what reasons do the 3 major religious books give on...

[Masquerouge]

He was asking for the reasons given in the text, not a biased atheist's stab in the dark at historical sociology.

Okay so maybe my answer was a bit short but I do not think there was anything derogatory in it.
There is a reason why heterosexual unions are the norm across all mankind, and that's because they're the only one to produce kids.
There's a reason why monogamy is fairly common, and that's because it provides stability and a favorable environment to raising kids.

And thus a religion backing these will in general be more successful than a religion promoting the opposite.

So I might have not answered the actual OP, I'll give you that, but I don't see why my answer was either biased or atheistic in nature.

 

[Bill3000]

What do you mean? The Apostle Paul basically made the word up, so it can't be translated outside of context. The word is made up of two words - arrhen, which translates as "male", or "a male", and koite, which, in this context, would mean "cohabition" or "sexual intercourse". So arsenokoites means "a male who cohabits with men", or something along those lines.

If you don't want to follow Biblical law, that's your choice. But saying it doesn't really say what it actually does say is ludicrous.

A quick look at the translations in Bible Gateway give different translations.

- New King James Version has a subscript which says "That is, catamites" as a clarification of "homosexual.
- The Message only talks about "use and abuse sex".
- 21st Century King James and American Standard Version only mentions "effeminate".
- Worldwide English only mention adultery.

Et cetera. Plenty of versions which dispute it - and simply saying that it is sort of ruins the point.

Anyway, finishing the same quote:

The original Greek text describes the second of the two behaviors as malakoi arsenokoitai. Malakoi means soft. It translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. The meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would have still known the meaning of the word arsenokoitai. Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. Each translator seem to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of at the time and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they have not the decency to indicate by a footnote that the meaning of the word is unknown. One can be certain that "aresenokoitai" has nothing to do with same-sex activity; much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived from the early centuries CE; none of it contains the word.

Besides, the link you gave? Was soley the interpretation of the [wiki]Cavalry Chapel[/wiki] denomination. Hardly an authority on every single interpretation of the bible.

 

[Mirc]

homosexuality, masterbation, pre-marital sex, sado-maso and other "filthy" sexual acts?
What reasons do the 3 major religious books (Talmud, Qu'ran, Bibble) give that make homosexuality, masterbation, pre-marital sex such bad things?
Keep it intelligent plz.

Actually, you'd be surprised if I tell you my denomination forbids only homosexuality and sado-maso from those. Pre-marital sex is not advised. It's not that strict. And it doesn't say a word about masturbation. Various priests/parochs have different rules regarding masturbation, but nobody actually forbids it as far as I know.

 

[Elrohir]

Good find Elrohir

Thanks.

A quick look at the translations in Bible Gateway give different translations.

- New King James Version has a subscript which says "That is, catamites" as a clarification of "homosexual.
- The Message only talks about "use and abuse sex".
- 21st Century King James and American Standard Version only mentions "effeminate".
- Worldwide English only mention adultery.

Et cetera. Plenty of versions which dispute it - and simply saying that it is sort of ruins the point.

So you're saying we should trust modern day translations over the original Greek? But if you want to compare modern versions....

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites,

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men,

Do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Etc....And you have nothing. In response to your quotes: The New King James Version uses catamite for clarification. Catamite is defined as "a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man." The Message's talk of "those who sex" could at best be ignoring it, not condoning it. And considering the preponderance of opinion on how to properly translate this, I think it's clear they are condemning it. (The Message translates everything into modern day language, they don't focus on accuracy as much as other translations. In theological discussions, they aren't very good to use)

The 21st Century King James talks about "nor abusers of themselves with mankind," (IE, homosexuals) and the New American Standard Bible uses the term "homosexuals". Worldwide English does not mention homosexuality specifically, it merely talks about adultery as a whole.

So basically, you've got pretty much no one supporting the idea, either in the past or present supporting your ignoring of the original Greek.

 

[GenMarshall]

So you're saying we should trust modern day translations over the original Greek? But if you want to compare modern versions....

