Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[EnchantedEve]

I’m going to repost here what I added in edit to my previous post since I suspect you replied before I edited. ^^;
As for redefining the term, yes, they are. By ignoring the original contextual meaning in the original language it was presented in, they are choosing to interpret it according to what the same words mean at the time of interpretation instead of at the time they were being given.
Here’s an alternative example.
In the Chronicles of Narnia, the word “queer” is used frequently. Back when those novels were written, the word “queer” meant “weird, strange.” It had nothing to do with homosexuality. When someone in those books called another character queer, they were not calling the person homosexual. However, if we interpret it now without considering the original meaning, then we would automatically assume the person was being called homosexual.
The Catholic Church began interpreting things around 2000 years after the book of Exodus was written, using what at the time was “modern” Latin rather than the original Hebrew words, context, and cultural references.
Also, you go on about everything but the actual 6th Commandment in that post and the Hebrew for adultery, and much of what you quote is not even out of the Old Testament, but rather other Jewish documents.

You are correct, I did not mention the 6th commandment, or the Old Testament directly because your objection was regarding the Church’s manner of interpretation, indicating that they were not interpreting according to the original understanding. I therefore gave examples from the Rabbis, for who else but they would understand the original Hebrew context? Surely they would understand what the original Hebrew meant?

The writings of the Rabbis based on the original Hebrew appear to indicate a general agreement with the views of the Church vis a vis homosexuality. Thus with regard to your objection, is the Church’s view less valid when perceived from its original Hebrew context? No, this does not appear to be the case. If anything, it shows that when read in Hebrew, the Rabbis perceived the word adultry in the same way, as having a broader application. The Church therefore, is reading it as the Jews would read it, and therefore their interpretation cannot be that far of base, can it?

I believe the writings of Moses interpreting the 6th and 9th commandment, as the Church likewise does, in Leviticus, etc. are sufficiently well known that I need not render them again here, unless requested.

 

[SHW]

That’s irrelevant, whether you really mean it or not. You’re not driving the bus. The people driving the bus will take no prisoners. They want complete and total surrender. They will press for more and more phantom rights until society falls to its knees and says, ‘Yes, you’re just like normal people. It’s okay. There’s no difference betweenn us.’ In fact, they’ll probably want that legislated.

Right now in western Canada there is a Catholic bishop under indictment for teaching the Catholic position on homosexuality. A photographer in Arizona was convicted of a crime and forced to pay over 7 grand to a couple of homosexuals because she didn’t want to work for them based on a violation of her religious convictions. A KofC had a similar experience for not wanting to rent their hall to homosexuals. It’s going to get worse. They already have the ‘right’ to enter 1st and 2nd grade classrooms to indoctrinate 6 and 7 year olds into thinking homosexuality is a normal condition. I know you and your friends object to the characerization of homosexuals as abnormal. Which is to say you object to the truth. Nothing new there.

And please don’t say this or that is ‘all we want.’ We’ve heard that one before. It’s a lie.

Here’s a link to the New Mexico photographer case:
Link

 

[SHW]

The Pharisees got a bad rap from Matthew, who had ulterior motives for making them look bad. I’m not defending Pharisaism, and there were of course good reasons for Jesus to speak out against it. But there are modern day pharisees and pharisaism within the Catholic Church.

So, now you believe that St. Matthew had ulterior motives in proclaiming the truth of Jesus’ gospel? St. Matthew was martyred because of his radical Christian ideas.

**Please give examples of modern day Pharisaical teachings in the Catholic Church today. **

 

[SHW]

Well you’re entitled to your opinion. We each have our own imagined vision of hell. Still, if my son were condemned to an eternity in hell for being gay, I’d rather spend eternity with him in hell than five minutes in the presence of the one who condemned him!

My “vision” of hell is not an “opinion.” It is the Word of God. I quoted Scripture as my answer.

Do you believe “anything” at all in the Bible?

God will not “save” any person who does not “know” Him and/or who does not “obey” His gospel/commands. This is the way it is. It is not my gospel. It is God’s gospel.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord”

Matthew 13:41-43 “The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

God knows every person’s heart. He saves those who fear/obey Him and work righteousness. (Acts 10:34-35)

What about those persons who are never given the opportunity to learn about Him (know Him)?

He saves those whom He knows would have “loved” Him (obeyed Him and served Him) if they had been given the opportunity to choose. They are judged by their own consciences which He has given every person.

