I can't get any mormom/christian to give me an answer on this and I was wondering if anyone on this board has heard the "official" answer as to why this makes sense.

Leviticus 18:22 and 23 states that you cant lie with mankind as with womankind, so people who believe in the bible have this belief that god forbids it.

Yet, in that same chapter it states that you can't lie with a women during her period of uncleanliness and in the next chapter it states:

"19 ¶Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

But nobody cares at all about this part of the law and only latch on to the part about homosexuality. They say that the rest of the stuff was just law of moses stuff and was fullfilled with jesus, yet the new testament never mentions homosexuality.

So, how do christians rationalize the fact that they ignore the entire old testament outside of a couple verses but use those versus to condemn an entire portion of the population? It makes no sense to me.

Because god.

That's why :)

If you can't cherry pick "right and wrong," you'd better stay out of the bible.

The amount of "god's law" the religious ignore is vast compared to the few things they latch onto, and insist are the only important things. Most have never even read their "holy book."

thanks--this is a good answer for those who say "but the bible says..."

has anyone ever gotten any type of apologetic rationalization as to why they can use those verses to condemn homosexuality but completely disregard everything else though? I can't figure it out...

brucermalarky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> has anyone ever gotten any type of apologetic
> rationalization as to why they can use those
> verses to condemn homosexuality but completely
> disregard everything else though? I can't figure
> it out...

Part of the answer is, absolutely, rationalization...but there is another, very practical, reason...

There are [by tradition] 613 commandments in the Old Testament. Some of these are "positive" ["thou shalt..."] and some of these are "negative" ["thou shalt not..."]---and the two groups are divided, as I remember, about half-and-half.

Some of these are obsolete (or are considered so): the laws having to do with the treatment of slaves, the ancient Jewish temple, etc.

Some of these can only be observed in Israel (or in the immediately surrounding geographical area)---and some Jews DO move to Israel for the SPECIFIC reason that, in Israel, they can observe "commandments"/mitzvoth that they cannot observe anywhere else.

Many of these are automatically observed by most everyone every day: If you have NOT had sex today with your mother, your father, your father's [other] wife, your sister, your father's wife's daughter, your daughter, your daughter's daughter, etc., etc., you have---so far today, anyway ;) ---observed about twenty-five of the commandments ALREADY, and just since you woke up!!!. :D

There are Jews who, in effect, make a lifetime game of seeing just how many mitzvoth they can observe every day, or in their total lifetime. Since there are lists of these mitzvoth that date back many centuries, it is easy for any given person to check-off the mitzvoth they either observe, or do NOT observe, on a daily (weekly, etc.) basis.

If you were to add to the "613" list a similar list of commandments from the NEW Testament, probably an additional hundred or so (this is a wild guess on my part) would be added to a combined Old-and-New-Testament list.

Since NO ONE can observe ALL of the mitzvot, EVERYONE "picks and chooses."

...and THIS is the answer to your question. :)

I don't agree with the cherry picking that is done with the anti-homosexuality commandments, and the chances are very good that the anti-homosexuality folks wouldn't agree with MY cherry-picking, either...but EVERYONE "cherry picks."

One listing of the mitzvot can be found at: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm ...or just Google "613 commandments" for other listings from other sources. (For various reasons, the "613 lists" vary somewhat, one from the other.)

EDITED TO ADD: The spellcheck on RfM is obviously preferentially Ashkenazi ;) ---I did NOT type the word "mitzvoTH," I typed the word "mitzvoT," which is Israeli standard Hebrew. On the other hand, to Tevye, the word would be "mitzvoth." ;)

Toh-MAY-tow......Toh-MAH-tow... I know, but "mitzvoT" IS---at least since 1948---standard Hebrew. :D



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2016 03:35PM by Tevai.

I did an awful lot of cherry picking as a Mormon kid at the Orem Sharon Stake Farm.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did an awful lot of cherry picking as a Mormon
> kid at the Orem Sharon Stake Farm.

