Divorce, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality emergency mark the return to prehistory, to the conception of reality and the world of the nomadic tribes of Neanderthal hunters.
Abstract: It is not the first time that a civilization has succumbed to the force sexual deviant. The ancient Babylonian civilization, the Greeks of Athens - including philosophers and poets - the Roman Empire, the Aztecs, or the Venetian Republic. The case of the Venetians, being closer in time, is particularly interesting. The council of ten in fact, realized the risks involved in the phenomenon of homosexual public emergency and tried to run for cover. Among other rented a building in order to establish a brothel: Ca Rampani, by the way today in Venice "Carampane" is synonymous with women of easy virtue and light. The prostitutes were given the task of redressing the plight of boys Venetians, and the obligation to stand at the window topless. But the experiment has not had the results hoped for, and Venice declined within 30/50 years.
The brief essay we suggest you call the cards on the table and helps to get a different opinion from that of the advanced culture of our generation. The author's vision - Dennis Prager - is drastic and somewhat incomplete, but provides a valuable knowledge base. We only notice that you can do is have overlooked a simple fact: the first law that sanctioned monogamy as the basis of marriage was the Roman law, which he passed from the domain of instinct marriage (marriage savage as Vico would say) to the rule of law, and gave it a shot hatchet to the slavery of women. If you look at Roman law there is nothing to push homosexuality, it declares that a lawful practice. The de facto emergency
and approval of homosexuality was in the imperial era, when the empire already brought in if the signs of its crisis and its decline. It 's true that the Mosaic law says homosexuality is an abomination, but the two laws can not, for obvious reasons, be compared. But this is said to look for the nit, the author's assertion that what is at stake is the survival of our civilization as we know, is the capital, and we must be aware of this and grateful to be his. End of the premise.
Abstract: It is not the first time that a civilization has succumbed to the force sexual deviant. The ancient Babylonian civilization, the Greeks of Athens - including philosophers and poets - the Roman Empire, the Aztecs, or the Venetian Republic. The case of the Venetians, being closer in time, is particularly interesting. The council of ten in fact, realized the risks involved in the phenomenon of homosexual public emergency and tried to run for cover. Among other rented a building in order to establish a brothel: Ca Rampani, by the way today in Venice "Carampane" is synonymous with women of easy virtue and light. The prostitutes were given the task of redressing the plight of boys Venetians, and the obligation to stand at the window topless. But the experiment has not had the results hoped for, and Venice declined within 30/50 years.
The brief essay we suggest you call the cards on the table and helps to get a different opinion from that of the advanced culture of our generation. The author's vision - Dennis Prager - is drastic and somewhat incomplete, but provides a valuable knowledge base. We only notice that you can do is have overlooked a simple fact: the first law that sanctioned monogamy as the basis of marriage was the Roman law, which he passed from the domain of instinct marriage (marriage savage as Vico would say) to the rule of law, and gave it a shot hatchet to the slavery of women. If you look at Roman law there is nothing to push homosexuality, it declares that a lawful practice. The de facto emergency
and approval of homosexuality was in the imperial era, when the empire already brought in if the signs of its crisis and its decline. It 's true that the Mosaic law says homosexuality is an abomination, but the two laws can not, for obvious reasons, be compared. But this is said to look for the nit, the author's assertion that what is at stake is the survival of our civilization as we know, is the capital, and we must be aware of this and grateful to be his. End of the premise.
Judaism's Sexual Revolution
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, this fact changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of sex outside of marriage, simply made possible the creation of Western civilization. Companies that have not put boundaries around sexuality were hampered in their development. The resulting domination of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity. This revolution is to put the force on sex in marriage. This ensured that sex no longer dominated society, raised the love between male and female sexuality (almost created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the Status of Women.
's probably impossible for us who live thousands of years after Judaism gave beginning of this movement in history, receiving up to a point that sex is not covered can dominate the life of man and society.
Through the ancient world and until recently in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality is polymorphous, or totally wild (far more than animal sexuality). Men have sexual activity with women and men, girls and boys, with individual partners or in groups, with strangers and relatives, with some domestic animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes and various clothing, or corpses, urine and defecating one another, wearing women's clothes, looking torturing human beings, patting children of both sexes, listening to the voice of a woman (the boom of sexual phone calls), or pornography, that is, looking at photos or drawings bodies or body parts. There are few things animate or inanimate that have not excited the men to orgasm. Of course not all of these practices are accepted by society - the incest between father and son or daughter, or seduce the wife of another has rarely been accepted - but many have adopted and maybe show what they can divert a sexual power bring (the Freudian term would be: "not exalted").
desexualisation of God and religion
Among the consequences of this sexual energy is not channeled to the sexualization of everything, including religion. Without the sexual force is dominated properly (not suppressed, because you would have destructive consequences) the highest religions would not have developed. This is why the first thing he did was to Judaism desexualisation God: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" by his will, and not through any sexual act. This means a total and radical break with all other religions, and that alone changed human history.
The gods of all the virtual civilization of that time were involved in sexual relations. In the Middle East, the goddess Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero. In the religion of the Egyptian god Osiris had sexual relations with his sister Isis, who conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El, the god who had the same characteristics of the greek Zeus had intercourse with Asherath, Juno. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was sexually active, having relationships with many women, and always chasing the goddess Radha. In turn, the god of Samba, the son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men. Belief in the Greek Zeus, Hera chased after married women and abducted the beautiful young Ganymede, after having done so to become the bearer of the gods, he spent most of his time to masturbate. Poseidon married Amphitrite, chases at the same time Demeter and violent Tantalus. Even in Rome the gods chased for sex both men and women.
After so much sexual activity by the gods, do not be surprised to discover that all religions and mystery rites included all sorts of sexual activity. (Compare the liturgical core of the Eleusinian mysteries, the meetings of Delphi and orgies in honor of Pan, ed.) In the ancient Middle East and all over, virgins were deflowered by priests before marriage, and sacred prostitution was almost universal. The history of psychiatry Norman Sussman describes the situation this way: "Hustler males and females, serving temporarily or permanently, making all sorts of activities sexual use of the faithful, heterosexual, homosexual, oral or genital, also shared the name of the temple in their favor. "Across the Middle East, From the earliest times, anal intercourse as a part of worship to the gods.
In ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan, took place an annual ceremony where the king and a priestess had a sexual relationship. Women sacred prostitutes had sex with men in shrines and temples of ancient Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Corinth, Carthage, Sicily, Egypt, Libya, West Africa and India. At the same ancient Israel there are repeated attempts to reintroduce the prostitution in the temples. The Bible notes that the king Asa sent away from the nation qdeshim (male prostitutes of the temple), and that his successor Jehosaphat sent away from the nation's qdeshim who had remained in the temple since the time of his father King Asa. " Later, King Josiah, in his religious reform, "closed the houses of qdeshim. In India
until this century some Hindu cults have required intercourse between monks and nuns, and wives have had sexual relations with representatives of the priests.
This form of worship became illegal in 1948, when India gained independence. Until that year the Hindu temples in many parts of India were women and young prostitutes. In the fourteenth century, the Chinese found gay Tibetan religious rites practiced at the court of a Mongol emperor. In Sri Lanka (Ceylon), even in this century, the Buddhist worship the goddess shoes involved priests dressed as women, and the consort of the goddess was symbolically castrated.
Judaism placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was considered a holy place - which in Hebrew means "separated" from the world - and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife. The restriction of Jewish sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that made the company capable of moving forward. Together monotheistic ethics, the revolution began when the Torah declared war on the sexual practices of the world.
's probably impossible for us who live thousands of years after Judaism gave beginning of this movement in history, receiving up to a point that sex is not covered can dominate the life of man and society.
Through the ancient world and until recently in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality is polymorphous, or totally wild (far more than animal sexuality). Men have sexual activity with women and men, girls and boys, with individual partners or in groups, with strangers and relatives, with some domestic animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes and various clothing, or corpses, urine and defecating one another, wearing women's clothes, looking torturing human beings, patting children of both sexes, listening to the voice of a woman (the boom of sexual phone calls), or pornography, that is, looking at photos or drawings bodies or body parts. There are few things animate or inanimate that have not excited the men to orgasm. Of course not all of these practices are accepted by society - the incest between father and son or daughter, or seduce the wife of another has rarely been accepted - but many have adopted and maybe show what they can divert a sexual power bring (the Freudian term would be: "not exalted").
desexualisation of God and religion
Among the consequences of this sexual energy is not channeled to the sexualization of everything, including religion. Without the sexual force is dominated properly (not suppressed, because you would have destructive consequences) the highest religions would not have developed. This is why the first thing he did was to Judaism desexualisation God: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" by his will, and not through any sexual act. This means a total and radical break with all other religions, and that alone changed human history.
The gods of all the virtual civilization of that time were involved in sexual relations. In the Middle East, the goddess Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero. In the religion of the Egyptian god Osiris had sexual relations with his sister Isis, who conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El, the god who had the same characteristics of the greek Zeus had intercourse with Asherath, Juno. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was sexually active, having relationships with many women, and always chasing the goddess Radha. In turn, the god of Samba, the son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men. Belief in the Greek Zeus, Hera chased after married women and abducted the beautiful young Ganymede, after having done so to become the bearer of the gods, he spent most of his time to masturbate. Poseidon married Amphitrite, chases at the same time Demeter and violent Tantalus. Even in Rome the gods chased for sex both men and women.
After so much sexual activity by the gods, do not be surprised to discover that all religions and mystery rites included all sorts of sexual activity. (Compare the liturgical core of the Eleusinian mysteries, the meetings of Delphi and orgies in honor of Pan, ed.) In the ancient Middle East and all over, virgins were deflowered by priests before marriage, and sacred prostitution was almost universal. The history of psychiatry Norman Sussman describes the situation this way: "Hustler males and females, serving temporarily or permanently, making all sorts of activities sexual use of the faithful, heterosexual, homosexual, oral or genital, also shared the name of the temple in their favor. "Across the Middle East, From the earliest times, anal intercourse as a part of worship to the gods.
In ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan, took place an annual ceremony where the king and a priestess had a sexual relationship. Women sacred prostitutes had sex with men in shrines and temples of ancient Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Corinth, Carthage, Sicily, Egypt, Libya, West Africa and India. At the same ancient Israel there are repeated attempts to reintroduce the prostitution in the temples. The Bible notes that the king Asa sent away from the nation qdeshim (male prostitutes of the temple), and that his successor Jehosaphat sent away from the nation's qdeshim who had remained in the temple since the time of his father King Asa. " Later, King Josiah, in his religious reform, "closed the houses of qdeshim. In India
until this century some Hindu cults have required intercourse between monks and nuns, and wives have had sexual relations with representatives of the priests.
This form of worship became illegal in 1948, when India gained independence. Until that year the Hindu temples in many parts of India were women and young prostitutes. In the fourteenth century, the Chinese found gay Tibetan religious rites practiced at the court of a Mongol emperor. In Sri Lanka (Ceylon), even in this century, the Buddhist worship the goddess shoes involved priests dressed as women, and the consort of the goddess was symbolically castrated.
Judaism placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was considered a holy place - which in Hebrew means "separated" from the world - and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife. The restriction of Jewish sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that made the company capable of moving forward. Together monotheistic ethics, the revolution began when the Torah declared war on the sexual practices of the world.
Invention homosexuality
The revolutionary nature of Judaism that prohibited any form of sex outside of marriage was more radical than ever, challenging in the face of overriding commitment of humanity with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the very concept of homosexuality, because in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality, this division was the work of the Bible. Before the biblical formula, and even after, the ancient world divided sexuality between penetration (partner active) and penetrated. As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown, recently wrote, the ancients did not worry about the preferred type of person more than people today are concerned about the preferences of eating: the old categories of sexual experiences differ considerably from our ... The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive. The type of the object is not itself morally problematic. Children and women are often treated interchangeably as objects of male desire. What is socially important is to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is understood fundamentally not as an exchange (interaction) but how to do something to someone. Judaism changed all this, making the "kind of object" morally problematic and therefore must be that no one is sexually interchangeable. As a result, this assures us that sex is basically "interaction" and not "doing something to someone."
To appreciate the scope of the revolution developed from Judaism, in prohibiting homosexuality and demanding that all sexual interaction was between male and female, is first necessary to appreciate how it was accepted, valued, and practiced homosexuality in the world.
The only exception was the Jewish civilization, and - thousand years later - the Christian civilization. Except the Jews, "none of the archaic civilizations prohibited homosexuality per se," said Dr. David E. Greenberg. Judaism, which was only three thousand years ago declared homosexuality wrong thing. And he says this with the strongest language he could use, "you will not have relations with a male as one lies with women: it is abomination ... If a man has a relationship with another as with a woman both have committed an abomination."
