Gay Rabbis, Women Imams

So, the author asks-- "what do you think?"  Jews have never killed gays. Torah mandates no marriage contracts for homosexuals--not death for them.

The mark of the modern Jew  is first: celebration of everything homosexual and second, celebration of the abortion ritual.  Not too long ago it was 1) observance of Shabbat and 2) performance of all the mitzvot--including love of Torah.  

To be a Jew today means first and foremost to play favorities  and the favorite plaything of the Jewish intellectual is the homosexual--as if the other 95% of humanity mean far less and with certainty that the Jewish people mean nothing special.

There is a rock solid party line of the Jewish liberal and yet, under the surface, I sense there is something hidden. All the love of the heretic and all the talk of "the dead hand of tradition" and you crazed leftists still don't quite believe your party line do you?  Love the atheist, trash the Torah believing Jew all night and all day long and at the end of all the bashing--I sense clear doubts remain.  Yes, I know you are voting for Obama--yes I know nothing makes you more angry than the sight of some Bible-believing Christian or Jew.  You would never tell your friends or even your spouse your secret.

Something tells me you have deep inner conflict about all this Obama loving, gay worshipping, environmental wackiness and Torah bashing nonsense.  Something unsettling pulls at your Jewish soul.  You want to free of all of it so much, you think, but something tiny is there telling you--- maybe not so fast.

Listen to this spark and you will be forced to admit that it is there.   Then think about where you came from and where you are going.

"Jews have never killed gays. Torah mandates no marriage contracts for homosexuals--not death for them." 

Really, Dave? Explain this little gem.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 

-- Leviticus 20:13 

It is just as dishonest to say that Jews believe they should kill disrespectful sons without  citing the instances when Jews have killed their sons for dishonoring their parents.

Further, would a homosexual in 15th C Spain or 18th C Holland, or in a 1940's death camp--you pick the date-- fear a Jew or welcome a Jew?  The answer is easy.

Jews do not kill homosexuals, stop it.

You said NEVER. Obviously, at one time in the past, we DID kill gays.

So, either it DID happen, or the author of Leviticus is making stuff up. I'm comfortable with either explanation.

There is no recorded case of a homosexual being killed by a Jewish court because he was homosexual in ancient times.The prohibition and the penalty demarks a red line. 

Similarly, I do not know of any instance in which a rebellious son was killed by a Jewish court or by our Jewish ancestors acting with knowledge of God's law independent of the Sanhedrin or a Jewish court.

There is a recorded case of someone gathering wood on the Shabbat who was killed.  There are recorded cases of scoundrels correctly identified as false messiahs being stoned to death.

Just because it wasn't happening in the courts doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Either that, or ancient Jews didn't take the Torah very seriously. I'm guessing the former.

After all, if Leviticus--THE LAW--says DEATH, it must mean...uh...a very stern talking to??? 

Carl:  It think if you keep giving Friedman more rope, he'll eventually hang himself.

 However, can it be proven that there was an episode of a "man laying with another man" at some point among the ancient Israelites?  Maybe no one was murdered because no one transgressed.

 No one can say it did or did not happen.  If anyone is sure that their ancestor was killed for homosexual acts during the time when the levitical laws were in full effect, I'd like to know about it.

If noone was to be killed, why is the passage right there? I find it hard to believe that there was absolutely no homosexual contact in ANY group for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Also, I'd like to know what David means by "records" and when they started. I doubt there are complete, consistant, reliable court records for the last 3500+ years. If there are, I'm sure historians would wet their pants over it. I'm willing to bet that instead, what we have are tiny shreds of all of the records that existed...And I'll bet they're of varying veracity as well. As for "proof" of such an excecution, there's not a lot of proof that ANYthing in the Torah actually happened.

Perhaps a better way to put it is: Since there is a command to kill homosexuals in Leviticus, shouldn't it be considered the right thing to do? Otherwise, you're just cherry picking the parts of the Torah you feel like following. Before you know it, people will be wearing mixed fabrics and eating shrimp...another "abomination"!

if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them.

Torah and the society which first applied its rules had no concept of homosexuality as we do, only specific acts - as quoted above - which themselves are open to interpretation.

Torah does not speak of men loving men in a committed and consensual relationship; these are in my view the most over and mis-quoted words in the whole Torah...
And let's not forget that the rabbis went on to outlaw capital punishment entirely...

I still see no command to kill, nor mention of, homosexuals or homosexuality.

