Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

CERC ^ | DENNIS PRAGER

[Irish Rose]

Nice repartee. What really bugs me is when people make Jonathan and David out to be homosexual. Jonathan had a child, and David - well, his heterosexuality is pretty obvious from the Bible. They were also both godly men, and homosexual behavior is a serious sin.

[ModelBreaker]

Thanks for the research. But I don't read any of those quotes to speak about a soul that is the real you and that attaches to the body when you are born and leaves at death--the Hellenistic notion of the soul. I read those as talking about the Holy Spirit or, in some cases, "spirit" in the modern sense of the word--as in, "her enthusiastic spirit." Of course, the Holy Spirit is not our soul. It is part of God. Unlike eastern religions, Christianity is quite clear that we are not God, we are creations of God.

If you are interested in a copiously detailed treatment of this subject, you might want to pick up NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God." It is also a great (but heavy) read on lots of aspects of first century Christian theology combined with the best single collection of apologetics responding to folks like Bultmann I have encountered.

[Hornitos]

Thanks for posting, although I would disagree with the author's contention about Krishna, and about the goal of Tantrik practices.

[PatrickF4]

Yes, these Liberal Protestant denominations seem to believe in a “social justice” gospel,and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the traditional teachings of the Torah. I think that is the fundamental issue, and point of departure.

Orthodox religious bodies also believe in social justice, but not in the taking of human life for convenience, or the redefinition of marriage. These liberal denominations have been shrinking because of a general secularization of the culture and their own lack of faithfulness to the Gospel; they are attempting to reinvigorate themselves by acting as an opposing force to the Evangelical and traditional Catholic teachings. The consequences of the revisionist gospel; modern man apparently has no use for the original.

[Neoliberalnot]

Civilization has mostly rejected sexually deviant behavior including pedophilia, homosexuality, interspecies sex, genital mutilation (aka transgender) and incest. Nothing new here since it dates from antiquity. Hopefully, we won’t degenerate to follow the Romans on this issue.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

But if we talking origins of western civilization its impossible to ignore Greece and Rome and they did not share these principles.

They both persecuted and slaughtered the Jews...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I think the writer of the article is Jewish so less focused on New Testament scripture.

"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

[TradicalRC]

Greece and Rome have fallen along with their Pantheon. Judaism and Christianity are still here.

[TradicalRC]

“Rome’s glory was always mixed with brutality. Both Rome and Greece were, in their power, imperialistic. They also practiced infanticide, abandoning unwanted children to die of starvation and exposure. They were powerful and advanced in many things, but no model for morality.”

By that same standard, neither can any Judeo-Christian society be considered a model for morality.

Judao-Christian societies have only turned toward those things as they turned AWAY from God. If they turn back, then there is hope...

[gondramB]

>>But if we talking origins of western civilization its impossible to ignore Greece and Rome and they did not share these principles.

---

They both persecuted and slaughtered the Jews...<<

I don’t know a lot about the interactions between Greeks and Jews. I’ll have to read more.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don’t know a lot about the interactions between Greeks and Jews. I’ll have to read more.

Antiochus Epiphanes vs. Judas Maccabees

The Ptolemaic pharaohs... The rise of the "Hammer" and the wholesale slaughter of the pagan Greek oppressors...

[gondramB]

>> vs. Judas Maccabees<<

Thank for bringing that up. I’d heard of the Maccabees but I had never put it in historical perspective. It even looks like the the remnants of Alexanders empire were divided and the Maccabees had more conflict with the part called the Seleucid Empire - I had not realized it reached so far and actually rivaled Egypt and fought with Syria. Very interesting.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.
Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.

[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.

[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God’s kingdom was in Palestine (Israel), and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church. (Hobbes p 308)

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles

[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature. (Hobbes, p 444)

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

[1] Besides these sovereign powers, divine and human, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another power, namely, that of “the rulers of the darkness of this world,” [Ephesians, 6. 12] “the kingdom of Satan,” [Matthew, 12. 26] and “the principality of Beelzebub over demons,” [Ibid., 9. 34] that is to say, over phantasms that appear in the air: for which cause Satan is also called “the prince of the power of the air”; [Ephesians, 2. 2] and, because he ruleth in the darkness of this world, “the prince of this world”:[John, 16. 11] and in consequence hereunto, they who are under his dominion, in opposition to the faithful, who are the “children of the light,” are called the “children of darkness.” For seeing Beelzebub is prince of phantasms, inhabitants of his dominion of air and darkness, the children of darkness, and these demons, phantasms, or spirits of illusion, signify allegorically the same thing. This considered, the kingdom of darkness, as it is set forth in these and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a confederacy of deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by dark and erroneous doctrines, to extinguish in them the light, both of nature and of the gospel; and so to disprepare them for the kingdom of God to come.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The infection of our society by the rotted root of Rome (by way of the Constitution of the French Republic's bastardization into the Socialist concept) is what makes these ills so prevalent in our nation- The supplanting of Rome's root for our Natural root is the direct cause.

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretense of succession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.

[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?