Greenberg, his book entitled "Construction of homosexuality" is one of the most historically reliable studies, summarizes the universal nature of homosexuality with these words: "with few exceptions, male homosexuality was not stigmatized and repressed, if not by the rules regarding gender, age and condition of partners. The major exception seems to have arisen in only two circumstances, both Jewish. "
Biblical truth
The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (the pact, the alliance of the first five books, known as the Pentateuch, and that the tradition ascribes to Moses) has done more for the civilization of the world that any book or idea in history. And 'the Hebrew Bible that instructed men on the existence of a universal God who loves and moral. Ethical obligations to this God and with a sense of history in progress toward moral and spiritual redemption, believing that history has a development and management, the notion that human freedom and social justice are divine values \u200b\u200bdesired by God for all peoples. The Bible has given the world the 10 Commandments, ethical monotheism, the concept of holiness (the goal of raising human beings from animal life in the likeness of God). So if the Bible makes strong moral proclamations I listen with great respect. Regarding homosexuality, the Bible speaks with such clear and direct language that one should not be a religious fundamentalist to be influenced by his views. It 'just look at himself a jew or a Christian seriously. Jews and Christians who take the Bible's views on homosexuality seriously are not required to prove that they are fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Bible, much less that they are not bigots, although clearly there were bigots who have used the Bible to defend their bigotry. Rather
those who claim that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity, would be required to reconcile this view with the Bible. Given the unambiguous nature of the attitude about the Bible, homosexuality, such reconciliation is not possible. The only option is to declare: "I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality but I consider the Bible wrong. " This would be an intellectually honest approach. But this approach raises another question: if one chooses which of the moral claims of the Bible are to be taken seriously, and the Bible says homosexuality not only as a prohibition law, but as a value - it is an abomination - what good is morally Bible?.
religious acceptance of homosexuality Defenders respond that while the Bible is morally advanced in certain areas, in others it is morally regressive. His condemnation of homosexuality would be an example and the fact that the Torah permits slavery another. However, far from being immoral, the prohibition of homosexuality by the Torah was indeed a major part of its liberation from the bonds of human sexuality and unrestrained women from being marginalized from the lives of men. As for slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality wrong, it never says that slavery is good.
Those who advocate religious acceptance of homosexuality also argue that the Bible pronounce sentences of death for a multitude of sins, including acts apparently without consequences, such as collecting firewood on the Sabbath. So the fact that the Torah declares homosexuality crime capital may mean that homosexuality is no longer as serious as murder, that any breach of the Sabbath. And since most do not condemn those who violate the Sabbath, why continue to condemn those who practice homosexual acts?
The answer is that we derive our position on homosexuality by the fact that the Torah has declared a capital crime. The fact that we learn from the Bible's moral statement about homosexuality. It makes no statement about gathering wood on the Sabbath day. The Torah uses the strongest term of condemnation - disgusting - to describe homosexuality. E 'assessment of homosexuality from the Bible that sets it apart from other crimes, capital or not. As written by Professor Greenberg, who have not shown any inclination toward religious belief, "when the word toevah * * (abomination) in the Bible, is sometimes associated with idolatry, cult prostitution, magic or witchcraft, and is sometimes used in a more general way. Always send a great repugnance. Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality along with the sacrifice of children as abominations practiced by the peoples who inhabited the land that was being conquered by the Jews. The two are not morally comparable, although both were characterized by a morally primitive world that Judaism was going to destroy.
They both feature an opposite way of life that God asked the Jews (and also from non-Jews - homosexuality is one of the sexual crimes that constitute one of the seven laws of Noah's sons that Judaism believes that all people should observe). Finally, the Bible adds a particular threat to the Jews, if they practice homosexuality and other crimes of the Canaanites: "You will be vomited from the country," as non-Jews who practiced these things were vomited from the country.
Again as noted by Greenberg, this threat suggests that these crimes were considered very serious.
The revolutionary nature of Judaism that prohibited any form of sex outside of marriage was more radical than ever, challenging in the face of overriding commitment of humanity with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the very concept of homosexuality, because in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality, this division was the work of the Bible. Before the biblical formula, and even after, the ancient world divided sexuality between penetration (partner active) and penetrated. As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown, recently wrote, the ancients did not worry about the preferred type of person more than people today are concerned about the preferences of eating: the old categories of sexual experiences differ considerably from our ... The central distinction in sexual morality was the distinction between active and passive. The type of the object is not itself morally problematic. Children and women are often treated interchangeably as objects of male desire. What is socially important is to penetrate rather than to be penetrated. Sex is understood fundamentally not as an exchange (interaction) but how to do something to someone. Judaism changed all this, making the "kind of object" morally problematic and therefore must be that no one is sexually interchangeable. As a result, this assures us that sex is basically "interaction" and not "doing something to someone."
To appreciate the scope of the revolution developed from Judaism, in prohibiting homosexuality and demanding that all sexual interaction was between male and female, is first necessary to appreciate how it was accepted, valued, and practiced homosexuality in the world.
The only exception was the Jewish civilization, and - thousand years later - the Christian civilization. Except the Jews, "none of the archaic civilizations prohibited homosexuality per se," said Dr. David E. Greenberg. Judaism, which was only three thousand years ago declared homosexuality wrong thing. And he says this with the strongest language he could use, "you will not have relations with a male as one lies with women: it is abomination ... If a man has a relationship with another as with a woman both have committed an abomination."
Greenberg, his book entitled "Construction of homosexuality" is one of the most historically reliable studies, summarizes the universal nature of homosexuality with these words: "with few exceptions, male homosexuality was not stigmatized and repressed, if not by the rules regarding gender, age and condition of partners. The major exception seems to have arisen in only two circumstances, both Jewish. "
Biblical truth
The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (the pact, the alliance of the first five books, known as the Pentateuch, and that the tradition ascribes to Moses) has done more for the civilization of the world that any book or idea in history. And 'the Hebrew Bible that instructed men on the existence of a universal God who loves and moral. Ethical obligations to this God and with a sense of history in progress toward moral and spiritual redemption, believing that history has a development and management, the notion that human freedom and social justice are divine values \u200b\u200bdesired by God for all peoples. The Bible has given the world the 10 Commandments, ethical monotheism, the concept of holiness (the goal of raising human beings from animal life in the likeness of God). So if the Bible makes strong moral proclamations I listen with great respect. Regarding homosexuality, the Bible speaks with such clear and direct language that one should not be a religious fundamentalist to be influenced by his views. It 'just look at himself a jew or a Christian seriously. Jews and Christians who take the Bible's views on homosexuality seriously are not required to prove that they are fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Bible, much less that they are not bigots, although clearly there were bigots who have used the Bible to defend their bigotry. Rather
those who claim that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity, would be required to reconcile this view with the Bible. Given the unambiguous nature of the attitude about the Bible, homosexuality, such reconciliation is not possible. The only option is to declare: "I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality but I consider the Bible wrong. " This would be an intellectually honest approach. But this approach raises another question: if one chooses which of the moral claims of the Bible are to be taken seriously, and the Bible says homosexuality not only as a prohibition law, but as a value - it is an abomination - what good is morally Bible?.