Just to toss in a couple of more Translations from the Catholic Bible:

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians 6:9-10
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
(Douay-Rheims)

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites (New American Bible - Catholic Edition)

Just wanted to put thoes up there .

 

[Bill3000]

Just wanted to put thoes up there

I'd say "boy prostitutes or sodomites" would be a better way of bolding it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I general, I don't think that any of the OT laws are well explained. Many reasons have been given, in the intervening years, but these will only be "just so" arguments if made from a religious perspective.

 

[Maimonides]

homosexuality, masterbation, pre-marital sex, sado-maso and other "filthy" sexual acts?
What reasons do the 3 major religious books (Talmud, Qu'ran, Bibble) give that make homosexuality, masterbation, pre-marital sex such bad things?
Keep it intelligent plz.

There are actually 2 Talmuds, the Jerusalem Talmud & the Babylonian Talmud. They were written at the same time. The Babylonian Talmud is much more widely studied by Jews. The Jerusalem Talmud wasn't even translated into English until a few years ago. When someone says the Talmud, they are usually refering to the Babylonian one.

The Talmud is a collection of commentary on & interpretation of the Torah. The Torah is what Christians refer to as the Old Testament & is infinitely more important in Judaism than the Talmud.

I haven't read the Talmud in several years. It has several references to sex. The one I remember is that, according to the Talmud, it's a man's duty to keep his wife sexually satisfied.

The Torah doesn't give "reasons" for many of the Commandments it contains. I guess G-d doesn't feel he should have to explain Himself to us lowly humans.

I've never heard of anything in Judaism that's against S&M. According to the Talmud, if your wife needs S&M to be sexually satisfied, you are obligated to provide it. Be careful who you marry.

Prohibition of adultery is, of course, one of the Ten Commandments. Again, no reason for this is given in the Torah. I think it's just common sense.

Homosexuality is frowned upon in Judaism, but it's not a terribly evil sin like it is in Christianity. It might interfere with the "be fruitful & multiply" Commandment in the Torah, but not necessarily. A homosexual can reproduce even though he/she might not enjoy the act.

Chasidic & some Orthodox Jews are against masturbation. The rest of us don't mind a little yanky the wanky.

Premarital sex is a no-no in Judaism, but few non Chasidic & Orthodox Jews are virgins on their wedding day.

The question is terribly flawed because most Commandments from G-d are not followed by "reasons."

There are only two Abrahamic text. Judaism has the Torah (Which is known as the Old Testiment in the Christian tradition), Christianity has both the Old and the New Testiment as the Bible, and Islam has the Koran.

1st you say only 2, then you list 3. Which is it? The Koran might be considered Abrahamic because Arab Muslim tradition holds that they are also descended from Abraham through Esau. It also mentions Judaism.

Wow Abraham was crazy but even crazier were the people who listened to his crap.

Abraham's major contribution was to throw off pagan idolotry & introduce monotheism. What you are saying is that monotheism is "crazy" & "crap."

Man the wrong people died and continue to die in the name of religion. Jeez.

Who are the right people to die in the name of religion?

 

[Sidhe]

I can only speak about Christianity as I've seen this type of thread so often I've memorised the claims of what it represents on homosexuality.

It goes like this Old testament, Homosexuality is wrong.

New testament, Pederasty(practicing sexual acts between a grown man and a young boy, or as it was more often having a mentor, non-sexual) Is wrong..

Infidelity in marriage is especially wrong if it's between a man and a man if they are married. That's about it, although most people will tell you that Byzantine church meant something different, and that according to the Christian church homosexuality is wrong, this is out of context, the idea of Paul was to decry the Roman practices of pederasty and sex with men outside of marriage, or bisexuality. And that's it.

Sadly though, you can milk a contextual passage for all it's worth if you change it's context, ever and so with the black monks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

This will explain it although feel free to have it ignored, the religious are very set in their ways.

Romans 1

In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (TNIV), Paul writes

"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p.5). It is also the only explicit reference in the Bible to female homosexuality. Hilborn (2002, p.6) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in ‘the gospel of God's Son’ (cf. v.9), but also in the very ‘creation of the world’ (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (2002, p.7) goes on to argue that the condemnation of homosexual sex (whether consensual or not) is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, rather than from the selective reading of individual words or phrases.

