Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the fascination with homosexuality by some theists? Are they afraid that it can be caught from a toilet seat? I hope there are some old enough to get that.
What makes you think that the Catholic Church has any virgins in it?And the Catholic Church being a load of virgins telling people what they should do in their sexual life. And who with.
Bringing up the whole thing about the current Pope saying that condoms made AIDS worse.
So it is your claim that there were no lesbians or homosexuals back in the OT days?There is nothing in the Bible dealing with homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual preference or orientation. The ancients knew nothing of sexual preference. They just didn't think in those terms. Heck, we didn't begin thinking in those terms until the last century. What the ancients were dealing with were acts that were seen as "abnormal." In the OT, those acts were committed by males, and were seen as acts of domination or subjugation.
So it is your claim that there were no lesbians or homosexuals back in the OT days?
More likely called by a different name...Abomination perhaps?Not known about maybe?
I agree with your point here. I see no evidence that any of the Bible writers understood sexual orientation. But I think you might be overstating it when you imply that no one in the ancient world had such an understanding.There is nothing in the Bible dealing with homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual preference or orientation. The ancients knew nothing of sexual preference. They just didn't think in those terms. Heck, we didn't begin thinking in those terms until the last century. What the ancients were dealing with were acts that were seen as "abnormal." In the OT, those acts were committed by males, and were seen as acts of domination or subjugation.
There is nothing in the Bible dealing with homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual preference or orientation. The ancients knew nothing of sexual preference. They just didn't think in those terms. Heck, we didn't begin thinking in those terms until the last century. What the ancients were dealing with were acts that were seen as "abnormal." In the OT, those acts were committed by males, and were seen as acts of domination or subjugation.
No. My claim is simply that people were unaware that sexual preference could be an orientation. to them, homoerotic acts were "abominable," because, of course on one could be naturally attracted to one of the same sex. Today, we know that sexual orientation is part of the human psyche.So it is your claim that there were no lesbians or homosexuals back in the OT days?
No one in the ancient world had a developed understanding of the human psyche. That really never happened until Freud. I'm sure people knew they were attracted to the same sex, but they didn't call it "same sex orientation." They simply saw what the birds and bees did, copied it, and when they felt attracted toward the same sex, they saw it as "abnormal."fantôme profane;2922774 said:I agree with your point here. I see no evidence that any of the Bible writers understood sexual orientation. But I think you might be overstating it when you imply that no one in the ancient world had such an understanding.
There's no mention of lesbian sex for a couple of reasons.just a thought...
having more than one wife was also considered normal...
perhaps it was more common practice to have sex with more than one women a ménage à trois...which is why there is no mention of the abomination of lesbian sex anywhere in the bible (from what i understand)
There's no mention of lesbian sex for a couple of reasons.
First, in the OT, it was the males who could be righteous. So any break of purity was male-oriented. It was the males who brought righteousness to the household.
Second, in that culture (and this ties in with the first point), honor was imbedded in male identity and shame was imbedded in female identity. So, to "take it like a woman" was for a man to act shamefully and, hence, betray his maleness.