The Bible is pretty clear where homosexuality is concerned

What does it mean?

As I see it we are not talking ultra orthodox right? (Would they read this litterally)

But I am wondering the orthodox view. The religions (Christians/Muslims) that used your (Jewish) texts as a starting point have had most adherents taking these literally... And many here in the US still do today.

 

Orthodox Judaism is pretty united on this -- even for things listed as deserving a death penalty, we cannot carry out such a penalty now. And even if we could, the legal system is so complex that it is unlikely that anyone would be found guilty forcing the courts to carry out the penalty.

 

Are you indicating the law of the land is the only thing stopping you? That if Israel was a religious state run as orthodoxy would wish they would make judgement and sentencing based on a literal reading of leviticus?

 

Judaism applies laws through a process detailed in the oral law. The Talmud relates that a court which executed one person in 7 years was considered cruel and harsh. So as stated, even acts which are punishable by death, generally aren't punished by death.

 

So how are they judged, punished in life? What is the orthodox policy on homosexuality, adultery...commandment that indicate death requirement?

 

We don't have a religious court system currently that deals with criminal cases. There are some ad hoc courts that deal with business or financial disputes and a couple of other topics, but not sin issues. We rely on faith that if something deserves punishment under divine law, the divine takes care of it.

 

So not even a lecture?

 

People might lecture but that isn't a formalized or codified punitive option.

 

Based on all that I have read within Christian and Judaic texts (7 different versions of The Bible, the Tanakh, various Talmudic texts and extent texts associated with Christianity and Gnostic faith traditions) it is exceedingly clear that neither Christian scriptures nor Judeic scriptures condone any kind of homosexual behavior and or union. If we are to follow much of the traditional views of the early church in deriving everyday practice from biblical teachings, then we would likely need to assume that a lack of support for such behaviour paired with strict and obvious punishments having been prescribed for committing such acts would ammount to a kind of prohibition in both faiths.

It is important that The Bible does not ever define a marriage as one man and one woman. A man (who is defined as being supernaturally superior to a woman) may take as many wives as he can effectively take care of as well as have full breeding rights to any slaves he possesses. This is very similar to other legal definitions in that region. It later becomes the basis for Islamic codes concerning marriage.

Today there are plenty of Christians and Jews who do not accept these laws and who are supporting LGBTQ+ rights and causes. These people are clearly disregarding ancient beliefs and the scriptures of their sacred texts. They are (and this is key) rejecting their own religion's laws for the higher law of humanity. They are actively strengthening filial bonds by promoting acceptance and compassion.

 

Lol, pretty solid ground there...rape is rape.

 

... And going back to Wil's early posts ... Judy Holliday... totally off topic, but oh dear, I fell in love with her, and a feminist too, in her film roles.

 

Going back to early humanity, it seems that people were dealing with a people and nation founded upon the military sense of protection.
The Lord brought up a nation and was determined to protect it's development, from enemies and invaders.
Plain and simple.
Israel was concerned about the same things America was concerned about under the recent Clinton administration, when he enacted, "Don't ask, don't tell".
Questions involving, "can a gay individual protect our nation? Work with straight, (normal), troops?
What about, "Transgenders"?
Seems, that what straight persons think unconsciously, when exposed to a gay or transgender individual, is that someone is trying to force them to be gay.
Involving the core organic "survival instinct".
It seems it's an affront to something at their very core of their being.
Which is what the survival instinct is.

Normally, involving everyday life, and thinking, how many straight individuals are concerned about those who are born neuters? Genderless?
Or, about hermaphroditism?
People possessing both genders?
Yet they are among us everywhere.

Yet, how is this relative to God's love in the Spirit, for an individual?
Since it pertains to our temporary, superficial, and organic aspect?

Anyone looked up the definition of, "Gestalt"?

 

If I read you correctly, and I am open to be corrected, can I advise you not to impose your prejudices on everyone else?

 

I'm not sure that is where @Geo is coming from?

Alexander the Great did ok -- and Sparta lasted nearly 1000 years. Africans won't have it though ...

 

Well, Thomas, I am speaking in general.

I'm not so prejudice, and why would you think so? No, not correct.
Just speaking about where the affront and confrontation is coming from among the majority of straights.

 

OK, I stand corrected.

 

Re the topic – President Bartlet having a rant:



Starts about 1:37 ...

 

The majority of straights? You have a link or poll to this?

I believe the dinosaurs are dying off and their offspring are more enlightened as they are growing up in this world.

Same with the racists...or nationalists...or for that matter the my way or highway religionists that speak as if they know the only TRUTH.

The majority is becoming more educated, more open, more understanding, more compassionate...albeit slowly...as the old farts do try to infect their kids with their bigoted ways.

But no longer can the church tell you not to watch that movie or ban that book...information is flowing...the bigots will die (of course a new bigotry will emerge)

 

Unfortunately, there are fundamentalist communities that don't accept homosexuality due to the biblical constraints. Some are more flexible, but not all.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine