Diskussion:Homophobe Stellen im Alten Testament

Im Augenblick wohl doch nur Meinung. Du solltest die Stellen zitieren (mit Quellenangabe) Wolfgang 01:52, 16. Feb. 2007 (CET)

Meinung ist's nicht, wenn ein einziger Vers aus 1000 Seiten heraus gerissen wird. Das Zitat ist dann schlecht, da es hier auf jedes Wort und Interpunktion ankommt... Aber es gibt tausende von Übersetzungen... tausende von schlechten Übersetzungen des einen Verses... Purgatorium999 07:56, 16. Feb. 2007 (CET)

Ich zitiere mal Sekundärliteratur:"König David spricht im Buch 2 Samuel 1 zu seinem geliebten Jonatan: "Wunderbarer war deine Liebe für mich, als die Liebe der Frauen". In 1 Samuel 20 küssten sich die beiden Männer und weinten. Was verdeutlichen obige Bibelzitate?

1. Die Bibel stammt aus einer andern Zeit und Kultur, mit teilweise andern Erkenntnissen und andern Werten.

2. Für jede Meinung lässt sich ein passender Vers finden.

Daher gilt: Wer einzelne Sätze aus dem Zusammenhang reisst, missbraucht und vergewaltigt dieses Buch (auch die vatikanische Glaubenskongregation im aktuellen Dokument). Ein herausgepflückter Vers ist ein entwurzelter Vers. Die tiefere Botschaft der Bibel entdeckt, wer ihre zentralen Grundaussagen in den Blick nimmt; für Christen und Christinnen hauptsächlich in den Texten vom Leben und Wirken Jesu (Evangelien)." Quelle: http://www.lsbk.ch/articles/In_der_Bibel_steht_eindeutig.asp Purgatorium999 08:10, 16. Feb. 2007 (CET)

Mishna/Talmud

Bitte vergesst das sog. "Alte Testament".

Es hat im Christentum nur die Funktion der Prophezeiung, dass ein Moschiach (Messias) kommen wird. Hierauf wird im Matthaeus-Evangelium immer wieder "verlinkt". Es ist somit dort nur eine Referenz - mehr nicht.

Im Judentum geht die w:Mishnah - aufgrund der hoeheren Eindeutigkeit und dem somit reduziertern Interpretationsspielraum - dem w:Tanach vor. Insbesondere in den Gesetzesschriften, der sog. w:Halacha. Die Mishnah ist recht eindeutig und ihr Kommentar, die sog. w:Gemara (die Mishnah und die Gemara bilden zusammen den w:Talmud) laesst wenig Interpretation offen.

In der Mishna steht:

"MISHNA V.: To the following sinners stoning applies: viz., one who has had connection with his mother, with his father's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a human male, or with cattle; and the same is the case with a woman who uncovers herself before cattle; with a blasphemer; an idolater, he who sacrifices one of his children to Moloch; one that occupies himself with familiar spirits; a wizard; one who violates the Sabbath; one who curses his father or mother; one who has assaulted a betrothed damsel; a seducer who has seduced men to worship idols, and the one who misleads a whole town; a witch (male or female); a stubborn and rebellious son.

One who has had connection with his mother is guilty of transgressing two negative commandments--the negative commandment as to his mother and the negative commandment as to his father's wife. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: He is guilty only for his mother. One who has connection with his stepmother is also guilty in respect to two negative commandments--the commandment of adultery and the separate commandment as to his father's wife. There is no difference if he has done it while his father was still alive or after his death; and there is also no difference if she was only betrothed to his father, or already married. One that commits a crime with his daughter-in-law transgresses also two commandments-adultery and of the separate commandment of his son's wife. And there is also no difference if it was done while his son was still alive or after his death, after her betrothal or after marriage.

MISHNA V.: One who had connection with a human male or with an animal, and also a human female who uncovers herself before a male animal, are punished with stoning. And should one say: If man has sinned, what is the fault of the animal? Because a misfortune has happened to a human being through it, therefore says the verse: "It shall be stoned," There is also another explanation; viz., should it happen that people saw the animal passing the street, they would say: On account of it so and so was stoned." (Quelle: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin7.html).

Die Gemara zu "Connection with a human male" lautet:

"GEMARA: A human male--whence is deduced? That which the rabbis taught: "A man" means to exclude a minor; with a male," of any age whatever or a minor. "As they lie with a woman" means to say that with a woman there are two kinds of lyings, one usual and one unusual; and one is guilty as to both. Said R. Ishmael: This verse came to teach that which was just mentioned, as if not for this teaching it would be pleonastic, for regarding a male there is only one kind of connection. "Both of them have committed an abomination, they shall be put to death"--by stoning, but perhaps by some other death. Therefore it is written: "Their blood shall be upon them." And the same expression is used concerning "a familiar spirit," etc. And as the punishment of the latter is known to be stoning, the same applies here. From this we have heard the punishment. Whence is the warning? [Ibid. xviii. 22]: "And with a man shalt thou not lie as with a woman; it is an abomination." But this is a warning only to him who has done so. But whence is the warning to them with whom the connection was made? As to this it reads [Deut. xxiii. 18]: "There shall not be a courtesan of the sons of Israel"; and also [I Kings, Xiv. 24]: "And courtesans also were in the land . . . the Lord had driven out." So R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba, however, said: "It was not necessary to have another verse warning him with whom the connection was made, as this is inferred from the same verse, which may apply also to the latter by some change in pronunciation." (Quelle: ebenda)

Jeder weitere Kommentar duerfte sich somit erledigt haben.

Merkwuerdigerweise kommt Homosexualitaet unter orthodoxen Juden oefters vor, als die strengen Regeln es vermuten liessen. Es ist ein Leben im Zwiespalt zwischen Todsuende und sexueller Selbstbestimmung. Letzterer Wert siegt jedoch meist - entgegen allen Erwartungen.

Andererseits gilt folgendes: Schwuler Oralverkehr ist somit lt. Gemara an dieser Stelle eindeutig nicht gemeint (two lyings, nicht three lyings!!!!). Das Kuessen zweier Maenner ist eindeutig erlaubt. Ob die Fellatio zweier Maenner wie die zwischen Frau und Mann zaehlt (geringe Verfehlung), ist die grosse Interpretationsluecke. -- Sophismos 16:36, 21. Aug. 2008 (CEST)