Who made the sexual laws in the bible

akinator

Presuming that the both the old and new testament were just books written by people of them time and not in fact "the word of god" then why in your opinion did the writers bother including laws against homosexuality, divorce, sex before marriage etc?
i can understand why they would write all of the other rules against murder etc but why did they bother trying to stop people doing these sexual deeds?

AhSureTisGrand

I voted yes, because fuck the system

paternity, reproduction, etc etc

also they just plain weren't any fun

Zombrex

akinator wrote: »

Presuming that the both the old and new testament were just books written by people of them time and not in fact "the word of god" then why in your opinion did the writers bother including laws against homosexuality, divorce, sex before marriage etc?
i can understand why they would write all of the other rules against murder etc but why did they bother trying to stop people doing these sexual deeds?

Er, I would have thought that would be blindly obvious.

They wished to control the reproductive activities of their people, because in ancient cultures these activities were considered very important.

For example the Old Testament provides instructions to execute a women for both not being a virgin on her wedding night and for committing adultery. Now in the context of an all loving God this makes very little sense (who you would assume would be even more moral than modern society, where such an idea would be seen as horrific injustice).

In the context of an ancient hereditary society where wealth and power were passed down from men to sons such harsh punishment makes much more sense. It has dire consequences for your status and your families continued legacy if you wife had a child by another man (this is of course the reason so called "honour killings" still unfortunately take place)

This is why you get such ridiculous rules as the rule in the Old Testament that if a man rapes a non-married woman he must pay her father and marry the woman. This is because no other man will want her as they cannot ensure that any children she produces are theirs, but because a non-virgin non-married woman will not be able to marry anyone else (for that reason) the man must marry her to compensate the father for having a daughter he can not pass off on to anyone else. The idea that a woman would be forced to marry the person who raped here seems utterly horrific these days, but in those days the interests of women came a distant second to the interests of the man of society, either the man looking for women to provide offspring, or the fathers wishing to marry their daughters off for wealth and influence.

The Quadratic Equation

^ This still does not answer the OP's specific questions, in particular the homosexuality question

Galvasean

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

^ This still does not answer the OP's specific questions, in particular the homosexuality question

Re: Homosexuality.
Homosexuals weren't capable of making babies (ie: new members for the religion), so a fledgling religion like Christianity which needed to boost it's numbers did what it could to have them procreate, thus increasing the number of Christians.
Another pet theory of mine is that the Christians were persecuted by the Romans so the Christians sought to outlaw bumsex which the Romans enjoyed.

Turtwig

Regardless of identity, the writer(s) of the bible was a(were) misogynistic homophobic sadistic ignorant dick(s).

Newsite

Galvasean wrote: »

Re: Homosexuality.
Homosexuals weren't capable of making babies (ie: new members for the religion), so a fledgling religion like Christianity which needed to boost it's numbers did what it could to have them procreate, thus increasing the number of Christians.

At first glance I presumed you were joking but now I think you might now have been - what a bizarre viewpoint.

Jernal wrote: »

Regardless of identity, the writer(s) of the bible was a(were) misogynistic homophobic sadistic ignorant dick(s).

Eloquent and insightful. You should post more often!

yeah, galv forgot the "ughhh that's icky, so i think we shouldn't do that. er I mean god couldn't possibly want us to"

Galvasean

Enlighten us Newsite, what is your explanation?

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Enlighten us Newsite, what is your explanation?

i'm holding out for "it's unnatural"

Des Carter

Jernal wrote: »

Regardless of identity, the writer(s) of the bible was a(were) misogynistic homophobic sadistic ignorant dick(s).

sadistic ?????

intresting theory.

Newsite

bluewolf wrote: »

i'm holding out for "it's unnatural"

In what ways is it 'natural'?

I'm interested to hear, but just for the record I don't think you're going to come up with any reasons why it is.

Man and woman, Adam and Eve. When a man and woman get together, life can result. It's how we are here, typing on this forum. It's how any of us exist, and how we've ever come to being since the dawn of time. Look how a man and a woman complement each other when they do have sex - the obvious way they 'fit', and how they complement each other not only in that way, but also by virtue of all their other characteristics.

