Homosexuality

razovor · Post by **razovor** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:25 pm

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Wed May 22, 2013 5:08 pm

mitty wrote: [Replying to post 67 by bluethread]

The Greek word eunikhos translates to bed-chamber attendant and not to some-one who is necessarily castrated or infertile. To determine if one is infertile or impotent, one has to try out the gear first before marriage and that was forbidden then. Jesus even said that having erotic thoughts about women is adultery (Matt 5:27-31) resulting in execution or at least chopping off the offending organs and throwing them away (Matt 5:29-30). Clearly nobody chooses to be homosexual. Homosexuals are born homosexual, and heterosexuals are born heterosexual. There is no choice in one's sexual orientation. Jesus knew that, perhaps because of his own sexual orientation and his special relationship with one particular disciple (John 19:26 21:20 Marks secret gospel), and why he asked his followers to accept that fact (Matt 19:12), and why he remained celibate despite celibacy not being the norm then. And besides, just how did Philip know that the queen's official was a eunuch (Acts 8:27-8)? Did Philip examine his genitals or simply observe that the official had effeminate mannerisms and therefore was a homosexual bed-chamber attendant (eunuch)?

This is all very bad exegesis and is based entirely on implied innuendo and a desired interpretation. Philip would have known that the Ethiopian was a court eunuch, because such status would be designated by some kind of badge of honor.

mitty · Post by **mitty** » Wed May 22, 2013 5:37 pm

[Replying to post 70 by bluethread] Why? Do you have any evidence to support your speculation and implied innuendo and desired interpretation? And what sort of bed-chamber attendant was the Queen's official? Was the official castrated or homosexual or another classification of bed-chamber attendant (eunuch), and how did Philip know what type?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Wed May 22, 2013 6:28 pm

mitty wrote: [Replying to post 70 by bluethread] Why? Do you have any evidence to support your speculation? And what sort of bed-chamber attendant was the Queen's official. Was the official castrated or homosexual or another classification of bed-chamber attendant, and how did Philip know what type?

(Matt 5:27-31) Yeshua is talking about adultery. Having erotic thoughts is not bad. Having thoughts related to breaking a marital vow is.

(John 19:26, 21:20) The reference to the disciple whom Yeshua loved does not refer to homosexuality, but is a diminutive reference of the author to himself. Regarding the leaning on His breast, at Pesach, it is traditional to recline and, in a society where homosexuality is not accepted, casually leaning against one's friend would be more acceptable, because there is less chance of a misunderstanding.

(Matt 19:12) Yeshua is not speaking of some "special" relationship with Yochannan, but was speaking about the seriousness of marriage and the reasons why some do not get married. Some have no interest in marriage, some are emasculated and some take vows of celibacy. Homosexuality may be one of the reasons why one would not be interested in marriage, but there is no indication that is being referred to here.

(Acts 8:27-8) This man was in a chariot. He was therefore a courtier. One would expect a courtier to have some indication of his office, especially, if that office was of a sensitive nature. There was no need for effeminate behavior or a third leg check. Homosexual bed-chamber attendants would be rare for reasons made clear in many b-grade or Monty Python comedies. In a time when emasculation is considered acceptable, that would provide much greater assurance of security, than an individuals profession of homosexuality.

There is some degree of speculation on my part, but such speculation is based on grammatical, cultural and historical context and not a desired outcome.

mitty · Post by **mitty** » Wed May 22, 2013 7:22 pm

[Replying to post 72 by bluethread] Do you have any real evidence to support your speculations, and why Jesus didn't even mention homosexuality at all apart from Matt 19:12, let alone why he didn't condemn homosexuality, given his railing against automatic adultery when divorcees remarry and even against erotic thoughts about women (Matt 5:28). Why would the Queen of Ethiopia require that her bed-chamber attendants be castrated, given that she was the boss lady with her own cuckolds and fancy boys, and any uninvited attention from one of her bed-chamber attendants would have been swiftly dealt with? Or are you saying that they were castrated to avoid inappropriate behavior with her cuckolds and fancy boys in a similar way that a king or sheik would protect his ownership of his wives and concubines?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Wed May 22, 2013 7:54 pm

mitty wrote: [Replying to post 72 by bluethread] Do you have any real evidence to support your speculations, and why Jesus didn't even mention homosexuality at all apart from Matt 19:12, let alone why he didn't condemn homosexuality, given his railing against automatic adultery when divorcees remarry and even against erotic thoughts about women (Matt 5:28).

I presented grammatical, cultural and historical justifications for each of the passages. That is the evidence. Which if these justifications do you question?

