture. Unfortunately, I can't recall the name of the book, but that tidbit stuck with me as it seemed counter-intuitive.

Why do people always conflate Catholicism with Christianity? I mean, there's a tiny bit of overlap, but that's it.

I don't use words like 'sin' or 'commandments' because I'm not a Christian.

R50 - Did WC Fields belong to that branch of Buddhism? He said he wouldn't drink water 'because fish fuck in it'.

R72, you cannot be serious. Although catholicism advocates you can commit any sin, including rape and murder, and as long as you repent you will enter heaven Catholcism still believes in the holy trinity and Jesus is the son of our God and died for our sins. That is the foundation of all Christiniaty. Even Mormons believe that though to a lesser extent.

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are the oldest forms of organized Christianity for about a millennia. Protestants, other sects and later Abrahamic religions like Islam drew from them. Islam also drew from Eastern Gnostic beliefs of nontrinitarianism which is why the Quran and Hadiths contradict some mainstream Christian beliefs

R75 - Catholicism contains a huge dollop of Roman and Greek paganism- Just because you picked a couple of items off of the buffet, that hardly makes you a Christian. Even most theologians will begrudgingly agree that the Trinity likely has pagan roots. This is the root of almost all of modern Christendom's problems- they have let just anybody move on the block, and there went the neighborhood.

There is Greek and Roman art depicting anal so nothing is new.

R78, care to share?

R76 Why does it matter? Judaism is polytheistic in origin too. Jews just decided to worship one god especially thanks to the monotheistic Persians who practiced Zoroastrianism . All your point proves is all religions take from other sources. Buddhism, Taoism and Shinto are all heavily influenced by Hinduism.

Basalt sculpture of a homosexual male couple engaging in anal sex, Costa Rica, dated to between 1000 - 1500 CE.

I never got why Protestants hate Catholics so much and accuse them of idolatry when Protestants also believe in the Trinity, still practice the Holy Communion, will use Catholic imagery like icons and statues and celebrate Christmas and Easter. Though some early Protestants refused to own crosses with Jesus's body on it and didn't celebrate Christmas or Easter like the Puritans.

It's funnier that Protestants hated Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses for not being trinitarian and some of their hatred of Muslims comes from them rejecting Jesus as God.

When you take into consideration, by the time a person was 40 in ancient cultures you had already lost your teeth + one was very old and worn out. Except for the wealthy merchant class, the aristocracy, and the minions who served them, everybody else lived in extreme poverty. Under those conditions having a satisfying orgasm would be at the bottom of the list in terms of one's "to do" list. Making sure one got a single bowlful of gruel would be an all-consuming occupation. Cruising for cock and ass is a preoccupation for those who had the imagination, and liesure to act on their erotic desires. I believe the hierarchy inherent in ancient fiefdoms was not unlike the old film studio system where the stars, studio heads, and the movies themselves preached fidelity to schmaltzy family values and Pius religious convictions . . . while the stars, studio moguls and flunkies indulged in every kind of "sin" imaginable.

Um R79 not too hard to Google.

[quote]When bathing facilities were not widely available anal sex must have been pretty dirty.

You do realize that more than 75% of our planet consists of bodies of water, right?

Have to agree with R83. When the majority of people are fighting for basic survival, satisfying sex tends to be a small concern. You see it on DL too. Gays with health and financial problems taking about how they haven't had sex in years due to stress and circumstances.

Homosexuality is neither a "sin" nor is it "prohibited". Except to a bunch of thieving Xtians who stole laws meant solely for Jews, spent 2,000 years annihilating the witnesses of their theft, and then woefully mistranslated and misinterpreted the laws that they stole because they were ignorant about the source text. And that deplorable ignorance continues to this day. See this entire thread for examples.

Early Jews were a small group of people surrounded by larger empires. The Biblical prohibitions were meant to keep them disciplined and defend against assimilation into their more hedonistic neighbours. many of these prohibitions would survive into Christianity and Islam (who worship the same god as the Jews)

Because we were too good at it, op.

It became a sin when the first gay man pointed out that those Jesus sandals didn’t go with that goat’s bladder handbag. Yves Saint Laurent wept, and Christian Dior recreated a new bag which hung on Christian’s Lacroix. Aka The Fashion of The Christ.

So I've actually have done a deep dive on Sumerian myths, because many them have inspired the stories of the old testament. So basically, the concept of good and evil originates from the fertile crescent. It exists in Buddhism and Hinduism as well, but those come after Zoroastrianism. So basically good = masculine, order, productivity, and clean. Bad = feminine, chaos, destruction, and disease. The Hebrews really run with this and created a BUNCH of laws and most of them have to do with being clean and avoiding disease. There is a common phrase as well, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness." Anyways, male homosexuality involves one person to be effeminate during sex (feminine = bad). Then you are putting the dick in the butt, and can you imagine how dirty and gross assholes were in the ancient middle east without air conditioning, indoor plumbing, daily fresh underwear, modern cosmetics and medicine. And finally, yes men do not get attached to other men the way women get attached to other men after sex. We have a switch in our brain that tells us "Hey, you already came in this person. Time to move on to the next." We developed it via evolution so that we could "spread our seed". But the good of spreading genetic information also comes with the bad of spreading viruses (another form of information). One type creates an operating system, the other corrupts and destroys operating systems. And that brings us back to the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

R59, no. Not at all. You are entirely projecting 19th Century Christian morals onto the time period we are discussing here. When homosexuality was declared a sin, it was before Christ. Men having sex with men was seen as a violation of God's law.

The question posed by the OP here is "why"? It has been pretty well covered here that: (1) propagation of species, (2) propagation of followers of religion, and (3) general control of the masses, are the reasons.

Scientific knowledge of the cause of STDs was not at all part of the equation in 2000 BC. As has been said, any bad thing that happened to you back then was given a spiritual/religious reasoning. God is punishing you, etc., for having any sex outside of marriage (with women or men). You aren't the person claiming that AIDS and Monkeypox were around back then, are you?

No, r92, I'm not. I'm also OP. I'm just trying to arrive at how homosexuality came to be viewed as a "negative" among the very earliest humans as they developed civilizations; as such, I'm open to the possibility that a) given homosexual males tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexual males* and b) STDs DO, unfortunately, spread more effectively in gay male populations due to that promiscuity, and that we know diseases like gonorrhea were written about in ancient texts, this MAY have been a contributing factor, but not the main one. It's merely one of many theories I'm exploring.

* Hetero males WOULD be promiscuous if women allowed them to be, but as that doesn't benefit women from an evolutionary perspective, female resistance to promiscuity essentially puts a governor on hetero males' desire to spread their seed randomly; homosexual males don't have such a governor, and so our tendency to promiscuity is unabated. I'm just trying to hash these ideas out with others' input.

The Bible originally had multiple gods.

[quote] Scientific knowledge of the cause of STDs was not at all part of the equation in 2000 BC.

Honey, Jews had seperate plates for food because they witnessed contamination (ie. Food poisoning). People put two and two together regardless.

R71, everything I have ever read about that time period indicates that “sodomy” was equated with anal sex. In criminal accusations, that’s always what was involved.

[quote] Jews had seperate plates for food because they witnessed contamination

Uh, no. The biblical injunction is do not cook a goat in its mother's milk (לֹא-תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי, בַּחֲלֵ). The concept of separate utensils for dairy and meat didn't arise until well into the dispersion, around the 14th century, when Jews were removed by distance and time from their laws and language and no longer familiar with them.

^^^ R97 לֹא-תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי, בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ

R95, completely false, bubbeh.

Contamination was not a consideration. Pigs were classified different from other animals due to hooves/cud.

How about a link for once? We're quite short on citing references for our assertions here on this thread.

[quote]R70: Religion cannot wholly explain homophobia. Why is Russia so homophobic?

Because it was and remains culturally Christian. The 69-year hiccup of political atheism did nothing to alter its attitudes.

[quote]Buddhism is a very peaceful religion but even historically frowned upon homosexuality.