Homosexuality, then - being opposed to this in every conceivable way - cannot be seen as natural.

Which leads naturally on to the reason why it is in the Bible - which, although written by man, is inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit - meaning that it reflects and details God's natural plan for sex and relationships. A plan which is to be mocked and derided by most unbelievers, but seen as the beautiful, timeless thing it is by those who do believe.

So is that your answer, newsite? you're calling it unnatural so that should be the reason it's forbidden in the bible?


how about the animal kingdom? Or are you going to argue "we're not animals"? Maybe not but that's pretty natural

I always have a chuckle at people sitting on a computer on the internet trying to preach about what's "natural"

Look how a man and a woman complement each other when they do have sex - the obvious way they 'fit', and how they complement each other not only in that way, but also by virtue of all their other characteristics.

Classic case of is-ought, tbh.

Standman

Something being labeled as "unnatural" is not a valid reason to prohibit it.

Newsite

bluewolf wrote: »

So is that your answer, newsite? you're calling it unnatural so that should be the reason it's forbidden in the bible?

I don't really get what you mean here...the Bible talks about what God's thinking and intentions are on sexuality - and it's very clear on homosexuality.

bluewolf wrote: »

how about the animal kingdom? Or are you going to argue "we're not animals"? Maybe not but that's pretty natural

Well exactly, we're not animals. We can master our instincts - we think, we reason, we can control ourselves.

bluewolf wrote: »

I always have a chuckle at people sitting on a computer on the internet trying to preach about what's "natural"

You must be chuckling at yourself so, since you're engaging in the debate.

bluewolf wrote: »

Classic case of is-ought, tbh.

That seems like the lazy option to take. It's self-evident is what I would say.

Newsite

Newsite wrote: »

I don't really get what you mean here...

This:

Galvasean wrote: »

Enlighten us Newsite, what is your explanation?

bluewolf wrote: »

So is that your answer, newsite?

Well exactly, we're not animals. We can master our instincts - we think, we reason, we can control ourselves.

Right.
But you asked how can I call it natural. That's how.

You must be chuckling at yourself so, since you're engaging in the debate.

I am not the one trying to say it should be forbidden because it's unnatural, you see

That seems like the lazy option to take. It's self-evident is what I would say.

Well, of course you would, because you're starting from the point of:
it's right - see, they even fit together - it's right

Because some couples can reproduce does not mean only men and women ever should have sex.

Doctor DooM

Newsite wrote: »

I don't really get what you mean here...the Bible talks about what God's the writers thinking and intentions are on sexuality - and it's very clear on homosexuality.

Fyp, as they say.

By the way, homosexuality occurs in nature all the time.

Not that it matters- I probably should be dead but for unnatural medical proceedures, so I am perfectly happy with the unnatural.

It's weird how you talk about us rising beyond our natural instincts when it suits but then natural is better when that does. *shrugs*

Newsite

bluewolf wrote: »

Right.
But you asked how can I call it natural. That's how.

You're saying that it's natural because animals do it?! We already agree that animals are animals, and people are people. Animals act on instinct. People can master their desires and guide and control them. So it can't be natural because animals do it. What else ya got?

bluewolf wrote: »

Well, of course you would, because you're starting from the point of:
it's right - see, they even fit together - it's right

Objectively speaking, even without religion, I don't see how anyone could ever argue that the way a man and a woman are formed in regards to their sexual characteristics and in the way they just 'fit' when it comes to sex, and in the mechanism through which life is created, can be anything other than natural.

bluewolf wrote: »

Because some couples can reproduce does not mean only men and women ever should have sex.

Well yes - in the sense it's not that because some couples can reproduce that only men and women should have sex. It's for the other reason.

RichieC

Newsite wrote: »

bluewolf wrote: »

So is that your answer, newsite? you're calling it unnatural so that should be the reason it's forbidden in the bible?