Yeshua did not mention homosexuality, even in Matt 19:12, because the fact that it was socially unacceptable was not in question. Herod had married his brother's wife and prostitution was being excused. He was presented with these situations as tests and He responded to them. His talmidim would often then enquire regarding further instruction. That is why we have passages regarding Yeshua's responses to the issues of marriage, adultery, divorce and prostitution, while seeing no mention of homosexuality. It just was not a difficult issue either morally or politically in Israel. By the way, Yeshua does not speak about circumcision either, for the same reason. Circumcision was a given. No reason to even discuss such things until one starts to take the gentiles into account. That is why Paul addresses them.

mitty · Post by **mitty** » Wed May 22, 2013 8:03 pm

[Replying to post 74 by bluethread] OK, but why did he rail against the automatic adultery by divorcees who remarry and erotic thoughts about women. And it also didn't change David's god from decreeing that David was it's begotten son (Psalm 2:7) despite David being a murdering adulterous polygamous bisexual. At least Jesus' god didn't make a similar decree about him, or that Jesus didn't make any claims about being it's begotten son.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Thu May 23, 2013 3:57 pm

mitty wrote: [Replying to post 74 by bluethread] OK, but why did he rail against the automatic adultery by divorcees who remarry and erotic thoughts about women. And it also didn't change David's god from decreeing that David was it's begotten son (Psalm 2:7) despite David being a murdering adulterous polygamous bisexual. At least Jesus' god didn't make a similar decree about him, or that Jesus didn't make any claims about being it's begotten son.

He didn't rail against the "automatic adultery by divorcees who remarry". He stated, (Mt. 19:9) "And I say unto you , Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery ." The man who divorces his adulterous wife, is free to remarry, as is the woman who is granted a divorce because of an adulterous husband. He speaks about divorce, because men were divorcing there wives for simple offenses. This makes a mockery of marriage.

The situation of David is rather enigmatic and the Psalms are poetry and one needs to take that into account when interpreting them. However, it is instructive of the human condition. That said, with regard to the topic at hand, it is important to note that though David was a murdering adulterer, polygamy is not a sin in and of itself and He was not bisexual. His saying that his love for Y'honatan was greater than his love for women is no more a sign of bisexuality than is my saying the same regarding my brother makes me an incestuous bisexual. It is a matter of the intensity of emotional bonding, not sexuality.

mitty · Post by **mitty** » Thu May 23, 2013 4:32 pm

[Replying to post 76 by bluethread] Oh come on, pull the other leg, it's got bells on it. Those verses about David's relationship with Jonathon and Saul's disapproval of the relationship certainly don't suggest that David wasn't bi-sexual or even tri-sexual, in the same way that Jesus' sexual orientation was most likely a homosexual one, given that as a man in his thirties he was susposedly unmarried and had a special relationship with one particular disciple along with the episode described in Mark's secret gospel. And as we all well know - it ain't necessarily so, the things that you're liable to read in the bible, it ain't necessarily so.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Thu May 23, 2013 4:53 pm

mitty wrote: [Replying to post 76 by bluethread] Oh come on, pull the other leg, it's got bells on it. Those verses about David's relationship with Jonathon and Saul's disapproval of the relationship certainly don't suggest that David wasn't bi-sexual or even tri-sexual, in the same way that Jesus' sexual orientation was most likely a homosexual one given that as a man in his thirties he was susposedly unmarried and had a special relationship with one particular disciple along with the incident described in Mark's secret gospel..

I don't know about "Mark's secret gospel", but the accounts of David and Yeshua do not imply bi-sexuality. I can see how someone who is looking to justify homosexuality could infer that. However, such inference would at best be secondary to the historical, grammatical and literal contexts of those passages. Shaul's hatred for David is easily understood given Sh'mu'el's having anointed David as king and Shaul's tendencies to fits of rage. Your implication that Yeshua must have been homosexual because He was unmarried in His thirties is rather sexist. We have no record of Sh'mu'el ever having been married and Yirmeyahu never married because he foresaw the captivity. There are many reasons for a man not to marry that have nothing to do with sexual preference.

mitty · Post by **mitty** » Thu May 23, 2013 5:15 pm

[Replying to post 78 by bluethread] There's nothing in the bible, however, to suggest that Jesus was a heterosexual. And just what did he do during his first 30 years, and what sort of relationships did he have then, and why did his own family and those he grew up with reject him (Matt 13:55-8 John 7:5) as he did them (Matt 12:46-50). Was it because of his relationships with other men, or was it because of his boozing (Matt 11:19) or simply because they, including his mother, didn't recognise or acknowledge anything extraordinary about him?