Early Buddhism did not. It is likely that theological homophobia gradually crept into Buddhism across the Middle Ages through contact with Christians and Muslims. Many Asian and Pacific Islander societies had no negative views of homosexuality until contact with Christian missionaries.

[quote]R72: Why do people always conflate Catholicism with Christianity? I mean, there's a tiny bit of overlap, but that's it.

All of Catholicism is Christian, but not all of Christianity is Catholic.

[quote]R92: When homosexuality was declared a sin, it was before Christ. Men having sex with men was seen as a violation of God's law.

Citations, R92. Where, when?

A sin is when one of the 10 commandments is broken. None of them mention homosexuality.

Buddhism considers sexual misconduct as a 'sin'. However misconduct is viewed as any behavior that upsets the harmony of the community, primarily adultery. Consensual sex between two unmarried men or women is not a concern.

Sin because of its illicit, lusty, forbidden etc aspect. To be fair, so too is heterosexuality a sin for the same reasons when they apply. Woa, dude - that's what makes it fun and exciting, right? Someone once said in relation to who and what we all actually are on this earth that anything NOT done in LOVE is a sin. 🤔

I have read an interesting theory about one possible reason pigs were considered taboo in the ancient Middle East. The region was rocky and farmland scarce, so tombs were built above ground. Pigs are omnivorous, and they foraged among tombs, where they might eat the remains of the dead. This was a horrifying thought to the ancients and so they proscribed eating pork.

Buddhism was never a legal system like Abrahamic religions were. Buddhists were in fact marginalized by Hindus and Muslims in South Asia and Neo-Confucians in China and Korea. Only in Japan and Southeast Asia I think Buddhism remained a stronghold. But those countries had shamanic and animistic folk religions which syncretized with Buddhism.

R106, pigs are expensive animals to raise; they are not just omnivorous, they are smart, so they are hard to control. (The armies of feral hogs that roam the South are the descendants of domestic pigs that escaped from from farms). A prudent deity would stop his people from raising them.

Seriously, R102?

Check Leviticus.

R106, see R99. It's somewhat covered by the link in that post.

PoisonedDragon is obsessed with bashing Christianity and saying it's all an antisemitic invention by the Romans. Ignoring that it originates as a Hellenistic Jewish sect, was still based on The Old Testament laws and all of the early Christians were Jewish in culture and identity. Jesus said he was to fulfill the Judaic law as per what the Messiah is about. There's no evidence Jesus was pro-gay, anti-slavery, feminist or even a pacifist. All of this is modern day projection.

I think many gays feel obliged to say all homophobia is rooted in religion specifically Christianity because it helps them sleep better at night. It's like they don't want to feel ostracized even more than they do coming from a generation where homosexuality was criminalized and even seen as a mental illness. It's not a hard pill for me to swallow. It makes sense for the development of civilization for humans to become homophobic as well as anti promisciuity in general. It doesn't need to exist today however.

Christianity has done a lot of good in society. It ushered in the scientific revolution and also enabled black slaves to have hope, persevere, and demand their freedom.

I think the scientific revolution was inevitable thanks to the foundations that agriculture and trade laid down plus all the wars and need to extract resources made it necessary to invent weaponry. Christianity had little to do with that. Europe and Asia were filled with nonstop wars and the terrain made trade accessible. Similarly Mexico and Peru had technologically advanced indigenous empires that developed their own technology due to similar pressures of warfare and competition over resources.

Men need to fuck women to make babies to continue the tithings to grease the wheels in the sleazy kingdom of religion.

Roman slaves fought back and they weren't Christian. Many of the black slave revolts in Brazil were inspired by Islam as Portuguese took many slaves from Western parts of Africa under Islamic rule. Native Americans had their own indigenous beliefs to fight back against their genocide and captivity. Ghost Dance comes to mind. Most people regardless of religion know they're being mistreated and will fight.

It's the Semitic religions that specifically hate homosexuality.

They hate anything that doesn't produce children to add to their cults: gays, masturbation, adultery, etc.

They also hate sex because they are desert religions where the tribes lived close together and there were many adultery issues.

Gays bring both of those together.

Instilling a sense of shame around sex is what makes them so powerful too. Sex is a natural urge. Masturbation is intuitive. So make people ashamed of having sexual desire and homosexual urges. It traumatizes them and bonds them further to the religion. And teaching them God loves them and wants what's best which would involve them denying themselves pleasure and happiness. Is basically abusive. But the promise of heaven for living pure and threat of hell for being impure. Basically acts as a motivator.

It's all sadomasochist psychological games.

[quote]R109: Check Leviticus.

I have. Homosexuality isn't in there.

[quote]R111: PoisonedDragon is obsessed with bashing Christianity and saying it's all an antisemitic invention by the Romans. Ignoring that it originates as a Hellenistic Jewish sect, was still based on The Old Testament laws and all of the early Christians were Jewish in culture and identity. Jesus said he was to fulfill the Judaic law as per what the Messiah is about. There's no evidence Jesus was pro-gay, anti-slavery, feminist or even a pacifist. All of this is modern day projection.

No, babe.

What "early Christians"? Are you confusing the literary characters in the New Testament with real people?

"Jesus said" nothing. He was a character in a series of Gentile-authored narratives. There is no evidence he existed.

I blame the Emperess Helena and the Council of Nicea

R118, pls don't disrespect Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth existed and was Arabic looking. I do believe him to be a divine manifestation of the willpower of man to overcome. I wouldn't say he's the son of God because I don't believe a heavenly father exists. But I do believe all the supernatural stuff relating to Jesus.

Any sex outside marriage was a sin. Fornication. Since gay people couldn’t get married, QED.

Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad all existed historically. Religions like those just don't pop out of nowhere. They were more likely composites of various religious leaders. There's little to no contemporaneous documentation of their lives. The miracles and supernatural aspects came from apocrypha and folklore written decades and centuries after their deaths.

Moses didn't exist though and Judaism is sourced from Canaanite polytheism and the Yahwist movement which was henotheistic and then later monolatrous.

Sin never dies.

[quote] Moses didn't exist though and Judaism is sourced from Canaanite polytheism and the Yahwist movement which was henotheistic and then later monolatrous.

R122 Moses didn't exist??? You mean Jews have been celebrating their liberation from slavery in Egypt every year for the past 3,000 years and venerating the man who led them out of slavery and he didn't exist????

R124, and that's how they became masters at creating mythology. Jews invented Hollywood after all.

I kid. I kid. Lighten up folks.

R124 Yessir. And many Jews I know even tell me there's no evidence Moses exists. Jews on average are more educated than Christians. Only Christians say the Bible is 100% factual. There's no evidence of Jewish captivity in Egypt. There's no evidence that the Jews slaughtered the Canaanites because Lebanese and Jordanians still exist. There's tons of evidence of Jewish captivity in Persia though where the ideas of monotheism took hold.

We celebrate Christmas which originated as a pagan festival celebrating the sun (god Sol) returning to the earth after the winter solstice. We celebrate Thanksgiving and Halloween also pagan festivals celebrating the gods of harvest. We celebrate Easter, celebrating the rebirth of the earth that occurs after the earth goddess returns.

[quote] And many Jews I know even tell me there's no evidence Moses exists.

[quote] There's no evidence of Jewish captivity in Egypt.

So when was all of this Jew "myth" created?? Who created it? And those "Jews you know". Any of 'em know Hebrew?

[quote] There's no evidence that the Jews slaughtered the Canaanites because Lebanese and Jordanians still exist.

Uh, neither Lebanese nor Jordanians are Canaanites. Jordanians are beduin. Lebanese like to believe their Phoenicians but they're a melange of cultures, none of which are Canaanite.

It's real easy to dismiss and deny a history which you are both clueless and contemptuous of. That doesn't make your "version" relevant.

R128 Religion is bullshit. Canaanites are Levantines. Jews themselves were Canaanites, as are Lebanese, Jordanians and Palestinians. All cultures have foundation myths. Romans believed they descended from twins Romus and Remus raised by a wolf mother. Japanese believed they descended from a sun goddess. These myths created a sense of unity. Jews had to differentiate themselves from their neighbors and justify their belief system. So polytheists like Egyptians and the other Canaanites needed to be the "bad guys." It's really not that complicated.