I don't really get what you mean here...the Bible talks about what God's thinking and intentions are on sexuality - and it's very clear on homosexuality.

bluewolf wrote: »

how about the animal kingdom? Or are you going to argue "we're not animals"? Maybe not but that's pretty natural

Well exactly, we're not animals. We can master our instincts - we think, we reason, we can control ourselves.

bluewolf wrote: »

I always have a chuckle at people sitting on a computer on the internet trying to preach about what's "natural"

You must be chuckling at yourself so, since you're engaging in the debate.

bluewolf wrote: »

Classic case of is-ought, tbh.

That seems like the lazy option to take. It's self-evident is what I would say.

Classic. the person saying "because god said so" accusing others of taking the lazy option.

The Quadratic Equation

Doctor DooM wrote: »

By the way, homosexuality occurs in nature all the time.

How can it occur all the time ?

Even farm animals know what hole to stick it in.

Gordon

Newsite wrote: »

Homosexuality, then - being opposed to this in every conceivable way - cannot be seen as natural.

LOL

Sky fairy creates person in his image, but tries to make everyone think he didn't mean the bumsex bit by telling people he made a mistake, the bumsex bit wasn't meant to be. Either your god made a mistake, or 'natural' is quite different to what you believe it to be.

Hilarious how people actually believe this nonsense

I trust everyone that believes that bumsex being 'not natural' doesn't eat genetically modified food, doesn't ingest medication, doesn't use plastic, doesn't fly in planes, doesn't type on computers etc etc

Doctor DooM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How can it occur all the time ?

Even farm animals know what hole to stick it in.

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

It occurs in nature. I guess god designed it that way, in answer to your question.

Turtwig

newsite would you consider cystic fibrosis to be unnatural?

mikom

In a marriage, is a wife giving her husband a loving blow-job unnatural?

Des Carter

So homosexuality is unnatural because they do not reproduce.

If thats the case then wouldnt people who never reproduce not be seen in the same light? How come they aren't condemned?

Newsite

RichieC wrote: »

Classic. the person saying "because god said so" accusing others of taking the lazy option.

How is it a 'classic'?

Did you miss the fairly lengthy paragraph where I reasoned why heterosexual relations are intrinsically natural, and why homosexual ones aren't?

If I wanted to say 'because God says so', I just would have said it and left it at that.

And what about infertile couples? Is it unnatural for these people to have sex since they cannot have children? And would it be ok for these people to have gay sex, since it doesn't matter anyway?

And what about gay guys 69ing Newsite? that seems to "fit together" pretty well...
Or how about anal and oral sex among heterosexuals?

Newsite

Des Carter wrote: »

So homosexuality is unnatural because they do not reproduce.

I never said that, in fact I addressed that above in reply to bluewolf's post.

Des Carter

Newsite wrote: »

I never said that, in fact I addressed that above in reply to bluewolf's post.

Your right, you said it was

for other reasons

As informative as that is would you care to elaborate?

AhSureTisGrand

Eating cooked food is "unnatural"

Corkfeen

Newsite wrote: »

How is it a 'classic'?

Did you miss the fairly lengthy paragraph where I reasoned why heterosexual relations are intrinsically natural, and why homosexual ones aren't?

If I wanted to say 'because God says so', I just would have said it and left it at that.

But it's not particularly unnatural as has been proven, it's natural for homosexuality to occur in nature so that would in fact make it natural. Most of our everyday lives exist today thanks to things that could be considered unnatural for example antibiotics or painkillers (Not to mention the thousands of other things in life that aren't technically natural). The Church claim it to be unnatural to increase their congregation . Similar in fashion to how condoms are condemned by the Vatican.

Daftendirekt

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Eating cooked food is "unnatural"

And lets not forget medicine. Pesky doctors preventing disease from killing people.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

heterosexual relations are intrinsically natural, and why homosexual ones aren't?

With a bit of lube, male bits fit both the male and female bottoms quite naturally, a sure sign that the christian and other deities approve of male homosexual sex, not to mention male on female anal sex, digital stimulation, and of course, carry on with comforting fruits.

You may need to be more careful next time you roll out the "oh, but it's natural" argument.

Logical Fallacy

Newsite wrote: »

Homosexuality, then - being opposed to this in every conceivable way - cannot be seen as natural.

Face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdLjJcBs2h4

In all seriousness......

Newsite wrote: »

People can master their desires and guide and control them. So it can't be natural because animals do it. What else ya got?

This makes no sense. You are effectively arguing that humans should not be considered in any way to be led by natural instincts beyond logical and rational thought.

Which is deeply, horribly flawed.

Sonics2k

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How can it occur all the time ?

Even farm animals know what hole to stick it in.

Homosexuality is found in hundreds of different kinds of animals across the world.

Your argument (and Newsites) that it is unnatural is wrong.

Deal with this simple fact

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

Have fun, because it looks like God made Gay animals.

seamus

Anyone who can remember their first time having sex will agree with me that men and women do not "fit" together by any stretch of the imagination. It's an uncomfortable and initially unnatural activity that takes practice to make it work.

Sindri

Sexually, and aesthetically, we categorize concepts and their associations on a spectrum of either repulsive, which we reject (or sometimes accept;)), or as attractive which we accept.

Notice the the words 'reject' and 'accept', they are actions, decisions. Homophobia as an example, when it occurs in a person, at the very base level is simply a rejection of homosexual sex, something the person rejects if they happen to be heterosexual, when it is considered by the person (it also helps that it is a social norm). When they consider it they try to relate to it, basically picture themselves doing so. This is natural, as it is for homosexuals as well when they consider the act of heterosexual sex. They reject it. This could be called 'soft homophobia' and like homosexuality you are born with it. It is a natural position. The only way around it is if homoerotic tendencies develop in someone who is heterosexual but that would be just going of on a tangent:rolleyes:.

Homophobia continues onwards though as an irrational fear/hatred of homosexuals themselves. It is an irrational opinion usually motivated by the undermining of the persons comprehension (literally, they cannot relate to it or comprehend it and it leads to an irrational fear/hatred) and security. The undermining of those two, comprehension and security are the reason for most of the hatred in the world. Consider an atheists' existence to a theist and how a theist would prefer that people at least believe in a religion even if it is not their own, yet if all did so, the person with the contradicting doctrine or faith would undermine their belief still.

Other forms of homophobia are due to it being a social norm and it is rarely if ever considered or due to it being indoctrinated.

Now that's not a very in depth analysis, but it is just an example.

(Note. The above is about the first occurrence of homophobia as a thought whether it lasts a 1/4 of a second or longer and it is not explained coherently so please do not take offence).


The question of sex in the Tor'ah and its prohibitions is one which at its simplest is that of regulating the sex drive and sexual desire, usually through actions like rituals, as is all religion, and many were probably developed by people with obsessive compulsive disorder or other personality disorders, which are abundant, and if you consider the stresses of the Early Bronze Age were much more so then. Plus society, and it's ethics, are basically based on sex anyway, some of them such as a prohibition of bestiality is for obvious reasons.

Some are fairly easy to understand and are still with us today like the practice of endogamy by Orthodox Jews or a prohibition on adultery but the specifics of some are open to debate.

The Mad Hatter

Newsite wrote: »

Well exactly, we're not animals. We can master our instincts - we think, we reason, we can control ourselves.

So it occurs regularly in nature but is unnatural because we aren't animals and therefore can master our instincts. Would you care to unwind that a bit? Because as it stands, it doesn't make any sense.

Incidentally, I don't know about you, but as far as I'm aware I don't have any homosexual instincts to master. You seem to be suggesting that you do.

Galvasean

Pray away the gay?

Peregrinus

Couple of points:

1. The poll question at the head of the page seems to be completely unrelated to the topic of the thread. What gives?

2. The question in the OP seems to proceed on the basis that the biblical rules on sexual activity are in some way unique. They’re not; pretty well all cultures and societies have quite developed, detailed and restrictive rules about sexual activity. They differ in detail, but the underlying values are often pretty similar.

3. For most of history humanity has been unable, with any degree of reliability, to separate sex and reproduction, and naturally this has informed prevailing sexual morality. This explains why most societies either forbid sex outside marriage/betrothal/partnering, or regard it as acceptable only in limited circumstances, e.g. with slaves, whose offspring are unimportant.

