Incest OK. Slavery GOOD. Gay Sex BAD.

Why is the Old Testament full of incestual relationships, slavery, rape and murder, yet gay sex is considered an evil thing?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Why is the Old Testament full of incestual relationships, slavery, rape and murder, yet gay sex is considered an evil thing?

It's that whole exegetical-thang rearing its ugly head again.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Why is the Old Testament full of incestual relationships, slavery, rape and murder, yet gay sex is considered an evil thing?

A lot of ancient scripture revolves around percieved problems like the milk and pork or milk and fish taboo in those time, they ended up in scripture supposedly pronounced bad by god. So I am thinking the gay issue may have been a response to the low population ATT, the practical needs of increasing the size of your nation population-wise may have led to scriptures banning gay sex, with the idea being with less gay sex there would be more straight sex and therefore more people which was what was needed back then (Be fruitful and multiply),
Of course, now we need more people like we need a new hole in our heads so gay sex is more tolerated, since it places people outside the reproduction loop.

I would argue, a bit in line with sonhouse’s speculation, that the Hebrew scriptures do not label homosexuality as “evil” (that “exegetical-thang” ). Unfortunately, we have in English that abominable word, “abomination.” The Hebrew word is toevah, which means loathsome or detestable or impure; in the “purity codes,” what is toevah is culturally taboo for the Israelites, and is part of what separates them culturally from “the nations.”

“Whereas toevah includes that which is aesthetically and morally repulsive, its synonym sheqes denotes that which is cultically unclean, especially idolatry.” (From the Hebrew lexicon in “Bibleworks” by Hermeneutica.)

“The significance of the term toevah becomes clear when you realize that another Hebrew term, zimah, could have been used—if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin.

“Clearly then, Leviticus does not say that for man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Leviticus says it is a ritual violation, an uncleanness; it is something ‘dirty’.” (Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality)

With regard to the other story in the Hebrew Scriptures taken as condemning homosexuality, the Sodom story— it is about (among other things) abuse and attempted rape (whatever their sexuality) of strangers guaranteed hospitality under rather strict rules of the time. It is only by looking backward through an assumed moral lens that one determines it was the homosexual nature of the affair that was the point of the story.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I do not condemn homosexuality or practicing homosexuals on any grounds.

Originally posted by vistesd
I would argue, a bit in line with sonhouse’s speculation, that the Hebrew scriptures do not label homosexuality as “evil” (that “exegetical-thang” ). Unfortunately, we have in English that abominable word, “abomination.” The Hebrew word is toevah, which means loathsome or detestable or impure; in the “purity codes,” what is toevah is culturally tab ...[text shortened]... DIT: Just to be clear, I do not condemn homosexuality or practicing homosexuals on any grounds.

What I'm really looking for is an evaluation of the disparity between the condemnation of homosexuality and the apparent thumbs up to rape, murder nad other nasty business.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Why is the Old Testament full of incestual relationships, slavery, rape and murder, yet gay sex is considered an evil thing?

Because man is a fallen race. If such events were not in the Bible you could then conclude it to be nothing more than fiction. I don't think the Bible says nice things about incest and rape and murder. I think your question is why is gay sex targeted as being "evil", no?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
What I'm really looking for is an evaluation of the disparity between the condemnation of homosexuality and the apparent thumbs up to rape, murder nad other nasty business.

Sorry. All I can say is that I don’t think we ought to suspend our own moral judgments about those kinds of atrocities, just because the perpetrators claim that God told them to, or because it’s in “the book.” The compilers of the Hebrew Scriptures kept (and sometimes interwove) all the old stories and myths—the good, the bad and the ugly. Later generations grapple with the moral issues raised—and in Judaism there generally seems to be no problem with challenging either the claims of the text, or interpretation by previous generations of rabbis. There may be Jewish biblical literalists, but I haven’t found any; the basic Jewish approach to studying the texts is argument— Okay, I’m side-tracking you again, so I’ll quit.

And my moral thumbs go in exactly the opposite directions as those to whom your question is addressed...

Originally posted by whodey
Because man is a fallen race. If such events were not in the Bible you could then conclude it to be nothing more than fiction. I don't think the Bible says nice things about incest and rape and murder. I think your question is why is gay sex targeted as being "evil", no?

Lets look at that "man is a fallen race" thing. In your bible, the adam and eve story goes that A&E first had Cain and Able and C offed Able, so later he took a wife. Some of you say he got the woman outside the garden and some say it was because incest was ok then. But if he got his woman outside the garden under the idea that there were other people around outside then you are saying those people were already fallen? Or was it ok to do incest?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Lets look at that "man is a fallen race" thing. In your bible, the adam and eve story goes that A&E first had Cain and Able and C offed Able, so later he took a wife. Some of you say he got the woman outside the garden and some say it was because incest was ok then. But if he got his woman outside the garden under the idea that there were other people around outside then you are saying those people were already fallen? Or was it ok to do incest?

This is a fair enough question. The Bible, however, simply does not say. It is free to speculate, however. We could say that his wife was not his sister in which case you are free to wonder where she came from or if she was part of the original fall. The second option is that she was his sister, in which case I think it fair to say that the Bible does not mention such a union because the Bible does not endorse such unions outside the necessity to reproduce at that particular time because there were no other options. It is apparent later on in the Bible, however, that incest is frowned upon.

Originally posted by whodey
It is apparent later on in the Bible, however, that incest is frowned upon.

Not only is it frowned upon. God expressly forbids it.