Why are so you offended? Historians spend their lives at what they do. There's no evidence for Moses or the Jewish slavery in Egypt. That's the facts. Get over it. Jewish is ethnoreligious identity, so many Jews don't believe in God or the religious texts but it's a cultural identity for them.

More than 90 percent of the genetic ancestry of modern Lebanese is derived from ancient Canaanites, according to a paper published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

R129 Jews are not a "religion". Except for the US, the entire world considers them a nation, with a unique history and culture. The concept of the Levant didn't not exist until the 13th century. Jews were not Canaanites, but a separate tribe/nation. So were the Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites who also lived in the area.

[quote] There's no evidence for Moses or the Jewish slavery in Egypt. That's the facts.

Again, so what have Jews been celebrating every year for the last 3,000 years? And when did Jews begin celebrating the "myth" of Moses and their liberation from slavery in Egypt??

[quote] More than 90 percent of the genetic ancestry of modern Lebanese is derived from ancient Canaanites,

Since the Canaanites were wiped out at least 2,500 years ago, I'd be interested to know how "genetic ancestry" was arrived at.

[Quote] They were more likely composites of various religious leaders.

What do you mean by this?

R118, here is the passage from Leviticus, since you didn't actually check it like I asked you to.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13

This and several other passages are cited in the very easy to find Wiki link below.

Every gay person should know these things!!

It's weird how many apologists are in this thread. You can't bash Islam for being homophobic yet ignore Judaism and Christianity are violently homophobic too. The difference if the latter were reformed over centuries. Though radical Christians still exist and present a very real threat to gays in The US as well as certain Latin American and African countries. Most Jews are educated, so realized they can't apply certain laws to modern times.

R122, I don’t think that Mohamed was a fabrication or composite; he existed in the time of “real” (Common Era) history and the battles he fought in actually happened. Significantly, he’s not described as a spectacular magician like Moses or Jesus. From what we know of modern religions, their founders is do seem to come out of nowhere, and they do require some specific, charismatic individual to get off the ground, even if that individual (such as Joseph Smith or the guy who founded Scientology) is a total charlatan.

R135 Some ex-Muslims theorize Muhammad in the Quran is Jesus because the name is only used four times and Muhammad means "blessed one", so it's also a title. I agree historic Muhammad was likely real. But little is known about him. The name itself and term Muslims didn't appear until a century after the Arab conquests and many Arab rulers used the title for themselves. On Arab coins Muhammad's name appears but there's also cross symbols which could add strength to it being a Jesus title and early Islam being a nontrinitarian sect of Christianity before distinguishing itself. And everything about Muhammad's personality comes from the Hadith which are apocrypha composed centuries after Muhammad's death and the descriptions of him vary by author and region.

[quote]R132: What do you mean by this?

Funny statement by R122, isn't it? "Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad all existed historically," and yet "They were more likely composites of various religious leaders." The two assertions are completely at odds.

If they were composites of others, then they as individuals didn't exist.

[quote]R133: here is the passage from Leviticus, since you didn't actually check it like I asked you to.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware which two passages you mean. Neither of them mention homosexuality.

[quote]This and several other passages are cited in the very easy to find Wiki link below.

And did you read anything the Wiki article had to say about them? The very first line in the article says, "There are a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑑 as involving same-sex sexual acts, desires, and relationships." 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 is the issue. At R92, you stated that "homosexuality was declared a sin." The word 𝑠𝑖𝑛 also appears nowhere in Leviticus 18:22/20:13. "Abomination" ≠ "sin." "Men having sex with men was seen as a violation of God's law," you said. Are you quite sure that "men having sex with men" is what those passages are talking about? In its section on Leviticus, your Wiki article suggests other interpretations of the passages. And "God's law"? Really? Don't you actually need to be a Jew from the period in question for the passages, whatever they mean, to be incumbent upon you? Your use of the expression "before Christ" would indicate that you're a Christian, or at least, speaking from a Christian perspective. Exactly how many of those 613 𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑧𝑣𝑜𝑡 do you observe, or regard as having some bearing on your obligations to God?

I have a different take on the passages than even the citations from your Wiki article, but there happens to be a certain troll lurking on this thread, waiting with bated breath for me to interpretively weigh in on Leviticus. Do you want to know more?

R133, you can find my take on Leviticus 18:22/20:13 on the linked Datalounge thread ('𝐥𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐍𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐁𝐎𝐑, 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟'), at reply 93, with additions at 101 and 102.

As a gay guy raised in a very conservative Christian church who hated myself for being gay, prayed every night for God to take it away, had anxiety attacks when I saw a cute guy, hating going into the locker rooms due to fear of being aroused, became addicted to gay porn because I was too scared to act out my urges and finally came to accept myself in my mid-20s. And I'm not even 30 yet. I'm all for Abrahamic religions to die. It's fucked up how I stopped being a believer when I was in my teens due to it not making sense scientifically but still had intense self-hate around my sexuality that lingered on. And I agree homophobia would still exist without religions as Russia and China prove so. But the issue is Abrahamic religions, the homophobia is in the holy "infallible" texts.

[quote]R140: And I agree homophobia would still exist without religions as Russia and China prove so.

In what way? Both Russia and China have considerable history with Christianity; neither of them are 'without religions.' Their cultural homophobia does not originate in a religion-free vacuum.

Further to r141, both China and Japan had long histories of homosexual relationships - see "The Cut Sleeve" -- and these traditions only began to change when Western powers and Christian missionaries began to make inroads into their cultures. In the 19th Century, the Japanese government modeled its constitution on the German law, including the notorious Paragraph 175. Homophobia in Asia is a consequence of Western imperialism.

Religion is about mass control. Homosexuality, amongst other things, was declared a sin to keep people sad and frightened for being sinners (or having a particular sinner around) and willing to repent aka doing whatever the clerics and priests demanded of them.

It's one of the oldest snake oil schemes in history. Create the problem, like sin, and then generously offer a solution for the problem you've created.

Because we are smarter and do better than them. PERIOD

Homophobia was definitely introduced by Christians and Muslims to the Americas, Australia, Asia and Africa.

China's main religion is Confucianism which is nontheistic and the other major religions Buddhism and Taoism are also nontheistic. But Confucianism can be used to justify homophobia due to it's emphasis on law abiding, patriarchy and family structure. China is obsessed with productivity and homosexuality can be argued as selfish and counterproductive. South Korea, also Confucian, became influenced by Christianity due to American military influence and homophobic views soon followed and stuck. Even though most Koreans aren't Christian and are atheist.

Japan which isn't Confucian (it's more Shinto-Buddhist) became homophobic mainly because it was so obsessed with it's image to the West and was quick to adapt homophobic and censorship laws to prove itself. But still compared to China and South Korea, Japan is far less homophobic.

Russia and Eastern Europe are mainly atheist, the homophobia may have roots in the Eastern Orthodox history. Again, patriarchy and the family structure is extremely important and homosexuality is seen as emasculating, selfish and toxic.

1) God lives, but as an "It" rather than a "He"

2) Mankind through religion (Western religions, especially) has imposed himself on himself via God, which is himself. Alas, refer to #1

3) GOD. IS. NOT. A. CUNT! PEOPLE are cunts!

That will be all.

So r138 what exactly it mean. When a historical text says "don't lay with man as one would with woman" wtf does it mean. You disingenuous, pretentious twat.

PoisonedDragon is just a troll, R147. They can't accept that Christians got homophobia from the Jewish doctrine because Christianity originated as a sect of Judaism. They think Christians just woke up one day and decided to make homosexuality a sin and that they purposely misinterpreted the Jewish text. Nevermind that conservative Jews are very homophobic and other Abrahamic religions like Samaritanism, Mandeanism and Druze are also homophobic. Not just Christianity and Islam.

[quote]Why did homosexuality become a sin?