 But let's take your scenario a bit further.  Let's take this scenario:  You come upon a man who doth lieth with another man as he lieth with a woman.  According to your narrow interpretation, you murder the both of them, in full accordance with your understanding of the law.  A few mintues later, the big brother of one of the men comes home to find his brother murdered, by you.  Where now is the proof of their transgression?  Wouldn't this living relative have the command to kill you?  All he knows is that you, admittedly, killed his kin.  Should your family come around, well, at least he has the first two dead bodies to justify his murder of you.

 And where would this all lead?

Where does it leave us? An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. As far as my interpretation being narrow, I don't see how else one could interpret "they shall surely be put to death."

All I'm saying is that the Torah says what it actually says. I'm not saying it's good or practical, I'm saying that the words are right there.

...in the 1890's would I be wrong because you don't strike me as a happy dude?

 It actually doesn't say ANYTHING in English.  It's biblical Hebrew, right?   Now if the word 'gay' can have different conotations only a hundred years apart, maybe things aren't so cut and dry as you'd like to believe.

 But, I digress.  My previous point tried to show you that that simple statement, in Hebrew, brings up a number of questions.  Who puts them to death?  When?  What's the burdon of proof?

 And actually, and eye for and eye doesn't leave the whole world blind.  Ghandi was pointing out that what those words may mean to you today, aren't the whole story,  and not what they meant to the Israelites thousands of years ago.

Well, everyone strikes everyone different ways under different circumstances. I've devoted this particular screen name to refuting nonsense, so forgive me if I come across as dour. Anyway...

I think we're talking about two different things, here. I'm not justifying what it says in Leviticus and I'm not saying that it's the right thing to do. I'm saying that a lot of Leviticus is reprehensible from our point of view.

Also, I'm aware that modern concepts of gayness are not applicable to biblical definitions of homosexuality. However, the translations we have are pretty unambiguous, and I was trying to point out the logical end point of David's philosophy. It's funny, though...even though you two are probably completely diametrically opposed philosophically, you're both basically saying either 1) that Leviticus doesn't mean what it says or 2) the translation is bad. So what parts are read accurately in English?

As for waht the ancient Israelites did, if they were anything like their biblical depictions, literally wanted an eye for an eye.

Carl, you are simply way off base.  First, It is some crazed conclusion that the people who lived 2000-3000 years ago did not understand homosexuality the way we see it today--it is the very same behavior, the very same problem.  This is some joke to conclude that if our sages of God had only met Ellen--they never would offer a prohibition! The prohibition is clear and not only for the Jewish people--but for all people and that is why it is cited in the Noahide laws.

Second, if you want to read and understand Torah--you need to read it and that is to say all of it including the Oral law.   "Eye for an eye...." is a standard for monetary compensation in handling physical loss.  It was a revolutionary standard and the Torah takes a strong stand against revenge--right there in nearby verses in Leviticus so there can be no confusion.  If there was some misunderstanding--Jews would lead the world in revenge injuries and there is zero evidence of such a thing happening. To the contrary, the known and correctly interpreted  Torah standard became the entire basis of English common law which set up varying degrees of damages in legal disputes and this is why we have the law that we have today.   Balance and proportion is the dictate that comes from these verses and this is nothing to be embarrased about--yep, it is one of our greatest contributions.

See, no. Homosexuality in the ancient world was usually coerced. Often it involved young boys. Totally different from today.

So again, why is the passage in the Torah if you're not supposed to DO it? 

I'm amazed at how long this conversation has gone on without anyone trying to refute Carl's actual point. I see a lot of David arguing with Levitt, by proxy, and a lot of David's shotgun-style dogmatic blathering. But no real discussion of Carl's point.

How's this for refuting Carl's point:

 Where does it say that YOU are supposed to do the killing?  I'd say that the passive voice implies that Hashem will take care of it.

It doesn't matter WHO does the killing, Levitt8. I'm just trying to get an explanation as to why the passage is there at all!

...and thanks, Craig! 

Is Carl making a point?  Huh?  Is it some kind of newsflash that homosexuality exists?

Is there a serious point that the ancient world was somehow different than today? 

The Biblical proscription against homosexuality is totally clear and is not merely in one sentence.  It is a traditional understanding that is as clear as virtually any matter of our lives and the indictment against any society in this world for writing marriage contracts is in clear violation of God's plan for humanity.

Further, it is a violation that is not especially damnabloe in contrast to other violations but it is absolutely a violation and one that applies to women as well as men even if some of the written verses specify male homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not wrong because it was "coerced."  In ancient Greece it was celebrated as the highest form of love--that is to say it was the highest wish for a parent to have a 15 year old son who would enjoy the company of an older man.  There is no coercion in the exchange--it was the sexual ideal.  Homosexuality was practiced throughout the Middle East at the time of Moses and there is no doubt that among  pagan peoples--it was celebrated in the same way it is celebrated today.