Those persons who would not choose to “love” Him by obeying Him and serving Him are condemned by their consciences and these He does not save.

Romans 2:13-16 “(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”

Notice that Paul states “according to my gospel.” His gospel and that of the other apostles is Jesus’ gospel. They are exactly the same.

1 Corinthians 14:37 “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

The “church” (Catholic Church) that you think you “believe” in does not exist except for in your own “imagination.”

I and others have tried to tell you the true teachings of the Pope and Magisterium, but you do not want to accept them. This is your free will choice.

But, make no mistake from now on, the things that I and other “what you call “fundamentalist” Catholics” are stating on the thread are the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Alisa]

My “vision” of hell is not an “opinion.” It is the Word of God. I quoted Scripture as my answer.

Do you believe “anything” at all in the Bible?

God will not “save” any person who does not “know” Him and/or who does not “obey” His gospel/commands. This is the way it is. It is not my gospel. It is God’s gospel.

What about those persons who are never given the opportunity to learn about Him (know Him)?

He saves those whom He knows would have “loved” Him (obeyed Him and served Him) if they had been given the opportunity to choose. They are judged by their own consciences which He has given every person.

Those persons who would not choose to “love” Him by obeying Him and serving Him are condemned by their consciences and these He does not save.

The “church” (Catholic Church) that you think you “believe” in does not exist except for in your own “imagination.”

I and others have tried to tell you the true teachings of the Pope and Magisterium, but you do not want to accept them. This is your free will choice.

But, make no mistake from now on, the things that I and other “what you call “fundamentalist” Catholics” are stating on the thread are the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

May I ask you something, SHW? Do you believe the Bible word for word, literally? For example, do you believe that God literally created the world in seven days (that is, seven days by the way we count days?). Do you understand that some phrases in the Bible don’t mean exactly what we in the 21st century might think? For example, the part about the camel passing through the eye of a needle didn’t mean exactly, literally that, but something else which people living during the times of Jesus would have understood right away (I’ve forgotten what – the entrance to a tent, or something like that???)

As far as the Pope goes, I thought he was infallible only when speaking “ex cathedra”.

The Bible is a very mysterious and complicated book and was written over a period of time. You can’t take little snips out that you feel “prove” you, as a Catholic fundamentalist, are “right” and everybody else on earth is “wrong”. Well…you can if you want to, and apparently you do want to!

I see above that you now respect individual “consciences”. From what you said before, it didn’t sound like it – or maybe I’m thinking about somebody else who posts.

And I see you’re back to making declarations as to who will be saved.

I’m trying to understand your point of view, SHW, but each time you post new things pop up which add confusion to confusion.

Respectfully, Alisa

 

[PrincessKatrina]

For example, the part about the camel passing through the eye of a needle didn’t mean exactly, literally that, but something else which people living during the times of Jesus would have understood right away (I’ve forgotten what – the entrance to a tent, or something like that???) \

The eye of the needle was a reference to a specific gate into the city. The gate was small, barely big enough for an unladen camel to pass through, and most camels would refuse to pass through the gate because of how small it was.

 

[Alisa]

The eye of the needle was a reference to a specific gate into the city. The gate was small, barely big enough for an unladen camel to pass through, and most camels would refuse to pass through the gate because of how small it was.

Thanks! I knew it was something like that. I know there are a lot of other idiomatic examples, and examples of mistranslations over the centuries, etc. For example, I seem to remember that “The Red Sea” actually was a mistranslation of a body of water called “The Reed Sea”. That’s why I believe we have to take the Bible in the proper context. The message and spirit of Jesus shine brilliantly through to this day, but we can’t take it sentence by sentence, word for word without making an effort to understand what He meant to convey to 21st century human beings.

Alisa

 

[Leetoy]

Homosexuality is only a small part of the population, including those who supported same sex marriage. But that’s not the only reason why same sex marriage should not be legislated or outlawed. The right reason is that same sex marriage is a perverse act and much more it is an abomination to the Lord our God, and the people who opposes same sex marriage overwhelms those who supported such perverse marriage. Although same sex marriage issue and the people who are supporting it is only a very small segment of society but it can have a strong influence and a very big bad effect to society and mostly to the youth and the innocents. We who are in the right mind should oppose such marriage because it is an insult to our parents (mother and father) and to us who are Catholics who knows it is wrong.

