Juanster

Doug, the explanation I provided here is the very one passed down from generation to generation, the very argument in effect even at the time of Jesus - and the only one Jesus would have been familiar with. I did not make this up, Doug. Also, please note that I am a Litvish rabbi - an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, not a liberal one: the explanation I provided is the most right-wing Jewish explanation on the books.

 

Remember, first of all: the OT is a Jewish work; Jewish culture and thinking are at work here. If we want to understand the original OT laws, we have to think like Jews, not as Christians.

 

Logically, given that the NT was not written at the time, we have to take the OT words alone as our basis for our initial argument as to what the 'original' laws were all about. Given that, we only know that men were forbidden to have sex with other men while women were not forbidden to have sex with other women.

 

If homosexuality were to be forbidden outright, we would have expected statements to be made regarding male and female homosexuality side by side, as the Bible states other laws, such as, "A man may not wear a woman's garments and a woman may not wear a man's garments."

 

Given no prohibition against female homosexuality, we must ask why the prohibition against male homosexuality? The prohibition must not have anything to do with homosexuality itself but rather something else. The obvious 'something else' is the spilling of seed: men spill (waste) their reproductive seed while engaging in homosexual relationships but women do not spill (waste) their seed during homosexual relationships.

 

At the time, it was believed that men had limited reproductive capacities, and that wasting semen was therefore quite wrong; a man who purposefully engaged in sexual behavior that could not possibly impregnate a woman was seen as purposefully ignoring G-d's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply'". On the other hand, women were believed to have unlimited reproductive powers, up until a certain age, and so it was thought that women could engage in sexual behaviors that did not lead to impregnation without defying the commandments.

 

Judaism is very concerned, even today, about keeping G-d's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. The Torah is quite explicit about the importance of not spilling seed: it is recorded that G-d took the lives of men who spilled their seed. It is quite logical that the law prohibiting male homosexual acts is all about just that - the prohibition against the spilling of seed - and, in deed, that is exactly the explanation of our Jewish Sages going back literally thousands of years.

 

I have explained the prohibition to you as Jesus and his followers would have understood it.

 

Rabbi Benjamin

Hi Reb Ben,

As I read your reply, Ezra.4:2 came to mind. It was also claimed then that the traditions of their worship had been handed down ever since the Assyrians had brought them to Samaria. So, are you saying that as an Ultra Orthodox Practisioner, the Scripture of 2Kgs. does or do not apply to your intrepretation of Torah?

"Doug, the explanation I provided here is the very one passed down from generation to generation, the very argument in effect even at the time of Jesus - and the only one Jesus would have been familiar with. I did not make this up, Doug."

I agree that Jesus was familiar with Torah, but I contend that he wasn't satisfied with the version marketed by the Pharisees or the source used by the seventy Jewish Scholars who created the Septuagint for Ptolemyll. According to Josephus, the former Israelite Allies of the Medo-Persians, residing in Palestine, were prohibited by their Rabbis from teaching their sons the despised Greek lauguage, saying;"It's better to let your sons eat the flesh swine than for them to learn and speak the language of the Greeks." As the history of the Septuagint is studied, the above revelation seems to cast a shadow of truth upon your allgegation that the Torah the Jewish scholars translated was indeed a Jewish work, stemming from the proselyte Jewish compilation of the one alluded to in 2Kgs.17:24-35, and the compilation the rejected descendants of those founding Proselyte Jews of 2Kgs. were still using at Ezra.4:2. I didn't make this up either Reb. It's why I included Chapter and verse to show the sources of this indoctrination.

As I delve into the history of the Judean emancipation from Babylon, there were Proselyte Jews that remained in Palestine, after Judah's captivity, per Ezra.4:2. Since the Moseic Torah had accompanied the Israelite Judeans into their captivity, what version was being used by the Jews that remained, their version that'd been handed down to them for the generations after the Assyrians had deposited them in Samaria? 2Kngs.17:24-35 again

Hey, Norm~

 

You're far from the Norm and in a very good way. Seems we will settle in with a forum that works for us, and maybe this might fit the bill.

 

I'm giving it a go.

 

I totally agree with you about the story of Jesus coming to the aid of a woman scorned. That in itself is something that gets my attention as well. Whether or not the bible is valid as far as the word of God, that situation, for example shows us that not much changes in life, whether or not 'religion' expresses it for it's own purposes.

 

What the biblical writings are for me are basically a confirmation that (as I said) nothing changes in human life. Situations remain the same and people have developed religions in order to give them some order and confirmation in that process.

 

Those bigots are nothing in themselves. They're just lost people who are clueless and rather stupid and we have to look at them as people with road rage. Forgive them for they know not. Period. :-)

 

I look forward to interaction with people like you on this forum. I will miss our old forum, but I think this could be a good advancement, actually.

 

Kath

Hi Kath,Norm,

I ran across some information that reminds one of the Spong genre of thought, that you both might find enlightening and edifying. It's called the "Shadow of the Third Century".It addresses where we possibly went wrong in our religious mindset.

I posted it here on the forum with the link. Look for my latest post. If you don't find it, just google that title,It should come up.

The Juanster

Hello Mick,

Welcome to the forum. Please have a look at Diarmuid O'Murchu's website. You might find it interesting.

Looking forward to hearing your views on many things.

 

Rosemary

Hi Rose,

Can you give the Link to the Diarmuid O'Murchu's website, Thanks.