:) :) :)

Mmmmm...Utah cherries are amazing. I'm spoiled after trying them.

I picked mountains of berries on the church farm. My father ran a church farm that grew berries. That went on for about 20 years. So yeah, i'm the daughter of a berry farmer. Lol.

My father took the farm job after I left home. Ironically, the church bought the berry farm from a family(nevermos) whose son had died in a car accident. He was going to take the farm over in the next couple of years. He was one of my HS boyfriends. It made me incredibly sad that the church bought that farm.

My initials and BF's are carved on the trees in the woods that run along a stream on that farm. It's a beautiful place.

Funny thing, my parents never knew anything about my connection to that farm, and I never told them.

That would explain Jews condemning homosexuality, the old testament is the law they kind of live by. But its the christian condemnation of it that makes no sense. They either need to go all in or reject the old testament completely.

Oh well, just another example of blind hatred for the mere purpose of hating. I guess ignorance is the real reason, close your eyes and hate, and don't even consider the real reason behind it.

It takes a special kind of asshole to be McConkie.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...but EVERYONE "cherry picks."

Um, Tevai dear, you do realize that not EVERYONE bothers to pay attention to the bible at all, right? ;-)

I don't cherry-pick anything from the bible. I ignore all of it!

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >...but EVERYONE "cherry picks."
>
> Um, Tevai dear, you do realize that not EVERYONE
> bothers to pay attention to the bible at all,
> right? ;-)
>
> I don't cherry-pick anything from the bible. I
> ignore all of it!

Reread the Original Post, by brucermalarky.

The subject of this entire thread is about the Bible vis-à-vis homosexuality...and the cited quotes in the OP are from the Old Testament...

...specifically: how [some, but influential] contemporary Christians use sparse and selected citations from the Old Testament to justify current Christian views against homosexuality.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2016 07:11PM by Tevai.

Give some people a reason or excuse to hate someone different from themselves, they will do it.

I was one of those. I did not understand gays, I maybe felt threatened, I do not know. It took being away from a loving (sarcasm) religion to see how wrong I was.

I cringe at my past intolerance.

Most of them say "because Paul..." referring to his comments on it, but he also said a lot of other things we don't follow. Like how women have to be silent and should never be given authority. So they're cherry picking either was, NT or OT.

When we see 'stuff' that is different, strange, and unusual to us a common reaction is to fear it. I, personally, from studying anthropology think this reaction is built into our genes.... it has kept us alive through the ages to have a tentative reaction to what is new, different, and could possibly do us harm.

This doesn't mean that these fears are always correct. But, as first reaction, it has served us well. After this, our brain, ever evolving to a larger capacity, was capable of thinking things through to sort out the TRUTH.

"yet the new testament never mentions homosexuality."
Has the OP ever read the new testament? That's what it's all about. The Romans and Greeks were very liberal. All of Paul's epistles are to congregations where they are having to deal with this issue head on. Even worse than today, might I add.

Start with the book of Romans and go from there to the end.

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has the OP ever read the new testament? That's
> what it's all about.

I'd hardly call 3 passages total that obliquely (but never directly, and maybe not at all) mention homosexuality "what it's all about."

Seems YOU haven't ever read it...

Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10

That's it.

And notice the Jesus character never says a thing about the subject...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2016 06:37PM by ificouldhietokolob.

The entire new testament was about homosexuality? Seriously? I would have to dissagree with that. I was not aware of the verses that do mention homosexuality as being immoral. My mistake, I have only seen the old testament versus pointed out to me.

So thine the question becomes why do christians grab onto those three versus and ignore:

verse 12, Paul writes: "do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

A woman teaches gospel doctrine in teh ward I used to be in, why is it ok when the new testament specifically forbids it?

Incidentally, of the epistles attributed to Paul, he only wrote 8 of them at most. The other 5 are forgeries written many years after and attributed to Paul. Otehr books like 1st and 2nd Peter along with Revelations are also known forgeries, even believing bible scholars recognize that to be the case.

