Does the Bible Alone Condemn Same-sex "Marriage"?

[rlg94086]

Digger71:

Well, you are mistaken. From post 1 in this thread:

So, does the Bible alone condemn same-sex “marriage”?

This was the question, and as you so elegantly demonstrated, the answer is that the bible does not mention same sex relationships.

This doesn’t change my point at all, which is that the question posed in this thread is completely irrelevant. Jesus would not condemn something that didn’t exist as a possibility at the time of his teaching. His audience would have said, “well no kidding Jesus…if a man can’t lie down with a man, he certainly can’t marry him…”

 

[M-Dent]

Digger71:

The bible does not condemn homosexual acts in the OT. All references refer to paganism, transvestitism or rely on one interpretation in many. .

Digger, the Catholic Church has a contrary teaching than you do.

Here’s a link to one document you may find helpful,

Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

" The Vatican Council
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:

… "And as the things which, in order to curb rebellious spirits, the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be its meaning: that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; and, therefore, that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Where is the evidence that your position was held by unanimous consent of the Fathers?

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

This doesn’t change my point at all, which is that the question posed in this thread is completely irrelevant. Jesus would not condemn something that didn’t exist as a possibility at the time of his teaching. His audience would have said, “well no kidding Jesus…if a man can’t lie down with a man, he certainly can’t marry him…”

1. You only make this point, and this point only has use, by conceding that the bible does not mention same-sex marriage.If the bible explicitly condemned same sex marriage, you could quote chapter and verse.
2. You are reading the mind of Jesus, you know what he would do and what he would not do. You ignore the role of prophecy. Same-sex marriages have existed in many societies.
3. Leviticus has been interpreted in other ways. In a biblical-historic concept pagan priests would transvestite themselves, the reference could be to that. Leviticus is about divisions, some interpret it as refering to where the sex takes place. Eunuchs have been positively identified as congenital homosexuals, are referenced as a third sex and so fall outside of the rule anyway.

I did say your original post contained bluster to cover up the fact you conceded defeat. I do think reading the mind of Jesus shines out though. Not even I do that.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t read the mind of Jesus, but you seem to be able to interpret the Bible differently then Jesus’ Church here on earth. I will trust the Magisterium’s interpretations.

I concede nothing, but by your responses, you have conceded to a complete lack of logic and/or common sense. Therefore, I am forced to do this… :banghead:

1. You only make this point, and this point only has use, by conceding that the bible does not mention same-sex marriage.If the bible explicitly condemned same sex marriage, you could quote chapter and verse.

1. You are reading the mind of Jesus, you know what he would do and what he would not do. You ignore the role of prophecy. Same-sex marriages have existed in many societies.
2. Leviticus has been interpreted in other ways. In a biblical-historic concept pagan priests would transvestite themselves, the reference could be to that. Leviticus is about divisions, some interpret it as refering to where the sex takes place. Eunuchs have been positively identified as congenital homosexuals, are referenced as a third sex and so fall outside of the rule anyway.

I did say your original post contained bluster to cover up the fact you conceded defeat. I do think reading the mind of Jesus shines out though. Not even I do that.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

I don’t read the mind of Jesus, but you seem to be able to interpret the Bible differently then Jesus’ Church here on earth. I will trust the Magisterium’s interpretations.

I concede nothing, but by your responses, you have conceded to a complete lack of logic and/or common sense. Therefore, I am forced to do this… :banghead:

While I appreciate your head banging, I dont understand your problem. You have told us what jesus would have said (but did not say), you have admitted same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the bible…so you are left deferring to the Magisterium due to the poverty of evidence from source.

You see…it’s not a tenable position.

 

[thistle]

Digger71:

While I appreciate your head banging, I dont understand your problem. You have told us what jesus would have said (but did not say), you have admitted same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the bible…so you are left deferring to the Magisterium due to the poverty of evidence from source.

You see…it’s not a tenable position.

I’m still not clear on your position.
Leaving aside what is explicitly stated in scripture,
you agree that same sex sexual acts are an abomination and a mortal sin but you think same sex marriages are okay? Is my understanding of your position correct or not.

 

[Ursastar]

if 2 men marry, then they are deceived into thinking they are married. There is not a marriage. A marriage cannot exist .
If i told everyone i was a hedgehog even if i believed it, i would not BE a hedgehog. The pair would have been stoned to death and all With them masquerading nonsense.
Awaterfall is not a tree.

Expose lie. In the bible they were ignorant of homosexual relationships. They had enough greek between them to be au fait with greek culture aswell.
self deception and deceivers the immoral and fornicators ARE mentioned. It is covered by all these categories. Nowhere does it endorse ANY form of homosexuality in the bible but it does endorse marriage between man and woman.
There is no case to change the meaning of marriage which has been made clear.

 

[melbourne_guy]

“Does the bible speak against same-sex sex” then answer is yes.

Ok then we come to the conclusion that homosexuals can marry but cant have sex. Gee, i wonder how many homosexuals would agree to that.

 

[Ursastar]

will priests be shot and imprisoned for not accepting homosexuals into the church fot a marriage blessing?
perhaps wi can give them a celibate friendship blessing But that could then be MF/ MM/ FF/ FM … BUT as they have such STRONG sexual attractions perhaps female company may be more prudent.

 

[Digger71]

M-Dent:

Digger, the Catholic Church has a contrary teaching than you do.

Here’s a link to one document you may find helpful,
Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

I am aware of this. But there is doubt regarding the story of sodom and of the meaning of leviticus.

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

I have done some additional background reading and take the view these verses from Leviticus are more strident in english translations than the original text (this cannot be contended unless you argue the original meanings of the words are irrelevent) and probably refer to temple prostitution (I link this to the word ‘quadesh’ which is translated as ‘sodomite’, but actually means ‘holy ones’ in the original language. I also consider Jesus and St Paul to have over ruled these prohibitions.

So, while the church is clear on it’s teachings, it is empirically incorrect when it says “there is no doubt”. There is not only doubt, there is active disagreement. To be fair our Church may mean “there is no doubt in our minds”, but that is not the same thing at all.

oh…and

therefore, that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Of course this just means that if a mountain of evidence was presented that some interpretations of some verses are incorrect that evidence would not matter one jot. There can be many interpretations of this instruction, some less charitable than others.

 

[Digger71]

thistle:

I’m still not clear on your position.
Leaving aside what is explicitly stated in scripture,
you agree that same sex sexual acts are an abomination and a mortal sin but you think same sex marriages are okay? Is my understanding of your position correct or not.

I do not agree same-sex acts are an abomination (the word ‘abomination’ does not appear in the original hebrew), it is far from clear that it is a mortal sin (I’ve posted elsewhere regarding this), and I fully approve of same-sex civil unions because of the benefits to the individuals and society asa whole.

 

[Digger71]

Ursastar:

Expose lie. In the bible they were ignorant of homosexual relationships. They had enough greek between them to be au fait with greek culture aswell.

All reference from the OT refer to paganism. Paganism is not homosexuality. Properly understood it was the eunuchs who were the homosexuals, and as these were considered a third sex at the time, prohibitions against ‘men’ did not apply.

Ursastar:

Nowhere does it endorse ANY form of homosexuality in the bible but it does endorse marriage between man and woman.

Jonathan and David.

 

[Digger71]

Ursastar:

will priests be shot and imprisoned for not accepting homosexuals into the church fot a marriage blessing?
perhaps wi can give them a celibate friendship blessing But that could then be MF/ MM/ FF/ FM … BUT as they have such STRONG sexual attractions perhaps female company may be more prudent.

1. We are discussing civil unions
2. Many priests already do blessings for same sex couples.
3. Shot? Feeling dramatic are we?

 

[thistle]

Digger71:

I do not agree same-sex acts are an abomination (the word ‘abomination’ does not appear in the original hebrew), it is far from clear that it is a mortal sin (I’ve posted elsewhere regarding this), and I fully approve of same-sex civil unions because of the benefits to the individuals and society asa whole.

I guess then you do not receive Communion because what you have stated is against the teachings of the Church and consequently a mortal sin in itself. As Catholics we MUST ACCEPT ALL the teachings of the Church with respect to Faith and Morals.

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

I am aware of this. But there is doubt regarding the story of sodom and of the meaning of leviticus.

religioustolerance.org/…

Digger,

Don’t feel too bad - I was fooled by that site as well. Fortunately, I read the following:

Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.
Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations.

Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

That, in and of itself, may not have “sealed the deal” for me. However, I also read about how the Jehovah’s Witnesses use the Bible to show that the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, that the LDS use the Bible to show the Great Apostacy, that the SDA’s use the Bible to show that we are not supposed to worship on Sunday, etc., etc.

What does this show? That there are a number of things for which, when divorced from the historic understanding of the text, the Bible may be used to justify by those bent on promoting a particular mindset.

Thankfully, God has established a way for us to know what His will is, and that way is the Church.

So what does that leave us with? Does the Bible Alone condemn same-sex marriage? Yes and no. No, in that it is not explicitly rejected. Yes, in that Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - the expression of the one is to the exclusion of the others.
**
Genesis 2:24 (****Matthew 19:5, ****Ephesians 5:31)
** For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The definition of marriage in these terms negates the possibility of, say, a man and his dog being “married”. If the man is sufficiently confused, there may be actual love on his part - does the mere motive make the act licit? No. Why not? Because the act itself is wrong. Both the mens rea and the actus reus most be moral for the act to be moral - the immorality of one negates the morality of the other.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

Now, is that it? Am I relying on these few texts alone to show that the Bible defines marriage as valid only between a husband and wife? Hardly. There is great theological underpinning as well, pointing us to the true nature of both Christ and the Church:
Matthew 9:15
Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the **bridegroom **mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the **bridegroom **will be taken from them; then they will fast.

Christ is the bridegroom, and the Church is His bride (Eph 5).
Why this metaphore? Why is this appropriate? Christ, the husband, is “one flesh” with His bride, and the two beget children (new Christians - Rev 12, particularly Rev 12:17).

However, marriage is more than simply a metaphore! It is a Sacrament, a symbol which effects what it signifies. Through marriage, we are taught about our proper relationship with God. When you assume author’s rights to the Gospel and start altering the revealed Sacraments, you distort the teaching of God. With a same-sex “marriage”, no new life can possibly be created, and the effect of the Sacrament is negated, as is the teaching aspect which it gives us. There is no longer the two-become-one-producing-new-life which is present both (1) with Christ and the Church, or (2) between the Father and the Son, who produce the Holy Spirit which is their love (Deus Caritas Est). Therefore, a valid same-sex marriage is something which is both unbiblical and theologically impossible. To change the teaching on this would be to change what God has revealed about (1) Himself and (2) our relationship with Him.

Does that make any more sense? Can you see now why the teaching will never change? No matter how much more “comfortable” it might make us feel to bless a same-sex “marriage”, we simply don’t have the authority to alter what God has revealed. We are merely the letter carriers, not the authors nor the editors.

Oh, and in case you think I’m making stuff up, you might read this.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Digger71]

RyanL:

Digger,

Don’t feel too bad - I was fooled by that site as well. …cont’d…

I don’t feel bad, and the site doesnt try fool anyone. You will notice, for example, that it gives liberal and conservative views, and return to biblical hebrew when required.

The teaching is based on the interpretation of Leviticus, and that interpretation is disputed. But your argument starts from the basis that the interpretation is correct. Until you can prove that the interpretation is correct, you cannot prove the resulting doctrine is correct.

What does this show? That there are a number of things for which, when divorced from the historic understanding of the text, the Bible may be used to justify by those bent on promoting a particular mindset.

This is, of course, exactly the point. The historical context is of differentiating the Isrealites from their neighbours, and temple prostitution is a big issue. The references to sodom pointedly remark on idolitry, and the use of the word sodomite’ is frequently used in the same sentance as temples hangings (weaving for ashtarte).

Thus, close examination of the text and the historical context reveal that it was not homosexuality that was the problem, but idolitry/paganism.

Likewise, historical context reveals that congenital homosexuals were called eunuchs and were considered a third sex.

So, yes, do evoke historical context, but do so accurately.

I like this bit:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Except eunuchs were considered to be a third sex. Therefore they are not covered by this instruction.

**Does the Bible Alone condemn same-sex marriage? Yes and no. No, in that it is not explicitly rejected. Yes, in that Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - the expression of the one is to the exclusion of the others. **

Again, we have the point conceded that there is no biblical condemnation. But your second point is actually the best argument I have heard so far, and I will have to think about it for a bit.

My gut reaction is this is matched and countered by:

Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Thus I accept that conscience can be my guide on matters of dispute with the Church over doctrine (Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ), and by extension, that same-sex relationships can be licit if the participants are fully convinced in their own minds, and they believe Jesus has died for thier sins, and they accept their relationship as being god given.

16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

Which is one reason I am publicly supportive of same-sex marriage and relationships.

17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

The physical is nothing compared to the spritual. Righteousness, peace and joy these are the core values.

 

[Digger71]

RyanL:

Therefore, a valid same-sex marriage is something which is both unbiblical and theologically impossible. To change the teaching on this would be to change what God has revealed about (1) Himself and (2) our relationship with Him.

Of course Ryan, but I have been strictly literal about the original question. And the point is that the bible does not explicitly condemn same-sex marriage. The quote marks around the word marriage implies to me marriage or civil union, not strictly the sacrement of marriage.

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

…your argument starts from the basis that the interpretation is correct…

Yes, it does. Doesn’t yours?

Until you can prove that the interpretation is correct, you cannot prove the resulting doctrine is correct.

I can “prove” from the Bible, theology and history that there is a teaching authority of the Church which we are bound to observe, just as we obey Christ - if you want that proof, it would probably be better suited to the Apologetics forum. Rest assured, however, that it is there.

The historical context is of differentiating the Isrealites from their neighbours, and temple prostitution is a big issue.

I did not state that the historical context is what is all-important, but rather the historical understanding of the text. In Catholic theology, this is what is known as Sacred Tradition, and the unanimous answer from Sacred Tradition is that active homosexuality is a grave sin (and therefore a holy union cannot be validly conferred). It is important that we understand our terms.

Again, we have the point conceded that there is no biblical condemnation.

Um…no? I have conceded, just like the Trinity, there is no explicit mention of it in the Scriptures - this does not mean that it is not a Biblical understanding.

But your second point is actually the best argument I have heard so far, and I will have to think about it for a bit.

Please do. It is, btw, a maxim of legislative interpretation.

Thus I accept that conscience can be my guide on matters of dispute with the Church over doctrine (Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. )

The Church would agree with you, but with qualification - your conscience must be well formed. I cannot say that this is the case in the present instance.

and by extension, that same-sex relationships can be licit if the participants are fully convinced in their own minds, and they believe Jesus has died for thier sins, and they accept their relationship as being god given.

Nothin is wrong but thinking makes it so? You have denied objective moral values with this statement, which logically (when taken to its conclusion) denies the existance of a God as taught by the Judeo/Muslim/Christian understanding. See Nietzsche. As I don’t think this was your intent, perhaps you might want to reconsider.

16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

Which is one reason I am publicly supportive of same-sex marriage and relationships.

What would be your response to NAMBLA? Why is pediphelia wrong? Or is it wrong, if they are “convinced in their conscience” that it is right, and they accept Jesus yada yada yada?

The physical is nothing compared to the spritual. Righteousness, peace and joy these are the core values.

Really? What, then, is the power of the crucifixion? With this statement you are tepidly engaging in the Gnostic heresy.

Just some topics for consideration. Since they diverge from the OP’s question, feel free not to respond.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

Of course Ryan, but I have been strictly literal about the original question. And the point is that the bible does not explicitly condemn same-sex marriage. The quote marks around the word marriage implies to me marriage or civil union, not strictly the sacrement of marriage.

Similar questions:

1. Does the Bible Alone teach the Trinity? (JW)
2. Does the Bible Alone teach that polygamy is wrong? (LDS and Martin Luther)
3. Does the Bible Alone teach that the New Testament is inerrant? (Modernity)
4. Does the Bible Alone teach that abortion is wrong? (Non-denoms)
5. Does the Bible Alone teach that all forms of artificial contraception are wrong? (Protestants)
6. Does the Bible Alone teach that marriage is a Sacrament? (Baptists)
7. Does the Bible Alone teach that the Holy Spirit is a separate person and not simply a “power” of God? (Modalists)
8. Does the Bible Alone teach that Christ had a physical body? (Gnostics)

Those in parenthesis would answer the particular questions in the negative, and all of those in parenthesis are heretics, despite there being no “explicit” mention in Scripture. Wanna’ guess what side of heresy the homosexuality marriage proposition falls?

God Bless,
RyanL