hahaLarkin, you are ‘spinning’ the gospel and our holy tradition. Have you ever considered politics?
But the idea they can do so means they either don’t understand what it means, or they don’t believe it. They have a fundamentally different understanding of one of the major elements of their Church’s belief.haha
no
I am fully aware of tradition, and so are those who are actually trying to move away from tradition on this matter. They don’t ignore tradition; they try to argue that it is time to move beyond it in some matters–same as the RC has done with some of the rules in Leviticus.
yepBut the idea they can do so means they either don’t understand what it means, or they don’t believe it. They have a fundamentally different understanding of one of the major elements of their Church’s belief.
As far as I know Christians as a group have always understood this.yep
they believe that ideas can change and improve, that some cultural values and mores can become antiquated and can actually hold society back from progress.
well, there ya goAs far as I know Christians as a group have always understood this.
We can’t answer for all Christians. In fact, we do not care to. But there’s one more thing Jesus did that is overlooked. He established a Church, and gave her teaching authority. Some Christians may look to themselves, or academics, or pop psychology, or wherever, to interpret Holy Scripture. Catholics look to the Church, with her protection from teaching error.When Christians do not follow all of the rules of the OT, then it becomes clear that not all of the rules continue to apply over time, particularly if Jesus does not explicitly reinforce them in the gospels. I don’t recall that Jesus ever comments on homosexuality.
By that logic, there’s no prohibition against rape, but that is, of course, nonsense. Your musings are mildly amusing, and are not in the least surprising, given the non-acknowledgment of the existence of the Church’s teaching authority.The only sexual morality that made the ten commandments was the prohibition on adultery. Some other OT strictures on sexuality are broken or permitted when in service of God (even incest). There is not much more of an argument against homosexuality except that “God says it is bad.” That is less and less persuasive as heterosexual practices share more and more of those same practices, but are excused because they are between husband and wife.
Fine.We can’t answer for all Christians. In fact, we do not care to. But there’s one more thing Jesus did that is overlooked. He established a Church, and gave her teaching authority. Some Christians may look to themselves, or academics, or pop psychology, or wherever, to interpret Holy Scripture. Catholics look to the Church, with her protection from teaching error.
Which logic is that? I can easily make an argument against rape that has nothing to do with religion.By that logic, there’s no prohibition against rape, but that is, of course, nonsense.
“God says it is wrong” is becoming a less powerful justification as social mores change concerning homosexuality.And “God says it is bad” is a strong argument, which is not weakened even though millions, or even billions, do it anyway. Right and wrong have nothing to do with majority votes.
Agreed, rape is wrong because its a violation of someone physically… that tends to be the bases for why most sins are sins. Murder? you violate someone’s right to life, Theft: you violate their property.Fine.
Which logic is that? I can easily make an argument against rape that has nothing to do with religion.
“God says it is wrong” is becoming a less powerful justification as social mores change concerning homosexuality.
Larkin31 was suggesting that only adultery was contrary to the 10 commandments and by that reasoning, rape is OK. But like you both are saying, an argument can be made outside the Bible that rape is contrary to God’s plan.Agreed, rape is wrong because its a violation of someone physically… that tends to be the bases for why most sins are sins. Murder? you violate someone’s right to life, Theft: you violate their property.
I was not suggesting that rape is ok. I was pointing out ONLY that homosexuality does not make the Jewish top-ten list in commandments given to Moses in stone. This does NOT mean–nor was I suggesting–that homosexuality is NOT a Christian moral concern at all (of course it is), and it is no comment on rape whatsoever.Larkin31 was suggesting that only adultery was contrary to the 10 commandments and by that reasoning, rape is OK. But like you both are saying, an argument can be made outside the Bible that rape is contrary to God’s plan.
I was not suggesting that rape is ok. I was pointing out ONLY that homosexuality does not make the Jewish top-ten list in commandments given to Moses in stone. This does NOT mean–nor was I suggesting–that homosexuality is NOT a Christian moral concern at all (of course it is), and it is no comment on rape whatsoever.
