I am not suggesting that it should not be questioned - quite the contrary. I suggest that it be examined and understood for its immense historical significance and its influence on mankind. It has been the source and inspiration for a tremendous amount of good.

In this spirit of interpretation one can discuss what is meant by the commandment you cite. Not to put the word of God to the test. Although you may have one interpretation of this commandment in your mind - it is not necessarily simple to interpret.

At least according to Jewish law this does NOT mean blind acceptance.
There is a vast body of writings which are included as part of the laws and they included differing opinions and no definitive answer as to which interpretation is best or even if there is a best one.

I find this to be very interesting and it is similar to my approach to this subject. A reflection that the rightness of the interpretation may be situational and based on guidance of a scholar rather than one's own opinion.

There is a brief discussion of all of this also from the same source as the list:

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Note that when they speak of the Torah - they include all the interpretative writings and presumably also modern scholars reasoning as well.

=-=-=-=

On a separate note to msharmony: I was using the term "Creationist" and "Creationism" in the sense of those who deny evolution.

So I would not consider you a "Creationist" by that standard if you believe in evolution. I also believe in evolution and do not feel it is disagreement with creation. After all, who created evolution?



God. The one and only. And it is beautiful.

Failed natural science did you? Check again. All those things are not the extremely rare in the least. Not in all nonhuman species of course but there are plenty of examples. A great many mammals have long term relationships. And long term homosexual relationships are not uncommon either.

Thanks Redykeulous a very well thought out post. I apologize the thread had degenerated to a point that it was no longer useful to me and I stopped reading.

Most of the things you had in there I had thought of myself though never put in to written word. I didn't really want to give my opinion since that tends to influence the feed back in a negative way from both sides. I didn't agree with every conclusion but they all made perfect sense and not that far from what I believe. I was originally thinking that the Christian Judeo influence had played a greater roll in our current views but I've come to the conclusion it's simply been a means of perpetuating what already existed at the time.

I'd add that God or any superior being that one might believe it would do well to tell his/her followers to subscribe to the anti-homosexual attitudes. Christian take over of the world is due in part to simple numbers and you don't increase your numbers by having homosexual relationships. I'd also disagree slightly on your interpretation of why female homosexuality is acceptable and the "what's not to like" feeling. I think that is still culturally based with on minor genetics involved. As you rightly mentioned women were thought of as property, so exclusive lesbian relations simply weren't even a question. Bisexuality was the only option for those women who would have choose to be homosexual if they had the choice. Bisexuality in women does not inhibit procreation so no reason to forbid it. However you might want to hint at it slightly so they were not as likely to try and refuse their rightful place and duties in a man's stable. Which does follow the hinting that takes place within the Bible.

The only problem with these kinds of arguments is that in these same religious traditions celebacy for religious reasons is considered one of the highest form of spirituality. Yet celebacy does not produce offspring either.

So at one end of the spectrum they renounce homosexuality on the grounds that if all people were homosexual it would be the end of procreation. But at the other end of the spectrum they praise celebacy as the most spiritual thing a person can do.

I guess they just have FAITH that not too many people are going to be interested in being all that spiritual.

True, however you'll find that bible says that celibacy is only for the very few. Religion needs very devout leaders to succeed. And to get others to follow they need to prove a significant sacrifice on their own part. To give up a handful of would be producers to secure a following, and have your followers actively procreating whether it is their desire or not, is a small price. And the proof is in the numbers. Both in the number of Christians and in the number of humans in general.

Thank-you for responding, the thread did degenerate away from the topic and I'm sorry for that becasue I have considered your question many times, which is how I came up with the inforamtion. There was one more reference I can't seem to find in all my notes so I omitted it but would like to mention it here.

I had an article or an exerpt from a book, I can't remember - but the author was explaining that when the Jews settled in the urban areas, There was little said about the male homosexuality that took place even when it was recognized AS LONG AS the males involved where leading an otherwise good family life - wife & kids caring for their religion, their community, yadda yadda.

I only recount this as you had commented on the procreation/family aspect of the early Judeo-Christian religion. If I find the resourse I got that from I will pass it on to you, it had quite a bit of intresting tid bits.

Well thanks for the post it was interesting.

Yes, the celibacy aspect was always a oxymoron HOWEVER that was a Christian thing, as Rabbi were allowed to marry and women were allowed, encouraced and even responsible for presiding over certain religious rituals, but were not allowed to 'study' as the men could.