Because God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

When Moses saw Dathen mincing around in matching caftan and earrings.

R149 You believe in fairy tales stupid.

[quote] They can't accept that Christians got homophobia from the Jewish doctrine because Christianity originated as a sect of Judaism.

Xtians stole Jewish laws and history, were ignorant of the source text and mistranslated it for their own agenda.

[quote] They think Christians just woke up one day and decided to make homosexuality a sin and that they purposely misinterpreted the Jewish text.

But that's exactly what thieving Xtians did. Mistranslated the source text they couldn't understand. There's nothing to "misinterpret". The injunction is perfectly clear to anyone who can read it.

[quote] here is the passage from Leviticus, since you didn't actually check it like I asked you to. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

WRONG! This is Vayikra 18:22:

וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא

An injunction that has been mistranslated for almost two millennia due to complete ignorance of the source text. As mentioned in R87, according to the source text, homosexuality is neither a sin nor prohibited. Except to complete idiots who are clueless about the source text and/or use it as a means to scapegoat. Like R148.

[quote] Exactly how many of those 613 𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑧𝑣𝑜𝑡 do you observe, or regard as having some bearing on your obligations to God?

R138 The 613 mitzvot are not an obligation to G-d, but to society, your "neighbor". The 10 Commandments are an obligation to G-d.

[quote] awaiting an opportunity to run his usual shtick.

R154 I know and you know that you don't have a fucking clue about that which you post when it comes to the history, laws and language of the Jews. Except to frantically flail around googling for something that reinforces your ignorant nonsensical assertions. Shall I remind you of the "authority" you posted to reinforce your silly assertion that "Biblical Hebrew is harder to read"???? because he happened to be a Jew with a kippa??

You're just another ignoramus in a thread chock-a-block with ignoramuses and bigots. In your case, an egotistical bigoted juvenile who is reduced to spewing pejoratives and conjuring up phantom Jews to dismiss and ignore.

Girls, girls, your sky daddies are all fake. Be free. You’re welcome.

So what does the verse really mean,.R152 ?

R157 The prohibition is against pedophilia, enthusiastically practiced by non-Jewish tribes. The word זכר has been mistranslated for almost two millennia both by Jews, separated from their language, and non-Jews, ignorant of the source text. In this instance, זכר means a male child. Exactly for this reason, homosexuality has never been a crime in Israel.

So it's A-OK to fuck girl children?

Femmes, fats, Asians.

- The answer to every DL questia ever asked

R160 Uh, no. In Hebrew, the masculine automatically includes the feminine, in general conversation.

[quote] You're both the questioner ([R157]) and the answerer ([R158])

R159 How long you been here and you STILL don't know how to use this piece of shit utility? No surprise. I'm R158. R157 is another troll . . . uh . . . phantom Jew . . . erm. . . sock.

Indulge me, R159. How old are you again? 58? Going on 8?

[quote] And for the record, this is the first time I've ever seen you deign to answer that question;

I've answered that question in at least three threads dealing with the Bible/homosexuality in the past year or two, all of which you've contributed to.

[quote] By citing "phantom Jews" in this context (as well as by replying to me), you've already admitted you are the one I've described.

You cling to and resurrect (like the rest of the "regulars") some "troll"/"sock"/"phatom" to satisfy your bigoted and/or egotistical imperatives, shooting the messenger with bigoted pejoratives.

[quote] Now that you've finally said what you think Leviticus 18:22 means, I leave it to others to pick it apart and ask you to support it with sources,

R159 Sources? Who needs sources when one speaks, reads and writes the language. Unlike you.

Omg. This person continuously claims he speaks the language, as if the original translators or the King James Version didn’t and so on. Please already.

Wanna know what would definitely be considered a sin? YOUR LYING. And your constant obsession with the Bible (you’ve made about 5 or more Bible related threads over the last few months) is weird.

[quote] This person continuously claims he speaks the language, as if the original translators or the King James Version didn’t

R165 How many of the translators knew Greek as a daily language? How many of the translators knew Hebrew as a daily language? It's exactly because they only knew them as formal languages that the Jewish Bible has been mistranslated for two millennia.

R166 You've always pretended that you have knowledge of the history, laws and language of the Jews. I may or may not be pretending. But you most definitely ARE.

R167 You don't speak, read or understand Hebrew. Any "evidence" would be meaningless to you. I know, what's your phone number? I call you and speak Hebrew to you. Which could very well be Mongolian for all of your ignorance of the language.

R168 but neither do you…. Enough with the bullshit already. You’re worried about what is considered a sin while always sinning

R167 Just to reduce your ignorance (which is legion), Hebrew is my second language. Yiddish is my first. I didn't learn English until I was 6 years old.

Phantom Jew? 👻

Look out, brehs! We got a yeshiva boi up in hurr!!

Religion is madness. My data is this thread

Hold your tongue, Miss Gurl! I am not crazed tranny Matt! How very dare you!

- r173 , incensed

The people arguing about the translation of one word some idiots hundreds of years ago did in a work of fiction written thousands of years ago. Insane. I’m including you, yes of course.

[quote] If I present something in a post, backed up by a linked source,

Which more often than not are just as ignorant as you regarding Jews, their language and law. But of course, you wouldn't know that, making you even more ignorant than they are.

[quote] You're not a source in and of yourself. You're just not. That isn't how any of this works.

To you I'm not. Because you have to believe that those "sources" you scramble around goggle looking for provide you with a feeling of "superiority/superior knowledge". And then I come along and say they're idiots and you're an even bigger idiot for posting them. Go back and read R170 S L O W L Y. THAT'S my source.

[quote] It's not relevant to anything we discuss here.

But it is relevant. Because I don't have to depend on 2nd 3rd and 4th hand often erroneous information, as you do. I read the source text, don't need someone else to "translate" or "interpret". As you do. *I* know you're pretending. I know you're ignorant. Scares the fuck out of you. You can't no longer posture.

Oh fuck gentlemen! Despite 2,000 years of dispersion, harrassment, discrimination, expulsion, persecution and genocide, here's someone who knows the history, laws, culture, customs and language of the Jews.

KILL IT!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!

r117 ah, like political lesbians.

R181 You haven't provided your phone number yet. Talk about scared!

[quote] I don't cultivate any sense of superiority, and I don't boast.

Of course you do! Every time you post horseshit about Jews, their history, language and culture, that's cultivating superiority. No, sorry. Arrogance.

r112 colonialism akin to conversos and underground communication for escape...

Come on R181! Prove your dick and balls are BIGGER! Your phone number!

[quote] It's your suggestion.

YOU'RE the one doubting the veracity of my assertion about Hebrew as my second language. Post it, BIG BOY!!

[quote] That's always been your unsupported opinion,

You hear me speaking Hebrew. Support enough for ya?

[quote] said that I didn't care; it's irrelevant.

But it is relevant. It's the crux of the entire issue. You're clueless, dependent on whatever horseshit you dig up as "evidence". I AM the evidence, not dependent on translations or interpretations of others.

[quote] Get some real sources to support your claims regarding Jewish history, customs and law, and then we can talk. Until then, you're simply trolling.

Uh oh, you're back to the juvenile pejoratives. And you simply don't or won't understand that your concept of "real sources" are neither. But then, you don't know Hebrew. Or about Jews. Except what someone else tells you.

One phone call would prove I'm right and you're terribly, horribly wrong. But it's easier to deflect to "real source" horseshit than find out reality.

Been a slice. We'll do this again, I've no doubt.

Wait, are you fagelahs trying to get each other’s numbers?

That’s pretty gay.

Only a DLer would discount a word that has been misinterpreted for 2,000 years and caused so much suffering and pain to the gay community.

WHEN WILL THE TEARS STOP?

It’s only a sun for those who have mostly perverted religious beliefs. If you do not follow any particular religion or related belief system the question is as silly as when did reading become a sin.

But homosexuals and same sex intimacy has been secularly demonized and discriminated against forever. I think it’s simply part of the human condition where for some, different is bad and same is good. It’s the source of all prejudice.