That’s the truth. I attended an Anglican parish that was probably 50% divorcees. Among that 50% were the wealthiest and most influential members. Nothing was said about divorce in my 2 years there. Plenty was said about homosexuality, although as far as I know there were never any homosexuals there.You make a good point actually. In the Anglican realignment, it’s not uncommon to see bishops and priests completely turning a blind eye to divorce and remarriage WHICH JESUS ACTUALLY DID CONDEMN adamantly in the NT, and yet these same clergy go off the hook against homosexuality. The reality is both are equally sinful and un-godly. Divorce is just so widespread and commonplace that clergy don’t dare risk the loss of $$$ and support for condemning that. But condemning homosexuality is pretty easy and a soft target. Conservative Anglicans and Lutherans for example, have better odds of having plenty of divorcees in the pews than homosexuals.
I don’t think “evolving” is the right term. Christians rejected the OT purity laws very early on, and if anything “evolved” back toward accepting the OT as a whole as canonical in spite of these rejections (I’m thinking of the “Marcionite” controversy of the second century). As a result, the early Church developed ways of distinguishing among different kinds of OT laws. You may disagree with these distinctions, but I find it frustrating that many folks on the liberal side of the homosexuality debate don’t even seem aware that they exist.It’s simple for people who want to see it as simple, or would rather not “see” it at all. Most Christian Churches have evolved their faith beyond many of the OT purity laws, but not the sexual rules.
Yes indeed. Rowan Williams made the provocative point in “The Body’s Grace” that once you accept contraception, it becomes harder (I would disagree that it’s impossible) to condemn homosexual activity. Of course, one can follow that premise to the conclusion that homosexuality is fine (as Williams suggested, though of course he has rightfully taken a more conservative approach as Archbishop) or to the conclusion that sexual activity should always be “open to life.”It is becoming more difficult for many Christians to justify through experience and cultural reinforcement, the rejection of homosexuality simply on the basis that it is about love for the same gender. Particularly when so many heterosexual couples now openly admit that they lovingly practice many of the sexual acts that used to be only associated with gay or libertine living. The “mask” is off heterosexual sex life, and the similarities between the sex lives of heteros and gays are making the shunning of gay life more difficult to justify.
What about the rights of God, the Creator, and his purpose in creating His creatures?Agreed, rape is wrong because its a violation of someone physically… that tends to be the bases for why most sins are sins. Murder? you violate someone’s right to life, Theft: you violate their property.
how does homosexuality hurt anything?
More difficult to justify as well. Other than “the Bible says so” (and this is only indirectly so, in this case). Does either God or Jesus ever make statements about sex having to be open to procreation? (I really don’t know, but I don’t believe so). As more and more fully loving and fully faithful couples engage in non-procreative sex, more and more of these people will see this Catholic prohibition as an absolutist position (no pun) on a perfectly healthy and non-hurtful act. Excess desire is, of course, a bad thing, and is a different discussion.Yes indeed. Rowan Williams made the provocative point in “The Body’s Grace” that once you accept contraception, it becomes harder (I would disagree that it’s impossible) to condemn homosexual activity. Of course, one can follow that premise to the conclusion that homosexuality is fine (as Williams suggested, though of course he has rightfully taken a more conservative approach as Archbishop) or to the conclusion that sexual activity should always be “open to life.”
I think the latter position is more in keeping with the Rule of Faith, but of course it is a difficult one to implement.
Edwin
What do you consider God’s “purpose” was in creating humans?What about the rights of God, the Creator, and his purpose in creating His creatures?
I wasn’t suggesting that YOU thought rape was OK, but when you try to justify homosexual behavior as being OK because it is not in the “top-ten” then someone else, using your logic, could make that same claim that rape is OK. I do think you are doing a good job at pointing out the non-Catholic holes in the anti-homosexual case.I was not suggesting that rape is ok. I was pointing out ONLY that homosexuality does not make the Jewish top-ten list in commandments given to Moses in stone. This does NOT mean–nor was I suggesting–that homosexuality is NOT a Christian moral concern at all (of course it is), and it is no comment on rape whatsoever.