Something else I thought of - men of that time (to the present)have always been considered challenged by their sexual desires - so for the young men going through puberty - study became the cure but obviously no one ever considered that women might also be challenged by their own desires.

Just one more thing that indicates what women did was of little regard as long as they (like their husbands)practiced good public decorum and kept affairs (of the sexual sort) hidden.

Actually, come to think of it - regarding celibacy, it was not a typically Jewish act. I'm not sure how it made the leap into Christianity OTHER THAN the fact that a well traveled Jesus whould certainly have had exposure to the Buddhist faith in which the one path (the greatest path) is a path of celibacy. Could be why Jesus was said to practice it and it could be that what he was teaching was his own brand of Buddhism that just got all misconstrued by the likes of Paul and a few of those other guys. HOW CAN WE EVER KNOW?

Buddhism had NOTHING to do with Jesus or Christianity.Gods first commandment is "Do not have any gods before Me. Do not represent (such gods) by any carved statue or picture or anything in the heaven above or the earth below or in the water below the land.Do not bow down to or worship them."Jesus never sinned and he certianly did not break Gods commandments.Studying and practicing Buddism is a form a worship since Buddah is considered a God and Buddhism is a religion.There is also not a single word written about Buddism in the bible or any other religion except when God is telling us to stay away from it.There is nothing written about how we should study other religions,mingle with other religions or even associate with people of other religions.On top of that what Christ taught had nothing in common with Buddhism including...

The buddhist theory of reincarnation
The idea that you didn't need God or salvation to reach nirvana.
The disbelief of good and evil.
Enlightment through personal meditation(Jesus did not meditate he prayed,worshiped and nearly always did this with others).
Emptying your mind of everything.


Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Timothy 2:3-6: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men. . . ."



Single Christians and single Jews practice celibicy because the bible teaches us that sex before marriage is immoral and wrong.It has nothing to do with buddism or any other religion.

1 Corinthians 6:16
Sex is as much spiritual mystery as physical fact. As written in Scripture, "The two become one." Since we want to become spiritually one with the Master, we must not pursue the kind of sex that avoids commitment and intimacy, leaving us more lonely than ever—the kind of sex that can never "become one."


Jude 7-In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Corinthians 6:13 (NIV)
13 “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.


1 Corinthians 6:18 (NIV)
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Galatians 5:19 (NIV)
19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery

Ephesians 5:3 (NIV)
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

Colossians 3:5 (NIV)
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

Hebrews 13:4 (NIV)
4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.


1 Corinthians 6:18
Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body. (NLT)

Umm, why would an allegedly Omnipotent Being _need_ to play Monopoly with human souls?

As far as Christians taking over the world on the strength of numbers, that premise can be proven false by inspection. Only 1/3 of the world's population subscribe to the Christian faith, and China has a lot more people (by a factor of 3, if memory serves) than the 'Christian' nation of United States of America.

Or take Africa, for an example. Procreation there is greater than in many First World societies, but because of high infant mortality rates and life expectancy (not to mention quality of life) is vastly less than in more enlightened societies who embrace science and education.

Mere numbers alone have nothing to do with it.

Besides, those who don't procreate can devote their energies to good effect to bettering the conditions in their societies. They have the time and the resources and THAT has been one thing that has made a difference, NOT how much human cannon fodder procreation can produce.


-Kerry O.

How could you have a clue as to how Jesus might have behaved when he was alone? All you have to work with is hearsay accounts of the man, and none of those could possibly contain any information about how Jesus might behave when he was alone.

Also, your view of Buddhism is extremely narrow and limited. The Buddhism that you describe is more along the lines of modern versions of Buddhism like Zen Buddhism.

However, the Buddhism that was popular in Jesus' day was Mahayan Buddhism and it falls perfectly in line with everything that Jesus taught including Jesus' own bodhisattva behavior.

Moreover, the parts of the hearsay about that don't appear to be in harmony with Buddhism is most likely due to the fact that the people who wrote the hearsay misunderstood what Jesus was attempting to teach.

For example, when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one", they took that to mean that Jesus was the same as Yahweh. But clearly that's NOT what Jesus had actually stated even by the hearsay accounts.