4. The Hebrew culture which produced the Old Testament did not believe in an afterlife. For them, the nearest thing to immortality was the survival and success of one’s progeny, and the idea of a thriving “house” of children and more remote descendants as evidence of virtue/success/God’s favour turns up again and again in the OT. But there’s a problem for men, who can never be entirely sure that their wives’ children are theirs also. And men, as in most societies, dictated the laws and customs. Hence the stringent penalties against adultery, or against the seduction or rape of unmarried women and girls (this being an offence against the fathers of those women/girls)

5. The concerns about reproduction and progeny also explain why homosexuality is looked on with disfavour. Most societies either forbade it completely (e.g. the Hebrews), or regarded it as permissible only in controlled circumstances for men who had already married and produced children, or for boys who were expected to marry later (e.g. the Greeks).

6. As for divorce, the OT has a pretty liberal regime - at least, if you’re a man. You can divorce your wife for pretty much any reason that you want. There might be ethical debate about whether it was just or right of you to divorce your wife because, e.g., she repeatedly burnt the toast, but the fact that you could do so was quite clear. A restrictive attitude to divorce comes much later, and arises not out of a preoccupation with sex but out of a preoccupation with integrity; having made a solemn and public commitment, you should stick to it, and you couldn’t abandon it merely because it wasn’t playing out the way you hoped or foresaw when you made it. The same underlying impulse gives us the law of contract, and therefore the foundation of the capitalist system.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

^ This still does not answer the OP's specific questions, in particular the homosexuality question

That question is even easier than the first one.

Homosexuality was made illegal in the Old Testament for the same reason it continues to be made illegal today, some people find it perverse, disgusting and threatening and thus conclude it is wrong and should be routed out of society.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

In what ways is it 'natural'?

It occurs, naturally, in nature. Isn't that the pretty standard definition for "natural"?

Newsite wrote: »

Man and woman, Adam and Eve. When a man and woman get together, life can result. It's how we are here, typing on this forum. It's how any of us exist, and how we've ever come to being since the dawn of time. Look how a man and a woman complement each other when they do have sex - the obvious way they 'fit', and how they complement each other not only in that way, but also by virtue of all their other characteristics.

Homosexuality, then - being opposed to this in every conceivable way - cannot be seen as natural.

And yet it is. It appears, naturally, in nature. So perhaps you have misunderstood how nature operates.

Newsite wrote: »

Which leads naturally on to the reason why it is in the Bible - which, although written by man, is inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit - meaning that it reflects and details God's natural plan for sex and relationships. A plan which is to be mocked and derided by most unbelievers, but seen as the beautiful, timeless thing it is by those who do believe.

Odd then that he would make a whole host of other species of animals also have a significant homosexual populations.

Almost as if homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena and the Bible is the product of ignorant and bigoted men who knew little of nature and just knew that they didn't like it. I mean, what are the odds, the same men who put to death women for not being virgins also didn't like homosexuals! Go figure!

sephir0th

Newsite wrote: »

I never said that, in fact I addressed that above in reply to bluewolf's post.

No you haven't - you've said that humans can control their actions through reason. You haven't shown why homosexuality is 'unnatural'.

What definition are you using for unnatural?

It has been shown to you that homosexuality occurs in nature across various species, which shows it's a natural occurance.

How about scientific papers that show why homosexuality could have been genetically selected and inherited?

Just because a particular behaviour does not increase likelihood for reproduction does not make it 'unnatural'.

amacachi

****sake, only voted yes because I thought it was a public poll.

Peregrinus

Zombrex wrote: »

It occurs, naturally, in nature. Isn't that the pretty standard definition for "natural"?

Actually, no, it isn’t.

The sense of “nature” as whatever it is that we drive out into the countryside to see, things that happen without human intervention, is a relatively recent one. Check out the Oxford English Dictionary, and you’ll wander through about thirty other definitions between you get to this one (“the phenomena of the physical world collectively, esp. plants, animals and other features and products of the earth itself, as opposed to humans and human creations”).