We are supposed to channel our sexuality within the marital framework. It is a bit of shock that people dispute this--tell me Carl--what honest questions can you have about the matter?

I understand that you don't believe Torah and you don't follow the law. At least, honor what the Torah instructs even if you don't want to follow it and stop this nonsense.

Seeing that you're not honoring my by answering a very simple question, no.

So, last chance. I'm not asking why you think homosexuality is wrong. I'm not asking what you think the long term effects of the Torah on modern law are. I'm not asking for your views on the Greeks.

I'm asking why Leviticus instructs for homosexuals to be killed. That is all.

I believe that homosexuality is wrong because this is what the Torah demands.  For every law, there is implicit or explicit punishment and yet the penalty in many cases involves human courts.  Torah may state that homosexuality can command a death penalty--it is up to the standards of human courts to carry out that penalty and such acts require two witnesses and no Jewish court that I am aware ever carried out the punishment.  This kinds of prohibitions are red lines we cannot and should not cross.

There has always been an amount of homosexuality and the Torah recognizes this fact and this is why it instructs all scoieties to not write marriage contracts for same-sex couples.

As stated previously, the Torah lays out death penalty for a wide variety of offenses and this does not seem to interest you.  I sense you are not interested in the nuances of Jewish law, rather, you begin from a point of view of bias or hatred against homosexuals but would not come to the alleged aid of Shabbos violaters, or those who own or eat chometz on Pesach.

There are red lines involving our sexual conduct as Jews and we do well to not cross them.  When your son understands that there are some things he should not do otherwise "my Dad will kill me" the question is not why you want to kill your son--it is that you obviously care enough about your son to give him some direction.

No, I think it's repulsive that the death penalty is in the Torah at all, and I'd come to the aid of anyone who is to be killed for, well, most reasons.

I remain unconvinced as to your interpretation of Leviticus, mostly because you fail to back up your opinions or to produce these "court records" you spoke of. The whole "death doesn't really mean death" thing seems to me like a tap dance around what the passage actually says. 

Many say that homosexuality is just another sin, but nobody on the right seems to get quite as upset about other sins...I'm personally waiting for a God Hates Shrimp rally to pop up on the news...after all, that's an "abomination," too. 

Carl, we believe that all the mitzvot are important and we also believe that some are more vital.  This is not a contradiction--for people who can honor minor mitzvot--we pass no judgment about how "minor" they are in the eys of our Creator.  For those who attack fundamental ones, we stand proud to defend them as important and vital.

The Jewish stand regarding sexual morality is defining in a way that trumps other matters.  Without family, we cannot be a holy people.  Equating the genders is something that cannot be done without abolishing a whole host of mitzvot and not simply those concerning homosexuality.  This is why the conservative movement lost so much when it allowed jumped in for the gay rights movement.  It is a divisive issue because it touches on many things.

We should all agree that Jewish homosexuals  are as Jewish as anyone else and no homosexual in our society should face intolerance.

Hi everyone

That the Torah forbids any form of homosexuality, or any sexual deviation from straight plain heterosexual marriage is pretty undeniable. In fact, all sexual offences were punishable by death. Phineas is even commended because he ran his sword through two heterosexual lovers.

We criticise looking back from the "democratic" 21st century, and superimpose our values on the society then. But then the worldview, and lifestyle, was a lot different. The norms outlined in the Torah are actually pretty liberal compared to the rest of the ancient world. (Anyone researched Babylonian codexes?)

We like to think that God is a democrat, just because we are. I guess He isn't. According to His laws, homosexuality is wrong, women are not allowed to be priests, not all meat is equal etc. etc. This is not at all democratic.

I think He thinks of Himself as Supreme Ruler, Creator of these (pesky?) humans. Like He's the boss. Sometimes to us in the modern world, He seems horrifyingly primitive and dictatorial. We have the choice, the "free will", either to follow our own opinions and tell God He is wrong, biased, primitive, brutal etc, or we can decide that He really is the boss, our Creator, and to follow His commandments, even if to us they seem pretty wierd or unfair. I am not saying we should rush out and kill the next homosexual we meet (The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbour, also in the Torah), but maybe (now it gets delicate!) if we consider ourselves to be the people of God, we should do what His laws say (e.g. heterosexual marriage, male priests), even if that goes against our inclinations and desires.

That's why in all three Abrahamic faiths, there comes a time of personal contract, whether through Bar Mitzvah or baptism, that each human has to choose for himself, to follow God or to go his own way.

Carl,  it's too bad that you never got the obvious answer to your question.

Why is the passage there?

We both know that any answer is an interpretation, a guess, a ponder

But the fact that you're asking, you're questioning...well THAT is the important point.