To push the confusion (and potential agendas) of the authors of the hearsay onto Jesus is to reject Jesus himself and embrace the men who wrote the hearsay. This is what most Christians actually do. This is why they don't even truly worship Jesus. They worship the men who wrote hearsay about Jesus.

But trying to get them to see their folly is pretty close to impossible.

First that's not what she said, and second you should speak of things when you don't know anything about them. Your ignorance is evident and the fact that Buddah is not considered a god or son of God or anything else of that type by his followers. Fact is there are many Christian Buddists.

Get a clue

Please read before you reply. My comment was not limited to the "one" god and not to necessarily and Omnipotent one, but to any superior being. And as for why in the case of that one Omnipotent, why would anything be needed, why need a bible, why need rules why need anything at all. It would be a choice, a piece of the free will puzzle, call it playing monopoly or any other game if you wish.



And how many religions are there in the world? 1/3 is still larger than any other one religion. How many of he dominant nations have a strong Christian presence? And how many of the "other" faiths have some sort of prohibition against male homosexuality. One of the few dominant that doesn't is Buddism and even some sects there do.



I'd have to see the facts behind that to comment properly but in general call it necessity.




I didn't say numbers alone. But you seem to think that since it isn't the ONLY factor it isn't any factor at all. That utter nonsense. Everything in life has multiple causes and effects. Sure the question is more complex than just that one factor, but it was a huge factor in ancient human development. You can't become industrialized without numbers. You wont get the one genius in a million if you don't have the million.



A crucial point that seems to have escaped you. We are discussing a time long ago, a time when procreation was essential to maintain a complete society. I never said it had any value in todays society. The fact is the last thing we need in todays society is procreation. We, in the extreme, are in danger of over populating ourselves to death.

The title of the thread contains the word "DOES", a _present_tense verb. You also said you wanted the tone of this debate to be civil, yet you're going out of your way to be belitting. No problem, I can do bare-knuckle dabate complete with polemics it that's your choice. But you do have to make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

And just because you choose to ignore facts doesn't make them any less pertinent or verifiable, however inconvenient that may be to your argument.

-Kerry O.

See, there you go again. Luring people in with with a sheep's humbleness before you tear their throats out with a wolf's arrogance.

Is reciprocity not in the Christian Bible? Apparently not.

-Kerry O.

Yes "Does the Bible...", the Bible hasn't change, well not significantly anyway. When discussing the bible we are still discussing the past not the present.



Sorry I didn't say that, any more than I said any number of other things you attributed to me in your last post.

The rest of this post is just name calling and has nothing to do with the discussion. I see no need to stoop to your level.

Yes "Does the Bible", the Bible hasnt change, well not significantly anyway. When discussing the bible we are still discussing the past present.



Sorry I do not believe I said that, any more than I said any number of other things you attributed to me in your last post. I would have liked it to be civil though, I just didn't think it would be possible for many here. Obviously I was right.

The rest of this post is just name calling and has nothing to do with the discussion. I see no need to stoop to your level.

Like I said I respond in kind.



Never said I was a follower of the Bible. But yes it is and I do believe that part and why I have chosen to respond to people in kind.

The first definition does fall into line with what I think of as unnatural. The second definition would be more in tune with how it the word is meant in the Bible, but it would seem to me this definition is there specifically to account for the biblical use of the word. I can't think of another place by which it would be used this way. Still the point is well taken and there is a definition of the word that fits the biblical use.



You may be right, probably should not have said it quite like that. I'm not sure there is "proof" but it has been found in a very significant number. And the other side of that coin I don't think there have been any studies that have shown there is a mammal that does not engage in homosexual relations.



Since it's not something most of us are capable of I'd say it's not a very good example. I suspect if we could many would. I've no idea how our culture would view that if it were something we could do. Masturbation was considered unnatural for many centuries, still is by many including the most of the Christian teachings. But many people today see it as quite natural.

As to the question of what could be concidered unnatural if we base it on what other animals do. We could go way out and include most anything that our technology allows us to do, that would include cloning which people definitely call unnatural. However to move to something a little closer to what I think you're asking. Interspecies sexual activities is pretty much a human thing and I would certainly put it in the class of unnatural. I think you may find some very limited examples in some house pets but I think that may be from confusion brought on by domestication and I don't believe it a natural thing for those animals either.

what would you imagine was meant by 'unnatural use' in the Bible when referring to how women and men used their bodies?