The Juanster

Just the place for me, this forum: Also a brand new member (yesterday, 3/9). Despite pc familiarity, can't get a handle on the site, which, as I'm beginning to understand is going through its own growing pains. So, I'll keep watching here to get better sense of it. Meanwhile, I'm a former RC priest in 80th year, variety of post clerical experiences, academic and other, muy simpatico with Spong's thinking and analyses, happily learning student of his scriptural commentaries, generally benign malcontent respecting matters of organzied religion. Mostly looking for interchanges about current cosmology and a dozen related subjects, philosophical mostly, but theological too from broadly Christian orientation..

HI Mick,

Welcome aboard. I'm sure with your background, you can bring some insight we laymen would never have thought of. By my not knowing how familiar you were with the former Spong forum, I'll say you would of been very highly appreciated there.

One of the topics I had introduced and couldn't get a lot of input about was, the Origns of the Mindset of many Fundamentalist Protestants, back during the healthcare debates, was the idea that the working classes, being mostly the descendants of Slaves, did not deserve healthcare, but that God should provide whatever they needed. This was voiced during a Washinton Journal broadcast on CSPAN,9/16/09.

Considering the resistence experienced by the Dems. in trying to get the healthcare bill passed, the above mindset was manefested in the hard fought battle against it and the pubic option by the Repubs.

My ears pricked up when I heard the above statement, due to some history I'd ran across written by Michael Hoffman; "They Were White and Enslaved", giving some of the history of the white middle passage from England to the American British Colonies. As I delved deeper into the subject of White Slavery and to what extent it was practised by the British Empire, I came across the works of Peter Wilson Coldham's geneological study of how laws were created for the purpose of enslaving Whites, placing them under contracts of Indenture and working them to death literally, by the Elites of British society, who relegated them as a Chattel Class, a result of the industrialization of the Empire and the fall of Serfdom. This dispossed agrarian mass of British subjects, to survive, in many cases, resorted to crime. The history of the "Diggers" will give a sampling of what life was like for these former Serfs. Added to this group were those religious and political dissidents, resulting from the expansionism of the British Empire, such as the creation of the Plantations of Ulster. This was the motivating factor for the British Empire to enact the Transpotation Act as a method to rid it's self of the dregs of it's society and use them as Free Labor in the Colonies.

This is the suppressed history of The United States in America I discovered that isn't very widely known.

I said all of this to provide a context for this question; What is your opinion of the Papal Bull of Nicolas the 5th and the Doctrine of Discovery which morphed from it?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of fun we can have discussing this topic, but it is direly needed to fill in the gaps of what is not being taught about who we really are, in this Government's scheme of things. The irony of this is that it has been staring the citizens of this Nation, in the face for the past 400 years and was actually further revealed in the Preamble to the American Constitution. (This I can show you later, if interested)

Oh,btw, this is the topic and history deleted by the old forum that I'd arcived and no longer have access to. From the questions I asked, it highlights the part Religion has/is playing in the development of Mindsets of the future.

Be Well my Friend,

The Juanster

Speaking as a gay man, the way I see it is any god who would torture someone for all eternity simply because of who they love is not a god worthy of worship and thus cannot be God at all. Whatever the OT says about homosexuality is irrelevant because Jesus' death superseded the old law and Christians are not required to follow the old law. Fundamentalists are cherry picking the bible when they cherry pick the Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality while ignoring the condemnation of eating shrimp or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics. Whether or not Paul condemned homosexuality or if it's all a mistranslation is also irrelevant because Jesus is supposed to be the center of Christian teaching, not Paul. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and even assuming the traditional reading of Paul's views on sexuality are correct, Paul only spoke about homosexuality twice. Both Jesus and Paul spoke far more about religious hypocrisy, sectarianism, and judgmentalism than they did homosexuality. There are passages attributed to Paul that support slavery yet literalists have no problem ignoring those verses. If it's acceptable to "cherry pick" the bible verses on slavery, I don't see why we can't do the same with the two whole verses of the NT on homosexuality.

Hi Neon,

As I read and "cherrypicked" what you stated, I find that you raise some very valid points. The two caveats I did find that most fundies cherrypick to ignore are these; Deut.5:22 and the Jot and Tittle proclaimation Jesus allegedly made.

My point is this; prior to the 40 day stint of Moses on Mt. Siani, a message was received at Deut.4:2 that condemns the addition of or deletion to the message Moses delivered upon his descent from Mt.Siani which he further emphasised by his witnessing of the Author of The Stone Tablets at Deut.5:22.

I have no ideal how this works. Only wanted to reply to Bishop Spong's January 5 essay re/ Matthew's Joseph in the old & new testaments. I'll need to do some

searching for assistance. Why does everything have to be so complicated? Never mind. I know the answer to that one.

Hi Marcia,

A question? Based upon Saul/Paul's declaration of being a

Roman citizen and employed as an enforcer of Roman Law could he have been acquainted with Matthew, another Tax collecting Roman employee? The reason I'm asking, is Paul/Saul's motivation for oppressing the Followers of The Way, who were all Jews? Could it have been because of their committing Tax Evasion after paying their taxes to support the Temple. As Followers of the Way, the Israelite contingent of Jews would still be obligated for the 10% annual Tithing to the Temple and the only segment of the Palestinian Population subjected to this double form of taxation. Matthew as the local tax collector in Jerusalem, naturally would call for assistence to enforce Roman Tax Law, and Mr. Saul would be one of the likely enforcers, wouldn't you think? Just thinking of the Politics Jesus had to contend with that Christianity never seems to elaborate on.

Be Well,

The Juanster