This thread must be what it’s like to live in Israel.

- Roxanne Gay, exhausted

R196 מותק, אין לך מוסג

^^^מושג

F123 I'll drink to that.

R154 I didn't read your entire novel but I will just stop you here. I don't pretend to be black. I am black. And I have never pretended to be British despite loving British culture. Do not lie on me again. You do not know everything nor are you always right.

Perhaps the dragon has drunk too much poison and it has rotten its brain.

R143, that's also a good point I didn't think to consider.

The Bible is very clear on its stance with gays. I don’t know why there is a poster here (the same person who stalks and harassed Brooklyn Seacow and brings up Seacow on every fucking thread) who is obsessed with the Bible. Or why this troll of a poster thinks anyone is gonna believe he speaks Hebrew and Greek and read the original manuscripts of the Bible. Lmao. Wtf.

Dude. You belong in a psych ward. This isn’t a joke. You’re seriously fucked in the head.

PS replying to yourself in foreign languages using Google translate? Dude. You literally did the same thing on the Beyoncé thread but only you started replying TO YOURSELF in Russian. Using Google translate. It’s seriously beyond the point of trolling. You’re very clearly a very disturbed and sick individual

Also poison I realize that you attributed many comments to me that I did not make. I hate when people do this. And if you guys do not have a sure fire way of knowing who made what posts when you track down anonymous posters or however you do it you should not make accusations. I did not make all these comments you attribute to me. It's so lame when threads become like this when someone becomes so offended they start are lying or in your deluded case you probably think certain posters are others when they aren't. It is at that time when I realize some people, not all, need a life outside pogo.

Also DL as a whole excuse the many typos, misspelling, grammar errors in this post I am not proofreading to put this fuck in his place.

[quote]Phantom Jew? 👻

Years ago I saw a dybbuk at the Loehmann's in Crown Heights!

Mmmm homosex. It's a sweet as sin.

W&W, r205

[quote]Why did homosexuality become a sin?

Because you're doing it wrong if it's not.

As a pantheist, i pick and choose which religious practices to respect and follow from which religion. Love you all 💕!

[quote]R200: I didn't read your entire novel but I will just stop you here.

[quote]R204: Also poison I realize that you attributed many comments to me that I did not make. I hate when people do this. And if you guys do not have a sure fire way of knowing who made what posts when you track down anonymous posters or however you do it you should not make accusations.

If you didn't read my 'entire novel' (by which I assume you meant R154), then how do you know which posts I attributed to you? I identified three groups of posts there, and named yours as R24 / R29 / R52 / R62 / R70 / R75 / R79 / R112 / R120 / R125 / and R147. To those we can add R200 / R201, and R204. There's no point your denying that they're yours; yes, there is a sure fire way of knowing, and anyone else can check it.

So, what's your explanation of your post at R147, if not borrowed hostility from some other interaction? I've already gone into detail about I believe the passage means at R139. Did you not read the post at that link, or is the explanation entirely beside the point, that you only wanted to score an insult on behalf of some grievance not present in this thread?

Homosex is a sin because they kept finding gays cruising the hot lava rocks of Hell. Word got back to St Peter.

PoisonedDragon is a very sad, sad person. Possibly clinically mentally ill.

▲ It's a far sadder person that keeps repeating the "sad, sad person," "mentally ill" thing using dozens of different socks from thread to thread for the past couple of years. It's never an answer or argument to anything I ever post, just a repetitious ad hominem. That takes a lot of butthurt.

It's someone who's lost a lot of religious arguments over the existence of Jesus, and cannot handle the loss. Probably the Dennis R MacDonald troll, using socks.

^^you're a nut, dear.

Poisoned Dragon is actually a very intelligent and well-read poster, although a bit volatile. I have the oddest feeling I am blocked by him because he saw me on one thread as one of those endless "sock puppets." I hope not, but regardless, I still generally like his posts and learn a lot from them.

As for the "sin" of homosexuality, I see this tendency over and over and over again to read Christianity, or all the Abrahamic religions back into the earliest history and then to make all sorts of grandiloquent statements about this or that Christian doctrine had some evolutionary effect, even though it clearly couldn't, just by the basic facts of evolution and the actual age of homo sapiens.

[quote]The prohibition is against pedophilia, enthusiastically practiced by non-Jewish tribes.

I'm sure pedophilia, by our definition, was practiced by ancient Israelites, even if it was only the girls. I suspect they thought nothing of 12-year-old girls being of "marriageable age."

[quote]R215: I have the oddest feeling I am blocked by him because he saw me on one thread as one of those endless "sock puppets." I hope not, but regardless, I still generally like his posts and learn a lot from them.

I don't block anyone. I use the ignore function exclusively to track poster histories, and always clear the queue when I'm done.

[quote]As for the "sin" of homosexuality, I see this tendency over and over and over again to read Christianity, or all the Abrahamic religions back into the earliest history and then to make all sorts of grandiloquent statements about this or that Christian doctrine had some evolutionary effect, even though it clearly couldn't, just by the basic facts of evolution and the actual age of homo sapiens.

That is not my approach to any of it. You will never find me lauding Christianity as having made improvement upon anything. My approach to Leviticus 18:22/20:13 is from higher criticism, noting that the passages, including all of Leviticus 18, are halakhic commentary upon other passages of scripture, particularly Ezekiel chapters 22 and 23, as well as Deuteronomy 23:17-18. An interpolated book, Leviticus was probably the latest addition to the Torah, being composed after the 70 CE destruction of the Temple. It was intended for a closed readership consisting of survivors of the Temple community who hoped one day to re-establish Temple worship, but later fell into Christian hands along with the rest of the Septuagint; they in turn uncritically regarded it, along with the rest of the Torah, as being from antiquity, and as having typified normative Jewish practices in the early 1st century CE. None of Leviticus' rules or rituals were ever practiced by Jews at the time. This is why clear citations of Leviticus in the New Testament are rare, only occurring in pseudepigrapha written after 170 CE. It is also notable that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any portions of Leviticus, although modern religious conservatives have continuously sought and cultivated (by providing a market for) forgeries of Leviticus, supposedly from the DSS corpus.

[quote]R216: I'm sure pedophilia, by our definition, was practiced by ancient Israelites, even if it was only the girls. I suspect they thought nothing of 12-year-old girls being of "marriageable age."

Pedophilia is one of the bible's 'blind spots' (like slavery, rape, womens' rights, or human rights in general) issues of concern in modern times, but not ever found within the scope of concerns from the late Iron Age/early Common Era. The bible nowhere prohibits it, but anyone who needs a biblical pronouncement in order to know that it's wrong already has bigger problems. Trying to force it upon the meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is anachronistic. I am not surprised that Matt chooses to read it into the passage (R158) since he is an enthusiastic far-right anti-trans QAnoner; QAnon imagines pedophilia to be the single greatest threat facing our society. IMO, his interpretation is a function of his politics.

Men shall not lay with another man as they lay with women.

Boys are not men. In fact in that time period, the age of manhood was around 20 years old. You had to finish puberty, grow a beard, finish your education/trade and be able to enlist in the military to be a man.

It's clearly talking about two grown men together having sex. I don't think teenage boys were seen as off-limits to each other or to an older man.

If you read the story of David, it's clearly portrays David as a young pretty boy just on the cusp of manhood (too young to enlist but old enough to have physical strength) who captures the eye of handsome King Saul who takes him in as a court musician and later his son Jonathan takes notice and gets friendly with David.

Um, Dad says it's something to do with the Holy Spirit driving out the demons of sickness that enter when you take it in the ass.

[quote] It's clearly talking about two grown men together having sex

R219 Not in Hebrew, it isn't.

Interesting thread. It really doesn’t matter, though. Times have changed and we know that the Bible is outdated.. Slavery is wrong and homosexuality is not.