But, I guess I get why christians can use the bible to condemn people who don't have sex the "approved" way.

You must have a really bad source of information because The New Testament talks about homosexuality but it is subtle. Most people would miss it because it doesnt use the word homosexual.

1 Corinthians 7: 2 says "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
Note: This bans polygamy and homosexuality.

These verses make it clear that men were supposed to have just 1 wife and nothing else:

Titus 1:6
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1 Timothy 3:2
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Romans 1: 26-27 says that people shouldnt abandon the heterosexual human relationship:

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Timothy 1: 9-10
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The Bible doesnt just come out and say homosexual. It usually calls it an unnatural affection, vile behavior, fornication, or defilement.

Or Mormons with their brains turned on (oxymoron, I know) will just say because the living prophets say so.

I find your "interpretations" (and claims of "bans") of nearly all of those verses to be more than a bit...um...one-sided and unsupportable.

For example, when it says bishops must be the "husband of one wife," that clearly refers to the quite common polygamy of the time. It says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.

But hey, whatever. Notice that in the NT, the only even vague and debatable ones you came up with "against" it are from Paul...nothing from Jesus. How about that. Methinks Paul doth protest too much.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For example, when it says bishops must be the
> "husband of one wife," that clearly refers to the
> quite common polygamy of the time.

Polygamy was pretty rare in the post-exilic and intertestamental period of Jewish history. There were exceptions, of course, but it was hardly common.

@ificouldhietokolob

Jesus probably didnt address the issue of homosexuality because the Jewish culture at the time already thought of it as sin from the teaching of the Old Testament. It wasnt addressed because it wasnt an issue to them. It became an issue when non-Jews converted to Christianity without the background of Old Testament teachings.

You are saying that the verse that says a Bishop should be the husband of 1 wife somehow makes it seem that a Bishop could also have marriages to men in addition to his wife. You are the one spouting unsupported things. Really. That is absurd. Try thinking about in its context.

@ificouldhietokolob

1 Corinthians 7: 2 is extremely clear about the issue. If everyone has their own spouse meaning monogamy and their spouse has to be the opposite sex then there is no polygamy or homosexuality.


1 Corinthians 7: 2 says "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For example, when it says bishops must be the
> "husband of one wife," that clearly refers to the
> quite common polygamy of the time. It says
> nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.

The issue of polygamy in Judaism is far more complex than it is simple.

In ancient times polygamy was common...

...as the centuries passed, polygamy became less common for S-O-M-E Jews (usually depending on where they lived)...

...and in modern/contemporary times, polygamy is extremely complex because it includes something that affects almost all observant, Orthodox Jews, but that non-Jews are seldom aware of.

In the modern (pre- and post-1948) state of Israel, many Sephardi and Yemenite Jews often had the "usual" [today] kind of polygamous marriages, and the decision was made, back then, that Sephardi and Yemenite Jews could keep their existing polygamous marriages and these would be legally recognized under Israeli law, but they could not enter into NEW (post-1948) polygamous marriages if they were residents/citizens of Israel. (For any Jews "left behind" in Yemen or wherever, new polygamous marriages very likely continued to be formed, so long as local law in whatever country they were in supported the legality of polygamy.)

The above refers to the "regular"/"normal" idea of polygamy in most Western countries.

There is a very big, and additional, complication, however...

For observant, Orthodox Jews (or Jews in places where observant Orthodox Judaism is the ONLY kind of Judaiam), AND IN ISRAEL (to this very moment), polygamy can also mean something very different, but very (agonizingly) real...

In Orthodox Judaism, women cannot obtain Jewish religious divorces. The ONLY way for an Orthodox Jewish woman to obtain a Jewish religious divorce (a "get," in Jewish law) is for her husband to give her (literally: he hands the "get" document to her) a "get." She is totally and absolutely legally powerless to obtain one on her own.