religious acceptance of homosexuality Defenders respond that while the Bible is morally advanced in certain areas, in others it is morally regressive. His condemnation of homosexuality would be an example and the fact that the Torah permits slavery another. However, far from being immoral, the prohibition of homosexuality by the Torah was indeed a major part of its liberation from the bonds of human sexuality and unrestrained women from being marginalized from the lives of men. As for slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality wrong, it never says that slavery is good.
Those who advocate religious acceptance of homosexuality also argue that the Bible pronounce sentences of death for a multitude of sins, including acts apparently without consequences, such as collecting firewood on the Sabbath. So the fact that the Torah declares homosexuality crime capital may mean that homosexuality is no longer as serious as murder, that any breach of the Sabbath. And since most do not condemn those who violate the Sabbath, why continue to condemn those who practice homosexual acts?
The answer is that we derive our position on homosexuality by the fact that the Torah has declared a capital crime. The fact that we learn from the Bible's moral statement about homosexuality. It makes no statement about gathering wood on the Sabbath day. The Torah uses the strongest term of condemnation - disgusting - to describe homosexuality. E 'assessment of homosexuality from the Bible that sets it apart from other crimes, capital or not. As written by Professor Greenberg, who have not shown any inclination toward religious belief, "when the word toevah * * (abomination) in the Bible, is sometimes associated with idolatry, cult prostitution, magic or witchcraft, and is sometimes used in a more general way. Always send a great repugnance. Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality along with the sacrifice of children as abominations practiced by the peoples who inhabited the land that was being conquered by the Jews. The two are not morally comparable, although both were characterized by a morally primitive world that Judaism was going to destroy.
They both feature an opposite way of life that God asked the Jews (and also from non-Jews - homosexuality is one of the sexual crimes that constitute one of the seven laws of Noah's sons that Judaism believes that all people should observe). Finally, the Bible adds a particular threat to the Jews, if they practice homosexuality and other crimes of the Canaanites: "You will be vomited from the country," as non-Jews who practiced these things were vomited from the country.
Again as noted by Greenberg, this threat suggests that these crimes were considered very serious.
Choose life
not Judaism can make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of the fundamental principles of Judaism rejects life, denies the desire expressed by God that man and woman dwell together, and denies the basic structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family .. If you want to talk about the essence of Judaism, it is the affirmation of the Torah "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse, you choose life."
Judaism affirms that favors or opposes the life and separates what is death. Thus, a Jewish priest (cohen) will only life. Perhaps unique among religions, Judaism forbade its priests to get closer to the dead. (See the attitude of the priest in the parable of the Good Samaritan, ed.) To cite other examples, the flesh (death) is separated from milk (life), menstruation (death) is separated from sexual intercourse (life), carnivorous animals (death) are separated by herbivorous animals (kosher = life). It 's probably why the torah way of thinking that equates the sacrifice of children with male homosexuality. Although it is not morally comparable both represent death: a suicide to children, the other to prevent having their life .. This parallelism is in the Talmud "He who does not engages in the propagation of life is as if he had shed blood. "
The first declaration of God for man (the human being in general and specifically in the male) is "not good that man should be alone." Now he might get another man, or a community of men. But God wanted to solve the loneliness of man creating another person, a woman, and no man, no more women, or a community of men and women. The loneliness of the man was not determined by the fact that she was not with other people, but resulted from his being without a woman. Of course, Judaism asserts that women need men. However, both the affirmation of the Torah and Jewish law have been more insistent on the fact that men marry than to marry women. Judaism is concerned with what happens to men and to society when men do not channel their passions in marriage. In this respect, the Torah and Christianity were highly prescient: the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by unmarried men. So the male celibacy, a sacred state in many religions, is a sin in Judaism. To become fully human, male and female must join. In the words of Genesis, "God created man ... male and female he created them", the union of male and female is not merely a beautiful ideal, is the essence of the Jewish vision of becoming human. Denying it is equivalent to denying a primary purpose of life.
Jews do not need to be informed about the centrality of family in Jewish life. Throughout their history, one of the most noteworthy characteristics of the Jews was their commitment to family life. Judaism for the family - not the nation and not the individual - will be the basic unit, the brick with which we build the company. When God blesses Abraham says, "you will be blessed in all the families of the earth."
The enemy of woman
Yet another reason for the opposition of Judaism against homosexuality is the negative effect it has on women. One of the most remarkable aspects of homosexuality by society is the lack of outcry from and on behalf of women. I say buzz (outcry) because there is much weeping (crying) women silent about this matter, as we often hear the complaints of women themselves, the fact that so many men are "gay." But the main reason for anyone concerned with equality of women, worry about homosexuality, is the direct relationship between the prevalence of male homosexual and the relegation of women with low social role. The improved status of women just happened in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality.
In societies where men sought other men for love and sex, women were relegated to the margins of society. So for example, ancient Greece, which had elevated homosexuality to an ideal, was characterized by a misogynist attitude, writes Norman Sussman.
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece, Sussman wrote, "was intimately linked to an idealized concept of man" male "as the center of intellectual and physical activity is ... considered the only woman in two roles. As the wife ran the house. As a courtesan satisfy the sexual desires of males. " The Classicist Eva Keuls describes Athens to the top of his philosophical and artistic greatness as a society dominated by men who confiscated their wives and daughters, denigrate the female role in reproduction, erect monuments to male genitalia, have sex with their children's equal .... "
In medieval France, when men began to stress the love between male and female, there appeared a lack of interest to women. In the Song of Roland, an epic poem of the eleventh or twelfth century, women appear as marginal and shadowy figures, a sign of deeper love the poem appears in the love of man for man. Women in Arab society, where homosexuality is extended, remain in a condition remarkably low compared to the modern world. This may be a coincidence, but common sense suggests a link. So also in traditional Chinese culture the low status of women has had a link with the spread of homosexuality. As he wrote in a report a French physicist of the last century, "Chinese women were so docile and dumb housewives that men, as in ancient Greece, courtesans and boys tried."
While traditional Judaism is not egalitarian, as would many Jews this century, it was really that Judaism began to elevate the status of women, insisting on marriage, family and rejecting the infidelity and homosexuality. While other cultures wrote poems erotic-sentimental, Jewish culture produces the Song of Songs, perhaps the most beautiful poem about love sexy men and women that has ever been written.
A final reason for opposing homosexuality is the homosexual lifestyle. While they say it is possible for male homosexuals to live a life of fidelity comparable to that of heterosexual males, this is not usually the case. While the typical lesbian has had an average of just over ten lovers, the typical male homosexual in America has had 500. In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals realize that what you dislike the most is the people of the male homosexual lifestyle, rather than the specific sexual act, so it pays less attention to female homosexuality.
When male homosexuality is not controlled, the consequences are more destructive than women were excluded. Violent men, women do not. The men, not women, are involved in fetishism. Men are more likely from their sexual power and move from one partner to another. Men and women are not sexually sadistic. The indiscriminate sex that characterizes much male homosexual life represents the antithesis of the purpose of raising Jewish human life, from life-like animals than like God
The ideal Jewish
Judaism has a great sex - sex in marriage - all other forms of sexual behavior, even if they are equally wrong, deviate from this ideal. More deviate more Judaism is opposed to this behavior. So there are different degrees of error in sexuality. There, one might say, a series of mistakes ranging from sex outside of marriage, celibacy, adultery, homosexuality, incest and bestiality. You can understand why Judaism rejects homosexuality if we understand first his attitude to these unacceptable practices. For example, the Jewish law forcefully rejects the claim that celibacy is an equally valid lifestyle to marriage. Judaism says that a life without marriage is less holy, less complete and less Jewish. Thus, only a married man may be the high priest, and only a man who has had children can sit as a judge in the supreme court Jewish. To put it in modern terms: as an unmarried rabbi may be the spiritual leader of a synagogue, however, could be dismissed at any synagogue if publicly declare that the individual would remain a valid way of life of marriage. Despite all any jew could say that Jews should be restricted from unmarried Jewish community life. The Jews who are not married should be loved and accepted in religious society, and the family. This attitude not to marry would help us to understand the Jewish attitude toward homosexuality. First, homosexuality contradicts the Jewish ideal. Second, it could be considered equally valid. Third, all q uelli publicly involved in homosexuality can not play roles in Jewish public. Fourth, but homosexuals should be included in the Jewish community life and must to be loved as individuals and as Jews.
But we can not open the door to sex outside the marriage. Why agree to any form of sexual behavior outside of marriage is morally equal to sex in marriage, you open the door to all other forms of sexual expression. If consensual homosexual activity is valid, because it could not be consensual incest between adults? Why is sex between an adult brother and sister more objectionable is that sex between two adult men? If a couple agrees, why not allow a consensual adultery? Once that sex outside of marriage is approved, where we can put a limit? Why the gay liberation should not be followed by the release of incest? Accepting homosexuality as a social or religious equivalent to heterosexuality would constitute the biggest attack on our society, sexually monogamous and family-based. While progress is regarded as acceptance of homosexuality, but she is not entirely new. Again
sexual ideals of Judaism and especially its opposition to homosexuality makes it different from the Jews forever. Already by the second century BC, Jewish writers noticed the big differences between the sex lives of Jews with that of their non-Jewish neighbors. In the Sibylline Oracles, written by an Egyptian Jew probably between 163 and 45 BC, the author compares the Jews with other nations: the Jews are mindful of their marriage, and not have sex with children, as did the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and other nations, Persians, Galatians and all Asia, and in our times sexologist karnel Arno writes that according to the scholar Alfred Kinseyn "homosexuality as a phenomenon was rare among Orthodox Jews."
not Judaism can make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of the fundamental principles of Judaism rejects life, denies the desire expressed by God that man and woman dwell together, and denies the basic structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family .. If you want to talk about the essence of Judaism, it is the affirmation of the Torah "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse, you choose life."
Judaism affirms that favors or opposes the life and separates what is death. Thus, a Jewish priest (cohen) will only life. Perhaps unique among religions, Judaism forbade its priests to get closer to the dead. (See the attitude of the priest in the parable of the Good Samaritan, ed.) To cite other examples, the flesh (death) is separated from milk (life), menstruation (death) is separated from sexual intercourse (life), carnivorous animals (death) are separated by herbivorous animals (kosher = life). It 's probably why the torah way of thinking that equates the sacrifice of children with male homosexuality. Although it is not morally comparable both represent death: a suicide to children, the other to prevent having their life .. This parallelism is in the Talmud "He who does not engages in the propagation of life is as if he had shed blood. "
The first declaration of God for man (the human being in general and specifically in the male) is "not good that man should be alone." Now he might get another man, or a community of men. But God wanted to solve the loneliness of man creating another person, a woman, and no man, no more women, or a community of men and women. The loneliness of the man was not determined by the fact that she was not with other people, but resulted from his being without a woman. Of course, Judaism asserts that women need men. However, both the affirmation of the Torah and Jewish law have been more insistent on the fact that men marry than to marry women. Judaism is concerned with what happens to men and to society when men do not channel their passions in marriage. In this respect, the Torah and Christianity were highly prescient: the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by unmarried men. So the male celibacy, a sacred state in many religions, is a sin in Judaism. To become fully human, male and female must join. In the words of Genesis, "God created man ... male and female he created them", the union of male and female is not merely a beautiful ideal, is the essence of the Jewish vision of becoming human. Denying it is equivalent to denying a primary purpose of life.
Jews do not need to be informed about the centrality of family in Jewish life. Throughout their history, one of the most noteworthy characteristics of the Jews was their commitment to family life. Judaism for the family - not the nation and not the individual - will be the basic unit, the brick with which we build the company. When God blesses Abraham says, "you will be blessed in all the families of the earth."
The enemy of woman
Yet another reason for the opposition of Judaism against homosexuality is the negative effect it has on women. One of the most remarkable aspects of homosexuality by society is the lack of outcry from and on behalf of women. I say buzz (outcry) because there is much weeping (crying) women silent about this matter, as we often hear the complaints of women themselves, the fact that so many men are "gay." But the main reason for anyone concerned with equality of women, worry about homosexuality, is the direct relationship between the prevalence of male homosexual and the relegation of women with low social role. The improved status of women just happened in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality.
In societies where men sought other men for love and sex, women were relegated to the margins of society. So for example, ancient Greece, which had elevated homosexuality to an ideal, was characterized by a misogynist attitude, writes Norman Sussman.
Homosexuality in Ancient Greece, Sussman wrote, "was intimately linked to an idealized concept of man" male "as the center of intellectual and physical activity is ... considered the only woman in two roles. As the wife ran the house. As a courtesan satisfy the sexual desires of males. " The Classicist Eva Keuls describes Athens to the top of his philosophical and artistic greatness as a society dominated by men who confiscated their wives and daughters, denigrate the female role in reproduction, erect monuments to male genitalia, have sex with their children's equal .... "
In medieval France, when men began to stress the love between male and female, there appeared a lack of interest to women. In the Song of Roland, an epic poem of the eleventh or twelfth century, women appear as marginal and shadowy figures, a sign of deeper love the poem appears in the love of man for man. Women in Arab society, where homosexuality is extended, remain in a condition remarkably low compared to the modern world. This may be a coincidence, but common sense suggests a link. So also in traditional Chinese culture the low status of women has had a link with the spread of homosexuality. As he wrote in a report a French physicist of the last century, "Chinese women were so docile and dumb housewives that men, as in ancient Greece, courtesans and boys tried."
While traditional Judaism is not egalitarian, as would many Jews this century, it was really that Judaism began to elevate the status of women, insisting on marriage, family and rejecting the infidelity and homosexuality. While other cultures wrote poems erotic-sentimental, Jewish culture produces the Song of Songs, perhaps the most beautiful poem about love sexy men and women that has ever been written.
A final reason for opposing homosexuality is the homosexual lifestyle. While they say it is possible for male homosexuals to live a life of fidelity comparable to that of heterosexual males, this is not usually the case. While the typical lesbian has had an average of just over ten lovers, the typical male homosexual in America has had 500. In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals realize that what you dislike the most is the people of the male homosexual lifestyle, rather than the specific sexual act, so it pays less attention to female homosexuality.
When male homosexuality is not controlled, the consequences are more destructive than women were excluded. Violent men, women do not. The men, not women, are involved in fetishism. Men are more likely from their sexual power and move from one partner to another. Men and women are not sexually sadistic. The indiscriminate sex that characterizes much male homosexual life represents the antithesis of the purpose of raising Jewish human life, from life-like animals than like God
The ideal Jewish
Judaism has a great sex - sex in marriage - all other forms of sexual behavior, even if they are equally wrong, deviate from this ideal. More deviate more Judaism is opposed to this behavior. So there are different degrees of error in sexuality. There, one might say, a series of mistakes ranging from sex outside of marriage, celibacy, adultery, homosexuality, incest and bestiality. You can understand why Judaism rejects homosexuality if we understand first his attitude to these unacceptable practices. For example, the Jewish law forcefully rejects the claim that celibacy is an equally valid lifestyle to marriage. Judaism says that a life without marriage is less holy, less complete and less Jewish. Thus, only a married man may be the high priest, and only a man who has had children can sit as a judge in the supreme court Jewish. To put it in modern terms: as an unmarried rabbi may be the spiritual leader of a synagogue, however, could be dismissed at any synagogue if publicly declare that the individual would remain a valid way of life of marriage. Despite all any jew could say that Jews should be restricted from unmarried Jewish community life. The Jews who are not married should be loved and accepted in religious society, and the family. This attitude not to marry would help us to understand the Jewish attitude toward homosexuality. First, homosexuality contradicts the Jewish ideal. Second, it could be considered equally valid. Third, all q uelli publicly involved in homosexuality can not play roles in Jewish public. Fourth, but homosexuals should be included in the Jewish community life and must to be loved as individuals and as Jews.
But we can not open the door to sex outside the marriage. Why agree to any form of sexual behavior outside of marriage is morally equal to sex in marriage, you open the door to all other forms of sexual expression. If consensual homosexual activity is valid, because it could not be consensual incest between adults? Why is sex between an adult brother and sister more objectionable is that sex between two adult men? If a couple agrees, why not allow a consensual adultery? Once that sex outside of marriage is approved, where we can put a limit? Why the gay liberation should not be followed by the release of incest? Accepting homosexuality as a social or religious equivalent to heterosexuality would constitute the biggest attack on our society, sexually monogamous and family-based. While progress is regarded as acceptance of homosexuality, but she is not entirely new. Again
sexual ideals of Judaism and especially its opposition to homosexuality makes it different from the Jews forever. Already by the second century BC, Jewish writers noticed the big differences between the sex lives of Jews with that of their non-Jewish neighbors. In the Sibylline Oracles, written by an Egyptian Jew probably between 163 and 45 BC, the author compares the Jews with other nations: the Jews are mindful of their marriage, and not have sex with children, as did the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and other nations, Persians, Galatians and all Asia, and in our times sexologist karnel Arno writes that according to the scholar Alfred Kinseyn "homosexuality as a phenomenon was rare among Orthodox Jews."
homosexuals are born or made?
moral and psychological
The most frequent response on the arguments presented against homosexuality is: but do not have homosexuals choice. For many, this statement is so emotionally powerful that they do not need further thought. How can we oppose actions that people did not choose? The issue is much more instructive when a concrete formula for this: homosexuality is biologically programmed from childhood or implanted in humans is socially and psychologically?
Clearly there is a valid response to all homosexuals. What we can say definitely is that some gay people embarked on the road in childhood, and that the majority of homosexuals, having had sex with both male and female homosexuality has chosen in preference to heterosexuality. We chose to say because most of the "gay" had relations with women. As a study of 128 gay men of a team of psychologists of the University of California revealed "more than 92% of gay men have had with a woman approaches, two-thirds have had sex with a woman."
In our time there is a theory that homosexuals are biologically programmed to be. Despite an understandable and strong desire by many to try, there is no evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined. Of course one could argue that homosexuality is biologically determined, but that the company helps many homosexuals to suppress their homosexuality. However, if this argument is true, if society can successfully repress homosexual inclinations, this can lead to two conclusions: that the company should do for his own good, or that the company should not do it for the good of the individual .
return to the question of values. One would think that people are naturally bisexual. Ironically, however if this is true, the argument on homosexual choice is strengthened rather than weakened. Because if we all have bisexual tendencies, and the majority of us successfully suppress his homosexual impulses, then homosexuality is frequently overcome or choice. Once again we return to our original question as to which idea our company should build sex: heterosexual or homosexual.
Conclusion: 1. Homosexuality may be biologically caused (even if we do not have any evidence), but it is certainly psychologically ingrained (perhaps permanently) in childhood in some cases. Presumably these individuals have only ever had sexual feelings for their gender. Historically speaking a minority among homosexuals.
2. In many cases, homosexuality is not permanently grounded. These individuals have gone after gay-heterosexual experiences, or always have been bisexual or lived in a society that encourages homosexuality writes ... Greemberg, which also is in favor of gay liberation: "Biologists who design these traits as inherited and psychologists who think that these preferences are determined in childhood pay little attention to the fact that many homosexuals have had extensive heterosexual experience.
3. then the evidence leads to this conclusion: it is society and not the individual who chooses the very practice of homosexuality. The values \u200b\u200bof society, much of individual tendencies, determine the extent of homosexuality in society. So we can have great sympathy for the homosexual person as we are opposed strongly to the social acceptance of homosexuality. It preserves both the heart and our values.
Is homosexuality a disease?
The company, in short, may consider homosexuality ... right or wrong depending on whether the single or the waste. Even Freud did not think that homosexuality in itself meant that a person was sick. According to his standard psycho sexual development, he considered homosexuality as a developmental arrest. But until 1973 the psychiatrists considered homosexuality a disease. To cite one of countless examples, Dr Leo Rangell, a psychoanalyst, wrote that he had never seen a gay male who does not manifest a fear of the vagina.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (American Psychiatric Association) removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of psychiatric disorders). Gay activists have used this as the most important weapon in their battle for acceptance of homosexuality in society. But for many reasons, the APA's decision did not resolve the question of whether homosexuality is a disease and the issue might well be unsolvable. Given the hybrid
moral judgments and unclear in the history of psychiatry, especially since 1960, all that it could be concluded by the decision of the APA to remove homosexuality from its list of diseases is that, while perhaps he had the right, psychiatry organized has given us little reason to trust his judgments on politically charged issues. For these reasons, the fact that the APA does not classify homosexuality as a disease should not persuade anyone who is not. The subjective nature of the term mental illness, given the power of gay activists, and given the political views of the management group of the APA (as opposed, however, the majority of its members), the vote of the association means nothing to most observers.
If social pressures have forced psychiatrists in the past to classify homosexuality as a disease, how can we ensure that the social pressures of our times do not have them forced to label it as normal? Psychiatrists today are perhaps less influenced by social pressures than were their predecessors? I doubt it. So putting aside the ambivalence of psychiatry as well ask the question about homosexuality. Assuming that it is normal, it is normal for a man to be unable to make love to a woman, or vice versa? Presumably there are only three possible answers:
1.La majority of homosexuals can make love with a woman, but find this repugnant act, or simply prefer to make love with men.
2. Yes, it is normal.
3. No, not normal.
If we consider the first valid response, then we must admit that the homosexual has chosen his homosexuality. And so we wonder if, when someone chooses to love his own sex instead of the other has made this choice based on a psychologically healthy.
If you accept the second answer, each of us is free to evaluate this response in itself. I, for one, do not believe that the inability of a man making love with a woman can be considered normal. While this man may be healthy and beautiful in all other areas of life and even more gentle, active and ethics of many heterosexuals, this field can not be called normal. Men are designed to make love with women, and vice versa. The eye presents us with an analogy: If the majority of people become blind, blindness would still be abnormal. The eye is designed to see. So I choose the third answer, that homosexuality is not healthy. This, however, is that knowing that in the psychological "disease" can be a description of your country, rather than an objective science (which may simply does not exist in this field).
moral and psychological
The most frequent response on the arguments presented against homosexuality is: but do not have homosexuals choice. For many, this statement is so emotionally powerful that they do not need further thought. How can we oppose actions that people did not choose? The issue is much more instructive when a concrete formula for this: homosexuality is biologically programmed from childhood or implanted in humans is socially and psychologically?
Clearly there is a valid response to all homosexuals. What we can say definitely is that some gay people embarked on the road in childhood, and that the majority of homosexuals, having had sex with both male and female homosexuality has chosen in preference to heterosexuality. We chose to say because most of the "gay" had relations with women. As a study of 128 gay men of a team of psychologists of the University of California revealed "more than 92% of gay men have had with a woman approaches, two-thirds have had sex with a woman."
In our time there is a theory that homosexuals are biologically programmed to be. Despite an understandable and strong desire by many to try, there is no evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined. Of course one could argue that homosexuality is biologically determined, but that the company helps many homosexuals to suppress their homosexuality. However, if this argument is true, if society can successfully repress homosexual inclinations, this can lead to two conclusions: that the company should do for his own good, or that the company should not do it for the good of the individual .
return to the question of values. One would think that people are naturally bisexual. Ironically, however if this is true, the argument on homosexual choice is strengthened rather than weakened. Because if we all have bisexual tendencies, and the majority of us successfully suppress his homosexual impulses, then homosexuality is frequently overcome or choice. Once again we return to our original question as to which idea our company should build sex: heterosexual or homosexual.
Conclusion: 1. Homosexuality may be biologically caused (even if we do not have any evidence), but it is certainly psychologically ingrained (perhaps permanently) in childhood in some cases. Presumably these individuals have only ever had sexual feelings for their gender. Historically speaking a minority among homosexuals.
2. In many cases, homosexuality is not permanently grounded. These individuals have gone after gay-heterosexual experiences, or always have been bisexual or lived in a society that encourages homosexuality writes ... Greemberg, which also is in favor of gay liberation: "Biologists who design these traits as inherited and psychologists who think that these preferences are determined in childhood pay little attention to the fact that many homosexuals have had extensive heterosexual experience.
3. then the evidence leads to this conclusion: it is society and not the individual who chooses the very practice of homosexuality. The values \u200b\u200bof society, much of individual tendencies, determine the extent of homosexuality in society. So we can have great sympathy for the homosexual person as we are opposed strongly to the social acceptance of homosexuality. It preserves both the heart and our values.
Is homosexuality a disease?
The company, in short, may consider homosexuality ... right or wrong depending on whether the single or the waste. Even Freud did not think that homosexuality in itself meant that a person was sick. According to his standard psycho sexual development, he considered homosexuality as a developmental arrest. But until 1973 the psychiatrists considered homosexuality a disease. To cite one of countless examples, Dr Leo Rangell, a psychoanalyst, wrote that he had never seen a gay male who does not manifest a fear of the vagina.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (American Psychiatric Association) removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of psychiatric disorders). Gay activists have used this as the most important weapon in their battle for acceptance of homosexuality in society. But for many reasons, the APA's decision did not resolve the question of whether homosexuality is a disease and the issue might well be unsolvable. Given the hybrid
moral judgments and unclear in the history of psychiatry, especially since 1960, all that it could be concluded by the decision of the APA to remove homosexuality from its list of diseases is that, while perhaps he had the right, psychiatry organized has given us little reason to trust his judgments on politically charged issues. For these reasons, the fact that the APA does not classify homosexuality as a disease should not persuade anyone who is not. The subjective nature of the term mental illness, given the power of gay activists, and given the political views of the management group of the APA (as opposed, however, the majority of its members), the vote of the association means nothing to most observers.
If social pressures have forced psychiatrists in the past to classify homosexuality as a disease, how can we ensure that the social pressures of our times do not have them forced to label it as normal? Psychiatrists today are perhaps less influenced by social pressures than were their predecessors? I doubt it. So putting aside the ambivalence of psychiatry as well ask the question about homosexuality. Assuming that it is normal, it is normal for a man to be unable to make love to a woman, or vice versa? Presumably there are only three possible answers:
1.La majority of homosexuals can make love with a woman, but find this repugnant act, or simply prefer to make love with men.
2. Yes, it is normal.
3. No, not normal.
If we consider the first valid response, then we must admit that the homosexual has chosen his homosexuality. And so we wonder if, when someone chooses to love his own sex instead of the other has made this choice based on a psychologically healthy.
If you accept the second answer, each of us is free to evaluate this response in itself. I, for one, do not believe that the inability of a man making love with a woman can be considered normal. While this man may be healthy and beautiful in all other areas of life and even more gentle, active and ethics of many heterosexuals, this field can not be called normal. Men are designed to make love with women, and vice versa. The eye presents us with an analogy: If the majority of people become blind, blindness would still be abnormal. The eye is designed to see. So I choose the third answer, that homosexuality is not healthy. This, however, is that knowing that in the psychological "disease" can be a description of your country, rather than an objective science (which may simply does not exist in this field).
Man and woman he created them
In a world which divided human sexuality between penetrator and penetrated, Judaism said, wrong, sexuality is to be divided between male and female. In a world which saw women as producers of children, not worthy of attention romantic and sensual, Judaism said, wrong, women must be the only center of erotic love of man. In a world which said that sensual feelings and physical beauty were the supreme goods of life, Judaism said, wrong, ethics and holiness are the supreme goods. A thousand years earlier than the Roman emperors kept to himself naked boys, Jewish kings were ordered to write a Sefer Torah, a book of the Torah.
In all my research on this subject, nothing moved me more than the Talmudic law that forbids Jews to sell slaves or sheep to non-Jews for fear that non-Jews would be compromised in homosexuality or bestiality. That was the world in which the rabbis wrote the Talmud, and in which the Bible was written ... When people ask me what is the single greatest revelation I got from my research, I always say: there is supposed to be a divine revelation to produce the Torah. The Torah was simply too different from the rest of the world, too against man's nature, to have been made only by men.
The creation of Western civilization has been a very difficult and unique. He needed a reference constant gratification and a recanalization of natural instincts, and these disciplines were not always welcome. There were numerous attempts to undo the Judeo Christian civilization is not uncommon among the Jews, through a radical politics and Christian anti-Semitism.
The foundation of this civilization, and Jewish civilization, was the centrality and purity of family life. But the family is not a natural unit, since it is a value that must be cultivated and protected. The Greeks attack the family in the name of beauty and Eros. Marxists attack the family in the name of progress. And today, the gay liberation careful in the name of compassion and equality. I understand why gay people do so. Life has been miserable for many of them. The thing that I did not understand is why the Jews or Christians allein in this attack. I understand now, they do not know what is the risk. Our civilization is at risk.
It 's very easy to forget that Judaism has and what Christians have created in the West. But those who hate this civilization never forget. The radical faculty of Stanford University and the students who recently singing "hey, hey, ho, ho civilization has to go" refers to much more than their university motto. And no one sings that song with more strength than those who believe and recommend that the sexual conduct is not a role in building or eroding the civilization. The acceptance of homosexuality as equal to heterosexual love and spousal means the decline of Western civilization, as indeed the rejection of homosexuality and other non-marital sex made possible the creation of this civilization. Dennis
Pragger
In a world which divided human sexuality between penetrator and penetrated, Judaism said, wrong, sexuality is to be divided between male and female. In a world which saw women as producers of children, not worthy of attention romantic and sensual, Judaism said, wrong, women must be the only center of erotic love of man. In a world which said that sensual feelings and physical beauty were the supreme goods of life, Judaism said, wrong, ethics and holiness are the supreme goods. A thousand years earlier than the Roman emperors kept to himself naked boys, Jewish kings were ordered to write a Sefer Torah, a book of the Torah.
In all my research on this subject, nothing moved me more than the Talmudic law that forbids Jews to sell slaves or sheep to non-Jews for fear that non-Jews would be compromised in homosexuality or bestiality. That was the world in which the rabbis wrote the Talmud, and in which the Bible was written ... When people ask me what is the single greatest revelation I got from my research, I always say: there is supposed to be a divine revelation to produce the Torah. The Torah was simply too different from the rest of the world, too against man's nature, to have been made only by men.
The creation of Western civilization has been a very difficult and unique. He needed a reference constant gratification and a recanalization of natural instincts, and these disciplines were not always welcome. There were numerous attempts to undo the Judeo Christian civilization is not uncommon among the Jews, through a radical politics and Christian anti-Semitism.
The foundation of this civilization, and Jewish civilization, was the centrality and purity of family life. But the family is not a natural unit, since it is a value that must be cultivated and protected. The Greeks attack the family in the name of beauty and Eros. Marxists attack the family in the name of progress. And today, the gay liberation careful in the name of compassion and equality. I understand why gay people do so. Life has been miserable for many of them. The thing that I did not understand is why the Jews or Christians allein in this attack. I understand now, they do not know what is the risk. Our civilization is at risk.
It 's very easy to forget that Judaism has and what Christians have created in the West. But those who hate this civilization never forget. The radical faculty of Stanford University and the students who recently singing "hey, hey, ho, ho civilization has to go" refers to much more than their university motto. And no one sings that song with more strength than those who believe and recommend that the sexual conduct is not a role in building or eroding the civilization. The acceptance of homosexuality as equal to heterosexual love and spousal means the decline of Western civilization, as indeed the rejection of homosexuality and other non-marital sex made possible the creation of this civilization. Dennis
Pragger