Far be it from me to tog out on the same team as Newsite, but he (she?) is employing an older and more well-established sense of the “nature” - the inherent, essential, charactaristic quality or constitution of things; the whatever-it-is that makes those things what they are.

The argument here is that heterosexuality is “natural” because it is fundamental to the propagation of the species, and it’s in the nature of the species to propagate itself. Hence heterosexuality is ordered towards the purpose for which the species exists and towards the impulse which drives the species in a way that homosexuality is not; heterosexuality is “natural”.

Two things we should note about this argument. First, it’s not a theistic argument. It is, of course, consistent with a theistic position, but it doesn’t require one or depend on one.

Secondly, as a philosophical matter you don’t have to accept the argument, or the conclusions that Newsite might draw from it. But it’s not an argument that is refuted by showing that homosexual behaviour occurs in species other than our own.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Far be it from me to tog out on the same team as Newsite, but he (she?) is employing an older and more well-established sense of the “nature” - the inherent, essential, charactaristic quality or constitution of things; the whatever-it-is that makes those things what they are. [...] The argument here is that heterosexuality is “natural” because it is fundamental to the propagation of the species, and it’s in the nature of the species to propagate itself. Hence heterosexuality is ordered towards the purpose for which the species exists and towards the impulse which drives the species in a way that homosexuality is not; heterosexuality is “natural”.

Well, that's certainly one way of looking at things. But you could also take the view that it's "natural", using either definition of the term, to have and enjoy sex, in which case it's completely natural to have male gay sex.

It's probably also worth pointing out that even if one were to accept that "heterosexuality is “natural” because it is fundamental to the propagation of the species", it would imply that religious people (a) accept the "survival of the fittest" stuff and (b) accept that being a sexless priest or nun is "unnatural".

Put it down to cognitive dissonance, I suppose.

sensibleken

Nature produced syphillis, hemlock and chicken pox

The un-natural include electric guitars, buckfast and thongs!

Fúck you nature!

Improbable

Peregrinus wrote: »

The argument here is that heterosexuality is “natural” because it is fundamental to the propagation of the species, and it’s in the nature of the species to propagate itself. Hence heterosexuality is ordered towards the purpose for which the species exists and towards the impulse which drives the species in a way that homosexuality is not; heterosexuality is “natural”.

This argument only holds water with those who have a fairly limited understanding of the nature of propagation on the level of species. Looking at human individuals, heterosexual sex is the only way of natural genetic propagation through time. However, what we need to do is look at it on the level of the entire species. That even though homosexuality might not contribute directly to creating another generation, there are factors which show that it does contribute indirectly to the propagation of the species as a whole.

For example, there are certain species of gulls that exhibit homosexual tendencies in response to a limited number of males. Females will often participate in homosexual relationships in these cases because the survival of the offspring is more likely with 2 parents than with 1, therefore leading to the propagation of the species as a whole without doing it directly. There's evidence in other social mammals which shows that homosexual behaviour can increase group cohesion, thus creating an overall benefit for the group rather than for the individual.

Studies have been conducted that homosexual people spend more time with nieces and nephews, perhaps indicating a sort of kin-selection, i.e. protecting the interests of your own genes that are in somebody else's body.

My point is that you cannot decide what is "natural" for an individual without looking at the basis for that in the advantages conferred to either the species as a whole or to other members of the individuals group.

sensibleken

Here's what I don't get.

Theres 1 line in Leviticus about man on man action. Its not even homosexuality as god seems perfectly fine with the ladies sharing a little loving. But the previous page god witters on for nearly an entire page about mildew. How to control it, how to get rid of it etc. Surely this means god is far more preoccupied with the state of your shower than where your willy goes.

On a side note add that to the big booming voice and I think god is Barry Scott from the cillit bang adds.

Gordon

I really wish god folk would stop trying to justify their bigoted views with random logic such as "homosexuality isn't natural because the word natural means 'heterosexuality'". Why can't they man up, tell the truth, and just say "Homosexuality is wrong because it says so in my book, therefore I believe it."