[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.

[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine, in monasteries, churches, and church-yards.

[MHGinTN]

“But I don’t read any of those quotes to speak about a soul ...” After a while of denying what your mind (being a part of the soul, the behavior mechanism of you) is given for enlightenment of the spirit, you will be convinced that what you have learned you have not learned and what you want to believe instead of the Truth is what is the truth. Note my tagline for further reference. It takes real intellect to fool yourself ... for a while, then it becomes second nature and you don’t even realize you’re doing it; such is the darkness which awaits the lusting soul.

[roamer_1]

Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality

For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God’s kingdom was in Palestine (Israel), and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.

And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker.

the children of darkness, and these demons, phantasms, or spirits of illusion, signify allegorically the same thing.

While being familiar with Hobbes, it has been a very long time, so forgive me if I should err.

Likewise, forgive me if I have not taken a proper measurement of your statement as housed within your quoted Hobbes: That being, in my mind, the concept that demonic forces are to be considered only as (or interchangeable with) a dementia within the mind of fallen man... A concept I must reject outright.

The Bible clearly details a sentient evil outside of man- t says that fallen angels laid with the daughters of men. It states that we are a focal point in an unseen war between powers and principalities.

Jesus cast out demons, some of which notably, were cast forth into a herd of pigs- Therefore said demons must be sentient in their own right, as their spirits could be cast out to inhabit another being (and leaving the spirit of the man behind, healed).

To ascribe the demonic being to an equivalence of nothing but an evil human trait must also cause angels of any sort to be categorized by the same definition- That mainly because demons are defined as "The Fallen", angels who had fallen from Grace.

To do so would nullify the significance of angelic participation throughout the Bible, from the angelic host arrayed in battle before Lot, through the angelic host singing of glory at the birth of our Lord to shepherds in the field, Even to the angels who administered aid to Christ at the end of his temptation.

To further the point, if one must reject the persona of Lucifer and Abaddon, one must also reject the persona of Michael and Gabriel, and must also reject the concept (clearly stated) that man, ascended in Christ, will judge the angels in the time of the end.

To subject the Word to such sophistry is a grave error IMHO. Evil is sentient, able to conspire, and seeks to defy God in the only way left to it, by turning the hearts of men.

[roamer_1]

It takes real intellect to fool yourself ... for a while, then it becomes second nature and you don’t even realize you’re doing it; such is the darkness which awaits the lusting soul.

Oh, but that is well said.

[MHGinTN]

Thatnk you, but I found your post #96 more enlightening still.

[roamer_1]

[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.

Again, I find myself in disagreement... If the Catholic Church is in fact "the Whore of Babylon", she is destined for doom along with her daughters... Uh-oh... that would be the Protestants, wouldn't it?

To be clear, I too am a Protestant (Orthodox Presby, if any affiliation), and I am not convinced that our Catholic brethren have it "right". But neither am I convinced that ANY have it right, Catholic, Protestant Catholic, or otherwise.

But ALL of Christendom springs from the Catholic root, with a possible nod to the Coptic and Greek Orthodox- We are ALL in deep trouble if the Catholic Church is the evil you speak of.

The root of Rome that I refer to is the hedonistic and socialistic state- That set of conditions in a godless government that allow the total power and usurpation of power needed for an emperor to come into being.

The evil religion, IMHO, the one which truly carries the pantheon of fallen angels ("gods") forward into today quite literally ran down the other leg of the Roman Empire. Islaam fits that bill far better than the Catholics.

[Dumb_Ox]

His explicit mention of perverse sexual practices is downright obscene. I don't know what it's doing on a Catholic site.

Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

It wasn't divided in the modern world until the late 19th century, either, when psychologists tried to cram moral disapproval into somewhat distortive psychological categories. Unless most of those guys were Jewish, Judaism didn't have much to do with it.

As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown University, recently wrote, the ancients were no more concerned with people's gender preference than people today are with others' eating preferences:

Nussbaum allegedly perjured herself for saying this in a gay rights constitutional case, despite clear evidence of pagan Greek disapproval of sodomy between adult men and disapproval of pederasty.

“The deepest signs of affection in the poem, as well as in similar ones appear in the love of man for man...”

Brotherly love is not the same as homoeroticism. Anthony Esolen says it better here..

When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled.

I don't buy this take on men. "Uncontrolled" female sexuality results in abortions and bastardy, which also have a destructive effect on society.

And in our times. sex historian Amo Karlen wrote that according to the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, “Homosexuality was phenomenally rare among Orthodox Jews.”

I don't know if Kinsey is trustworthy on anything.

Prager tries to depict opposition to sodomy and other perversities as a special Jewish thing, but other cultures often had disapproving standards of some worth too. Some modern-day Islamic and Hindu movements tend to favor execution for sodomy, a stance very extreme even to conservative Westerners. I doubt they got all that vehemence from the Jews.

I thought this was a very sloppy piece, even when not obscene. While Prager explains some moral implications of opposition to sodomy, it's not clear those were the same reasons the Hebrews would have acknowledged.