However, a minority of more recent interpreters (eg., Boswell 1980, p.109f; Vasey 1995, p.131f) argue that Paul does not have in mind a system of natural laws (as this is an Enlightenment concept) [2] and that "Paul did not discuss gay persons, but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons" (Boswell 1980, p.109). McNeil (1993) argues that a proper understanding of this passage should focus on heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexual sex for homosexual sex, which is against nature and therefore idolatrous.

This usually appears to be based on the argument that the ancient world did not have a concept of homosexual orientation. However, having reviewed the evidence the report Issues in Human Sexuality (para 2.16) concluded: "It can be said, therefore, the phenomena which today would be interpreted in terms of orientation were present and recognised." These considerations therefore lead many Biblical interpreters to conclude that "the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity" (Hilborn 2002, p.9).

Nonetheless, this broader interpretation of what was known about orientation is rejected by a minority of interpreters (eg West 2005, p.3), who argue that sexual behaviour was always undertaken amongst unequals and that Paul is talking to a Gentile audience in terms that they would understand to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). It is therefore argued that what Paul condemns in Romans 1 is particular types of homosexual sex, such as temple prostitution or pederasty (cf. Hilborn 2002, p.8)

Blame the Catholics maybe? Started off in Byzantine times as condemnation of pederasty and other unChristian acts expanded into every imaginable view, became condemnation of y. pick and chose, bend and corrupt; historical context means nothing when you have self righteousness on your side, 'tis ever the way with man. And ever shall be no doubt.

 

[Xanikk999]

Prohibition of adultery is, of course, one of the Ten Commandments. Again, no reason for this is given in the Torah. I think it's just common sense.

I agree somewhat, its good to respect your spouse, but doesnt adultry in the ten commandments also mean sex before marriage? That has no logical purpose, because marriage is just a man made institution that does not necesarrily make a couple a "couple".

Homosexuality is frowned upon in Judaism, but it's not a terribly evil sin like it is in Christianity. It might interfere with the "be fruitful & multiply" Commandment in the Torah, but not necessarily. A homosexual can reproduce even though he/she might not enjoy the act.

Dude thats like telling a straight person to have sex with the same sex. I hope you dont think thats fair?

Chasidic & some Orthodox Jews are against masturbation. The rest of us don't mind a little yanky the wanky.

Agreed.

Premarital sex is a no-no in Judaism, but few non Chasidic & Orthodox Jews are virgins on their wedding day.

The only people i can see who are virgins before they get married are die hard catholics and die hard muslims. If you have the oppurtunity to have sex with someone you love, most people will take it regardless of marital status.

The question is terribly flawed because most Commandments from G-d are not followed by "reasons."

Thats why we are calling them into question.

Abraham's major contribution was to throw off pagan idolotry & introduce monotheism. What you are saying is that monotheism is "crazy" & "crap."

Its not any better then polythiesm. Whats wrong with idolotry?

Who are the right people to die in the name of religion?

Nobody IMO.

 

[Maimonides]

I agree somewhat, its good to respect your spouse, but doesnt adultry in the ten commandments also mean sex before marriage

I've never heard the term adultery to mean sex before marriage. One has to be married to commit adultery.

Dude thats like telling a straight person to have sex with the same sex. I hope you dont think thats fair?

No I don't. I was speaking about the technical possibilty of it. Read it again please.

Thats why we are calling them into question.

Actually, the OP specifically asks for "reasons." Read it again please.

Its not any better then polythiesm. Whats wrong with idolotry?

It's not my cup of tea, but I don't care what anyone's religion is so long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Again, I think you misundertood. It appears that the poster was not aware of the meaning of his statement.

Nobody IMO.

The question was intended for the person who posted the statement. Not you. He is insinuating that somebody should die in the name of religion when he says the wrong people have.

 

[GenMarshall]

1st you say only 2, then you list 3. Which is it? The Koran might be considered Abrahamic because Arab Muslim tradition holds that they are also descended from Abraham through Esau. It also mentions Judaism.