I should've killed myself when when Miss Collins put her tongue in me. After the first time, before we were lived together, Miss Collins promised never again. She promised, and I believed her. But sin never dies. Sin never dies. At first, it was all right. We lived sinlessly. We slept in the same bed, but we never did it. And then, that night, I saw her looking down at me that way. We got down on our knees to pray for strength. I smelled the whiskey on her breath. Then she took me. She took me, with the stink of filthy roadhouse whiskey on her breath, and I liked it. I liked it! With all that dirty touching of her hands all over me. I should've given you to God when you were born and never gone to that sperm bank all those years ago but Miss Collins insisted, but I was weak and backsliding, and now the devil has come home. We'll pray.

ElderLez: On 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡, reply 53, you said,

[quote]The Bible is very clearly against anal sex with temple (make and female) prostitutes (which was considered at the time a form of child sacrifice) as a method of worshipping fertility gods and (primarily) goddesses.

I replied,

[quote]Mmm, it's a theory. But have you ever done a deeper dive into its 'prooftexts'? For instance, where does it specifically talk about "anal sex"? Have you looked into the so-called 'temple prostitutes'? Who's a "fertility god"? Which "goddesses"? And 𝑤ℎ𝑜 exactly was demanding and receiving child sacrifices?

To which, you answered,

[quote]Yes actually Poisoned Dragon I have. I can post a series of links later if you’d like, assuming you and OP don’t think it would derail the thread. (see link)

The link you provided notes that "ASHTORETH" was a "Canaanite goddess." What it doesn't mention is that Yahweh was also a constituent of the Canaanite pantheon, one of the '70 Sons of El,' and a 'fertility god' as well. The goddesses mentioned in the bible - Ashtoreth (actually Astarte; your article explains 'Ashtoreth' as a Hebrew alteration of the name), Anath, and Asherah - were once consorts of Yahweh, and acceptable objects of worship with Yahweh.

The distinction between 'Canaanite' and 'Hebrew' in the Iron Age was kind of a false one, being that they were one people, sharing a common ethnicity, language, culture, and religious ideas. The insistence that the Canaanites were foreigners worshipping 'strange gods' was a form of religious propaganda disseminated by the 'Deuteronomists,' a 'Yahweh-Only' sect which gained predominance after Israel shook itself free from Seleucid/Syrian control, in the 2nd century BCE. The Deuteronomist point of view came to shape the Jewish bible, but traces of the older views are still discernible in its texts.

A common trope among biblical authors was to set 'historical' stories farther back in the past than when they occurred (for example, the Book of Daniel, set in the 6th century BCE, but written in the 2nd century BCE). Hence, the 'cleansing of the temple' set during the so-called 'Divided Monarchy', where all the paraphernalia of Canaanite worship were removed from the temple (the Asherah poles, shrines to the Canaanite pantheon, the 'Chariots of the Sun,' the housing of the 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑚, etc. cited in 2 Kings 23), ostensibly back in the 7th century BCE, 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 occurred subsequent to the overthrow of Seleucid influence after Antiochus' desecration of the Temple in the 2nd century. Judaism underwent a rather quick makeover from polytheism to monotheism, and what had recently been a religious norm - the worship of the Canaanite pantheon - suddenly became proscribed.

Now, about those "shrine prostitutes"...

[quote]ElderLez, reply 60 on 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡: I’ll just add here though that in the biological understanding of the Old Testament era it was believed that every seminal emission included a fetus so every ejaculation that could not result in pregnancy was wasted. The sin of Onanism wasn’t male masturbation, but good old Pope approved withdrawal.

Quite - but with the caveat that there's considerable difference between the view of the authors of Genesis 38, where Onan is found, and the fixation of late medieval Catholicism through early 20th century religion on masturbation, which used the story of Onan to justify their views.

In the late Iron Age, when 'Genesis' was being put together, they didn't really have a "biological understanding," much less a value placed upon every seminal emission. If they had, it would have been more expressly defined in the Torah, rather than needing to be interpreted out of a reading of the story of Onan.

The story of Onan was crafted with the intention of reinforcing the already-existing custom of Levirate marriage, where a brother is required to step into a marriage to replace a deceased male sibling. Onan refused to fulfill that responsibility, and so Yahweh supposedly slew him. It was never intended to be a statement on seminal emissions, or any of the rest of what Christianity added to it.

If I step away from our discussion for hours or a day or so, don't lose patience. I just have stuff to do, and I need rest. I'm still interested in talking with you. Reply at your leisure, as it suits you.

Has anyone here ever read scholar Idan Dershowitz and his take on the Leviticus sexual prohibitions?

He proposes that Leviticus originally permitted sexual relations between men, but that a redactor altered the passages to expand the scope of the prohibition.

R227 Regarding Leviticus 18, there’s an interesting perspective I’ve seen tossed around (certainly closer to the reform end of the spectrum than the orthodox) that I think resonates with me quite a bit:

When praying we are commanded to wrap leather straps (tefillin) on ourselves as part of the ritual, with one of the tefillin on our arm. The text of the commandment can be read traditionally to mean specifically the left arm. But for left handed people this poses a bit of a logistical issue, since wrapping their dominant hand restricts them more so than a right handed person. So to resolve this we can incorporate the assumption that most people are righties into our reading of the text and extrapolate that by specifying the left hand the text is instructing us by implication to use the assumed less dominant hand. So since lefties flip the assumption we flip the implication and lefties wrap on their right arm.

There seems to be pretty harsh language in the torah about homosexuality, but what if that’s just co opting the assumption that most people are straight. Certainly, the vast majority of the text functions as an affirmation of the value of human life and dignity - so to call someone an abomination for loving who they love seems out of place. But if the text is read with the assumption of heterosexuality rather than as a commandment insisting on heterosexuality, then the meaning can shift. We assume one is straight, and so the text is stating one should not perform sexual acts that go against their sexuality. But if someone is gay they flip the assumption, so if we flip the implication just like with the wrapping of tefillin - then the text is an affirmation: the instruction is still to not perform sexual acts against one's own sexuality.

Also, R158 is exactly right about the mistranslation of זכר in Leviticus 18 which originally referred to the practice of Pederasty (pedophilia) in this region of the Mediterranean. Its intended meaning was 'young man' or 'male child'.

Alsoalso, I don't know if it's yet been mentioned upthread, but I did want to correct a few posters who are lumping Christians and Jews together on the subject of abortion:

Abortion is NOT prohibited in Jewish law like is in Christianity. According to the Talmud, life does not begin at conception (and is even considered "mere water" prior to 40-days gestation). A fetus does not attain full personhood until birth, and the mother's health and well-being is ALWAYS given priority over the fetus. And in pregnancies where the mother's life could be at risk from birthing the child (this could even include the risk of suicide), abortion is actually considered mandatory. Abortion is also permitted if it was conceived of a forbidden union (such as rape or incest), if the fetus suffers from severe abnormalities, or when the mother's mental health is at risk.

Men = property owner

Women = slave

Men + Men = 2x property owners

[quote] A fetus does not attain full personhood until birth

A fetus does not attain full personhood until 30 days AFTER a live birth. One of the reasons mourning is not observed for a child that dies within the first 30 days of life.

[quote] Abortion is also permitted if it was conceived of a forbidden union (such as rape or incest)

Also the forbidden union of a married woman and a man not her husband. So that the child does not suffer the social stigma/consequences of ממזרות (illegitimacy is a close translation, but not exact).

[quote] He proposes that Leviticus originally permitted sexual relations between men, but that a redactor altered the passages to expand the scope of the prohibition.

R227 Vayikra 18:22 does NOT "permit sexual relations between men". It does not PROHIBIT sexual relations between men.

The passage was "altered" because the translators didn't understand the source text. And neither did Jews as they became further distanced from their laws and their language, losing its meaning and nuance when it ceased to be a daily language.

[quote]R229: Also, [R158] is exactly right about the mistranslation of זכר in Leviticus 18 which originally referred to the practice of Pederasty (pedophilia) in this region of the Mediterranean. Its intended meaning was 'young man' or 'male child'.

R229, how interesting. Do you have any credible sources which say this?

[quote]R233: Vayikra 18:22 does NOT "permit sexual relations between men". It does not PROHIBIT sexual relations between men.

Dr Dershowitz's argument does not center around 18:22 at all, but rather 18:14. You really ought to read sources before barrelling into an argument, Matt.

[quote]The passage was "altered" because the translators didn't understand the source text.

That has always been your argument (and has sometimes been mine, depending), but it's not the one Dershowitz is making. Passages were altered by Jews who knew full well the meaning of a text, and wanted to change it, in the same way clauses were added to permit firstborn sons to be redeemed rather than sacrificed to YHWH.

I’m an atheist so I can’t relate. What is a sin?

Fascinating. You've been socking since the beginning of this thread last year, R4 / R9 /R235, no doubt on behalf of another of the thread's participants. What's been the point?

R232 Agreed about those nuances you added. I was more referring to contemporary Jewish scholarship/law, which, to my understanding, DOES now consider life beginning for a fetus the moment its first body part exits the birth canal, and infanticide to be any form of termination following that moment. For that reason, I should not have specified Talmudic law in my post.

[quote] Do you have any credible sources which say this?

R234 Any person who can read and understand Hebrew as a daily language. Which you keep right on ignoring, while flailing around Google posting those that don't.

[quote] You really ought to read sources before barrelling into an argument, Matt.

And you really ought to drop the childish villainizing of anyone who dissents from your worldview, which you do regularly.

[quote] Dr Dershowitz's argument does not center around 18:22 at all, but rather 18:14.

I was going to give you that, flailing around Google, you finally found someone who may be a daily speaker of Hebrew (Idan is a Hebrew name), However, Dr. Dershowitz's "translations" are overly complicated, using lofty, often wrong English words in translation where there is no need and, in doing so, placing his translations/explanations way off the mark. He's taken those translations straight from Machon Mamire, which indicates to me that this is yet another of your "experts" who ony knows Hebrew formally.

Such as Vayika 18:14:

ערות לא תגלה

תגלה comes from the verb לגלות to discover. ערוה means lewdness (not really, but close enough). Naked/nakedness is עירום. Both the good "doctor" and whichever place he took the translation from are both wrong. And as usual, mistranslating and contributing to misunderstanding in what in Hebrew is a simple, easily understood injunction. And that's the crux. The laws of the Jewish Bible were meant to be read in the language it was written in, Hebrew. Not mistranslated all out of proportion, context and sense into a foreign language.

As always, stick to Xtian topics. You'll look less etc.

To say nothing of errneous projection, to whit:

[quote] The meaning of לגלות ערוה in this chapter initially seems clear: It refers to sexual intercourse.

Not in Hebrew it doesn't. It says "discover lewdness". The rest is projection as there is nothing in the Hebrew to state/signify otherwise.

[quote] contemporary Jewish scholarship/law, which, to my understanding, DOES now consider life beginning for a fetus the moment its first body part exits the birth canal, and infanticide to be any form of termination following that moment.

R237 It is the most unfortunate history of the Jewish people that most of their laws have been "modified" to comply with the sensibilities of the cultures they sojourned among and on whose goodwill they depend for their continued existence. I'm guessing that the interpretation you stated is applicable in some communities outside of Israel.

[quote]R238: And you really ought to drop the childish villainizing of anyone who dissents from your worldview, which you do regularly.

How is addressing you directly "villainizing" you? (Incidentally, you're both R229 and R233, carrying on the pretense of talking to each other.) I recognize you. You're very bad at hiding your identity. You ought to just own up to it, stop socking, and stop pretending my issues are with "anyone who dissents" from 'my worldview', instead of just 𝑦𝑜𝑢, who cannot/will not support his claims, and plays sock games.

[quote]Any person who can read and understand Hebrew as a daily language. Which you keep right on ignoring, while flailing around Google posting those that don't.

Idan Dershowitz does. You have no point beyond your usual trolling.

The only one "flailing" here is you, and always will be as long as you refuse to support your claims. It's not something you can evade by resorting to ad hominem.

[quote]@R238: "The meaning of לגלות ערוה in this chapter initially seems clear: It refers to sexual intercourse." Not in Hebrew it doesn't. It says "discover lewdness". The rest is projection as there is nothing in the Hebrew to state/signify otherwise.

First problem, you're pretending the quote is something I said. It's not; it's from the Dershowitz article. Second, you're misrepresenting it: it's why Dershowitz says '𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦,' citing a source for that assertion (S.D. Luzatto, not his own). It's an opinion he intends to counter with his own argument, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑. You're fond of accusing others of "projection," but you only use it as a buzzword, exhibiting no understanding of what it means.

Umm...R229 here, and I am most certainly not 233. Did you even bother checking my post history before making this accusation?

debate and reinterpretation has always mattered, r239 although, few have the merits to do so and few survive the passages of the time to become legitimate schools of thought. . . let alone setup to become a cornerstone in the more complicated differences in halacha law between groups.

Some of it may be due to outside influences, as you say... that sets the stage for the conflicts in Jewish politics now and of course, the more entertaining aspects when bds idiots trying to force it into perceptions of social justice roles by pigment vs some of these fundamental differences in Israeli culture to fit their agendas but we see this mistake of assuming visibly poc = progressive fallacy everywhere. . . American politics is rife with it being unable to grasp that just because some demographics tend to vote more for democrats than republicans doesn't mean they're in any shape or form progressive nor even 'liberal' but even the notion of that doesn't exist in the black and white perception of left vs right. it's all or nothing in many people's minds.. hence, how quickly progressives turn on those demographics that fail to live up their expectations and reveal themselves as the same kind of bigots as the rights' majorities can be..

these days it's more sloganeering with roots in unrecognized bodies (recosntructionists, reform, etc) or sociopolitical groups that lack authority even among diaspora. . . in this age, it's too often cherry-picked and lacking fuller context to even what more laxed forms would allow. . . though the same applies to what some would deem more conservative positions that bastardize law or say the modern conventions, adaptations even among the most religious, observant that we accept out of practicality.

Then, of course, there's the allowances made even when one goes through official channels. . . the problem perhaps now is that again, because of modern conventions, the need of qualification has been minimized while the sociopolitical (progressive or conservative) distrusts the official, the amended, the consensus... so, as with other demographics, the mob mentality tries to bully its way into positions of authority when it disagrees with such than to make religious argument.

[quote]R241: Umm...[R229] here, and I am most certainly not 233. Did you even bother checking my post history before making this accusation?

I did. It's minimal, standing at just seven posts, counting R241. You cinched it by endorsing R158.

Of course, you could cite some support for the opinion, a link perhaps? Right?

[quote] in the same way clauses were added to permit firstborn sons to be redeemed rather than sacrificed to YHWH.

R234 Clause? Huh? There is no "clause", but rather injunctions and a set of rules for those injunctions for redemption of the first born, both human and animal. The injunctions and rules for human redeption of the first born appear both in Shmot and B'Midbar. The injunctions for animal "redemption" appear in Vayikra and Devarim.

R240 See R241. There are no "sock puppets" except in your ignorant mind. Just like "Matt", who also exists only in your mind. Phantoms you continually conjure up to hide how completely out of your realm of knowledge you are..

[quote] You're fond of accusing others of "projection," but you only use it as a buzzword, exhibiting no understanding of what it means.

But I DO understand and explained: Last sentence of R238.

R243 The only reason I can think for that is the fact that I just installed VPN privacy software yesterday after a phishing spam scare. Here are just a few pages from my recent notifications.

first page:

2nd page:

3rd page:

[quote] Of course, you could cite some support for the opinion, a link perhaps? Right?

R243 will never understand that people who speak a language on a daily basis don't require "support" for their "opinion". Just like he doesn't require interpretations or "support" for the sentence "See Jane run".

R243 also doesn't understand that the only people who require interpretations, support and opinions for what is written in the Jewish Bible are people who don't speak Hebrew or know it only as a formal language.

[quote]R244: There are no "sock puppets" except in your ignorant mind.