Throughout the centuries, the real life complications and tragedies which resulted from this were handled in different ways.

One common way, in ancient and medieval times especially, was for husbands who were going away on journeys (over water...or over expanses of land) to give their wives a "get" (it is a written legal document) which would only be effective if the husband had not returned by such-and-such a time.

Because...if a woman who is subject to Orthodox Jewish law does NOT have a "get," she CANNOT remarry---even if her husband has died, but that death was unaccompanied by the legal requirements (Jewish witnesses to that death, etc.) which would legally establish that death.

From the husband's standpoint (even today), however, there is no problem because polygamy IS legal in Jewish law (even if it is NOT legal for new marriages in Israel in the year 2016!!!). So the husband who wants to get away from his creditors and his wife can just take a journey somewhere, and perfectly legally marry any other wife he chooses at any time in the place where he winds up.

And, theoretically, he can rinse and repeat as he traipses across the planet.

Meanwhile, the wife/wives "left behind" are "chained"---and, under Jewish law, they are now legally an "agunah," who can never marry again (unless and until she receives a valid "get," which often does not happen).

In contemporary times, Jewish courts have made it legal and acceptable to apply great pressure to men who have abandoned their wives without gettim. (Plural of "get.") They can put the man in prison...or order him fired from his job...or whatever they can think of to induce him to give his abandoned wife a "get," but if he continues to refuse her, then she is still "chained" and, very frequently, in an extremely bad position in her daily life (children to raise by herself, etc.).

There are entire organizations, both in Israel and in the Western world particularly, devoted to trying to modernize the rules of Jewish divorce, but so far, putting pressure on the recalcitrant husband is about the only practical method of doing this.

(Some men refuse to give their wives a get because they want a better marriage settlement than was agreed-upon at their marriage...or because they want her inherited money or property or business...etc., etc. It is often a VERY effective way for a man to extort his wife's separate property, and to escape any legal obligations he has, either in his own financial life, or in the couple's business, or in financially supporting their children.)

The point is: "married" men CAN enter into NEW marriages, even if they are already married, if they have refused to give their wives gettim.

So in real life, there ARE legally polygamous marriages in Israel among the Sephardim and the Yemenis...and also, very unfortunately, among men who have left their "chained wives" behind when the husbands decided that they wanted to move on.

Again: everyone fully realizes the injustices involved (to the wives, both the cast-off wives and to any present wives...and to the children of those marriages) which occur.

As I said, there are MANY Jews right now---at this moment---who are actively working to improve or eliminate this particular facet of Orthodox Jewish law...

...and a significant number of these are North American Jews who are doing everything they can to help the agunot (plural of "agunah") of the world.

But in the meantime, yes...

...Jewish polygamy does continue to exist, according to Jewish (and, to an extent, according to Israeli) law, in some places (which, unfortunately, includes certain areas such as in the northeast United States).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2016 12:00PM by Tevai.

Also, the best comeback at Leviticus 18:22 ever is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM

Do any of you who are quoting the new testament scripture not recognize the fact that as a society we've evolved. I don't want to go back to the laws of the new or old testament. As a female I'd be in a sh*t load of trouble.

Assuming that you will always find a moral solution when this was written approx a couple of thousand years ago is ludicrous. Just think about how far we've come in just one hundred years.

Why would any reasonable person assume that those laws are the final word on morality?

The only thing said is by Jesus and Paul and they preferred men be celibate rather than marry or have sex with a woman.

Matt 19: 3-12;

12--10-12--
¶His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2016 11:30PM by dydimus.

If you're going to read Leviticus, may I suggest starting at the beginning.

1:1
Now the Lord called to Moses, and spoke to him from the tabernacle of meeting, saying, 2 “Speak to **the children of Israel**, and say to them...

I'm not a child of Israel. These rules aren't even addressed to me. It's like worrying about a clause from someone else's lease.

the cafeteria religion plan