Christians use the same text in the Torah for the Old Testament! To the Christians, the New Testament is just an addition to the Torah.

 

[Bill3000]

Christians use the same text in the Torah for the Old Testament! To the Christians, the New Testament is just an addition to the Torah.

Not true. The majority of Christians believe that at least some of the laws of the Torah do not apply anymore - the degree of which depends on the denomination. As well, though I guess it's obvious, interpretation of the Torah is different between the Christianity and Judaism.

Finally, the order of the New Testament is different in the Christian religions, and in the Protestant denominations, the deuterocanonical books are removed from the old testament.

Ultimately, the canon is different in the two religions in various degrees, with interpretations of what the canon means differs. It's too simplistic to simply say that the New Testament is just an addition to the Torah, because the most important difference between Christianity and Judaism is the fact that the interpretation of the Torah is different.

 

[aneeshm]

homosexuality, masterbation, pre-marital sex, sado-maso and other "filthy" sexual acts?
What reasons do the 3 major religious books (Talmud, Qu'ran, Bibble) give that make homosexuality, masterbation, pre-marital sex such bad things?
Keep it intelligent plz.

From my POV, the three "major" religious books are the Vedas, the Puranas, and the epics.

AFAIK, none of these say anything about homosexuality at all. They seem completely unaware of its existence.

They recognise a form of commitment or relationship which is formed by two consenting adults - that is, when two adults consent to have sexual intercourse with each other, it is taken to be a commitment equivalent to marriage. So there is no concept of the condemnation of pre-marital sex, as such - if you do it, you're considered de-facto married.

As for sado-masochism and other perversions like that - nobody imagined that these sort of things would be happening, so the authors of these books didn't have anything to say about this at all, and didn't even seem aware that something like this could even exist.

The topic of masturbation is more complex. For a normal person, it is not condemned, nor is it encouraged. However, for a person who has taken a vow of celibacy or self-restraint, it is strictly forbidden. For such a person, ALL sensory gratification is forbidden. Another thing to note that self-restraint is an ideal which people should try to, in general, adhere to, though no judgement can be passed on them if they act normally.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Homosexuality is a modern concept. Having sex with your own gender isn't, but isn't the same as homosexual orientation.

 

[Mirc]

^That's what I wanted to say too, but I couldn't find my words for it. Thanks.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

That is correct Eran. And I find most of the prevarications about Paul's prohibition on homosexuality to be tiresome. The pederasty practiced by the Greeks had nothing to do with male prostitutes because the Greek words don't mean that and they don't seem to have much to do with age considering Greek pederasty was practiced on adolescents, which especially according to ancient understandings, wasn't wrong unto itself. Everyone knows how marriages for women would often take place in their teenage years. This was the same age of the boys in the pederastic relationship.

Also, the Jewish prohibition on homosexuality seems unique as it was a pretty widespread ancient practice. If it had sociological origins why didn't other cultures develop the same attitudes towards homosexuality? The only civilization with a somewhat comparable attitude might be Republican Rome.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why does any culture prohibit anything? I don't think that ultimately there are rational sociological reasons for anything. of course I have religious reasons for why they might have done it, but saying it was "to maintain the population" makes no sense in light of modern research anyways.

 

[Bill3000]

Also, the Jewish prohibition on homosexuality seems unique as it was a pretty widespread ancient practice. If it had sociological origins why didn't other cultures develop the same attitudes towards homosexuality? The only civilization with a somewhat comparable attitude might be Republican Rome.

The sociological origin of homosexuality is extremely recent, past the 1900s. There simply wasn't a concept of a man who solely lusts after men in society before that.

Why does any culture prohibit anything? I don't think that ultimately there are rational sociological reasons for anything.

Not necessarily. Evolutionary tools can often explain why we have developed morals and why they are useful. In such a case, it's not really a matter of rationality, though.

 

[Xanikk999]

Ok so the word homosexuality is a modern concept but having sex with your gender isnt?

What did you think i meant by homosexuality?