This thread is strewn with the detritus of your past sock incarnations, now redlined, like R158, and reply 109 on the 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲? thread. Forever posting the same crap, forever being banned, and forever coming back, pretending it wasn't you.

[quote]R245: Here are just a few pages from my recent notifications.

Unnecessary. Just provide some linked support for the redlined opinion at R158 that you endorsed at R229. That's all.

You know why it's redlined, right?

R248 Projection. Assumption. And of course your usual conjuring of phantoms to deflect from the simple fact that you're clueless. I know I'm not the only one on your phantom list. Speaking of the "same crap".

^^^^^ For R249, not R248

Because having a dick inside feels ungodly too good to ever be considered a good Christian thing to do. That is at least what my purely theoretical encyclopedic knowledge of it taught me.

the jews

Is fisting a sin

Will I go to heaven if I continue being gay but ask forgiveness right before I die

R250 I would recommend reading K. Renato Lings' 'Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible', which is one of the sources that informed my opinion.

Further, I have no desire to be inserted into you and the Hebrew's bitch-fest. Clearly he's been ff'd many times, which tells me he likely does his fair share of trolling. I'm sure he's a cunt supreme in many respects, but he does appear to know his shit when it comes to Halakhic law and Hebrew grammar, where I suspect you may be out of your depth.

[quote]R257: I would recommend reading K. Renato Lings' 'Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible', which is one of the sources that informed my opinion.

Not in terms of endorsing Matt's opinion at R158, it didn't. Lings does not claim that " זכר means a male child," or that "the prohibition is against pedophilia, enthusiastically practiced by non-Jewish tribes." Lings 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 agree with me that the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 is idiomatically obscure, nearly untranslatable, and that its sense isn't at all reflected in the standard English renditions of it (follow the directions at R139 of this thread to find my standard analysis of the Leviticus passages). It does not appear that you've actually read Lings, and that you're throwing him out there because you assume that I (and other onlookers) haven't.

[quote]he does appear to know his shit when it comes to Halakhic law and Hebrew grammar, where I suspect you may be out of your depth.

Mmm-hmm. Sure. Sounds like an independent, unbiased take to me, unrelated in any way to Matt's own take on it. [/sarcasm]. Matt cannot (or will not) qualify any of his opinions with sources, which is why they remain mere opinions. That he 'does appear to know his shit' is, for that selfsame reason, without support, as is your assessment of my own scholarship on the subject. It's exactly what Matt would say through a sock account. I take that as verified.

[quote]Lings 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 agree with me that the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 is idiomatically obscure, nearly untranslatable, and that its sense isn't at all reflected in the standard English renditions of it

And this proves exactly nothing more than you've read the synopsis of the book, which almost word-for-word states that. The book does actually discuss literary evidence of pederasty that theoretically informed its usage in Leviticus 18 that I referred to, in detail. I have nothing to prove to you by claiming to have read books I haven't read. You asked me to list a source that informed my opinion. And I have done that. Still, you are not happy.

I also have anything more to prove to you in defending my identity, which I believe I have already generously (and stupidly) obliged. You continue to move your goal posts of what I ought to be proving to you, Highly Irritated Internet Stranger, in order to defend my right to contribute my own thoughts to this thread. And I have now grown weary of humoring you. I do not come to DL to engage in endless flame wars.

I, a homosexual Jew of middling Hebraic scholarship, poked my head into a thread and quite un-aggressively contributed what I considered to be fairly innocuous responses that reflected my understanding of my religion based on my own education and research. I still believe your friend to be a bit of a pompous boob from the limited posts of his I have seen in this thread, but from what I could recognize of his understanding of Hebrew grammar, he seemed to be spot on. I've not had any other interactions with him here to my knowledge, but clearly you two have a history, and you both appear to have quite a lot more invested in this fight than I do. So I will leave you both to it, and go back to responding to threads where I am not wasting time arguing with paranoid loons.

Have at it, boys.

[quote]R259: You continue to move your goal posts of what I ought to be proving to you, Highly Irritated Internet Stranger, in order to defend my right to contribute my own thoughts to this thread.

No, I haven't moved any goal posts. It remains the same. Simply dropping K. Renato Ling's name and the title of a book that he wrote does not meet what I asked for. It's simply not the position he takes. But I am not irritated at all, and you don't have any reason to be, unless what I'm saying is true.

I don't hate Matt, despite the depths of his hostility towards me. I'm open to learning from him, if he would simply source his opinions. But I'm fairly sure he is not open to teaching me.

Back in 2003, when I began posting on the IMDb board for 'The Passion of the Christ' (2004), there were already a few gay posters there, well-regarded, sort of board "royals" in the parlance of Mike Reed's 'Flame Warriors.' One was a high school history teacher from Ithaca, NY, who went by the name of 'GayIthacan.' He was quite spiteful towards me for a long time; it took a couple of years for him to get used to my being there. His issue seems to have been that he had long been accustomed to being something like 'the Queen of the Dairy Queen' on that board, and saw me as encroaching on what he regarded as his territory. When I began posting here on the DL on the subject of biblical texts that believers like to utilize as "clobber texts" against homosexuals, particularly those found in the Jewish Testament, that's when Matt started flame attacks. He's threatened by someone else, a non-Jew, posting on these subjects, which is why he tries to shut down the discussions (as well as trolling on other subjects, like the trans).

That behavior is not tenable here, and it's why these threads are littered with various accounts he's used to troll, going back years.

[quote]The book does actually discuss literary evidence of pederasty that theoretically informed its usage in Leviticus 18 that I referred to, in detail.

I'd appreciate some quotes supporting that, if you don't mind.

R259, I've since bought and read K. Renato Lings' 'Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible', and it does not support your claim at R229 about "the mistranslation of זכר in Leviticus 18 which originally referred to the practice of Pederasty (pedophilia) in this region of the Mediterranean." Wherever you got that idea, it didn't come from Lings.

[quote]Christianity is about control more than any other religion

Don't be silly. Christianity, however bigot and homophobic, is the least controlling and most liberal religion. It is not by pure chance that liberal societies developed in Christian Europe.

Christianity doesn't control everyday life of their flock, no special rules about food, drink, clothing, even rules re worship are very loose, they pray when they choose to.

I am from Catholic country and I have always thought that there is no easier religion, you eat and drink all you want, there is just one obligatory fasting in year, it is on Easter Friday, but only meat is forbidden and they have big feast with seafood delicacies.

Rules on sexual behavior are strict, but nobody follows them, if you break them, you confess to the priest and you are forgiven.

Only grannies go to mass every Sunday, cause it is sort of entertainment to them, younger folks go to church on Easter and Christmas and they are accepted there.

When you look at Catholic societies, Italy, Spain, France, you can't say that these are really strict societies, on the contrary.

As for protestant Scandinavian and Dutch countries, these are even more liberal societies.

I have forgotten to add, there are no strict rules that are regulating social life, entrepreneurship, leisure time activities, no restrictions in entertainment and amusement except for period of mourning after the death of family member, no separation of sexes in Christian societies.

More severe social mores in for eg. Sicilian society are more the product of the fact they have been colonized by Arabs than by Christianity. Same with Bosnian Catholics who have been under Turkish rule.

Evolution = change over time

Procreation = reproduction

Stop saying for “evolutionary” reasons. It makes no sense. You mean for “procreative” reasons.

R5 nailed it

Much of the Bible and sin reads to me like an early public health advisory.

How to increase the needed population by procreation and how to reduce morbidity and mortality as well.

Do not eat shellfish that might kill you , procreate because we need the increased numbers , don’t fuck another man that adds nothing of value to society, don’t kill each other, don’t fuck your neighbors wife, and listen to your parents.

The more interesting question is how the concept of "sin" even developed. The Greeks had wrongdoings that had to be dealt with accordingly - repentance and doing better. (An example would be Hercules who murdered his children and who had to atone for it in a way.) Mostly, however, things were pretty final (Sisyphus and Prometheus). Or, in the very real world, the punishment of Sokrates for corrupting the youth with new ideas. None of these transgressions has the quality of a sin though.