 

[SHW]

May I ask you something, SHW? Do you believe the Bible word for word, literally? For example, do you believe that God literally created the world in seven days (that is, seven days by the way we count days?). Do you understand that some phrases in the Bible don’t mean exactly what we in the 21st century might think? For example, the part about the camel passing through the eye of a needle didn’t mean exactly, literally that, but something else which people living during the times of Jesus would have understood right away (I’ve forgotten what – the entrance to a tent, or something like that???)

The Bible should be understood in this way: What was the “intention” of the original writer? What “truth” was he teaching his audience? What is the “correct” meaning/interpretation of his words?

So, some things are “word for word” such as (John 6:55) And, some are not. It is up to the Church to tell us what is to be believed “word for word” and what is to be believed “symbolically” or “figuratively,” etc. (Romans 12:20) This is not literal. You do not actually literally heap coals on his head. It means that by “helping” your enemy, you make him happy and you bless him.

Seven “days” for creation: “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8 It does not matter if it is literally 7- 24 hour days or not. What matters is that we learn that we have a loving creator who wants us to spend eternity with Him in heaven.

The “eye of a needle” has been explained in different ways. Who is correct? I do not know for sure. Link But this is the meaning of the teaching: It is almost impossible for a rich man to inherit eternal life.

I understand very well that whatever the official teaching of the Catholic Church is on individual Scriptures is the infallible interpretation of Scripture.

As far as the Pope goes, I thought he was infallible only when speaking “ex cathedra”.

This is incorrect. Humanae Vitae is an example of infallible teaching.

The Bible is a very mysterious and complicated book and was written over a period of time. You can’t take little snips out that you feel “prove” you, as a Catholic fundamentalist, are “right” and everybody else on earth is “wrong”. Well…you can if you want to, and apparently you do want to!

I am only reiterating the Word of God as taught infallibly by the official Catholic Church. It is you who are mixed up, not me.

I see above that you now respect individual “consciences”. From what you said before, it didn’t sound like it – or maybe I’m thinking about somebody else who posts.

We Catholics are required to “form our consciences” according to the infallible teachings of the official Catholic Church. It is easy for persons “to drown out their consciences” with their own selfish desires if they choose. But, they will still be held accountable for obeying God’s commandments whether they like it or not.

And I see you’re back to making declarations as to who will be saved.

I am just repeating God’s Word. He declares who will be saved. And, He also judges according to His own commandments. So, take it up with Him, not me.

I’m trying to understand your point of view, SHW, but each time you post new things pop up which add confusion to confusion.

This is because you have no clue as what the Catholic faith/religion really is. That is why I and others are here on this thread, trying to point the way to solid, orthodox Catholic teaching which has not changed for 2000 years and which will not be changing in future. Either embrace it, or leave it. No one is forcing you to be a Catholic.

However, I do think that there will be a “new” church, perhaps calling itself the “American Catholic Church” or similar, which will break off from the official Catholic Church. Its members will be persons such as yourself who reject the 2000 year old teachings of Christ as taught by His One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I think you will feel right at home in this church. (Galatians 1:9) Blame Paul, not me.

 

[Leetoy]

There were many homosexuals or Sodom and Gomorrha links to homosexuality. And for a city that supported same sex marriage there will be bad consequence for it, as in Matthew 10:15 – “Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
Jude 1:7 – “As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”

 

[Leetoy]

Even though this website reaches out to other Christian denominations but as what this website says ‘Catholic’ Answers Forum. This is where Catholic and other Christians can clarify their doubts and questions about their Catholic faith. And to same sex marriage and abortion, these are a no no to a true and practising Christian Catholic. We, Catholic knows that.

 

[Leetoy]

We have freedom, we have free choice. God has given us free will. you can choose eternal life or eternal death. You can choose to sin or to follow Jesus. You can choose heaven or hell. You can choose same sex marriage or the marriage between singles, a man and a woman marriage. It is up to us but Jesus is laying down all as means to reach eternal life. It is up to us.

 

[Leetoy]

God has give us free will to choose. God is not forcing us because following him should be done out of love. If you love God you will follow his will and what he commands. You can choose to have eternal happiness or eternal suffering.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thanks! I knew it was something like that. I know there are a lot of other idiomatic examples, and examples of mistranslations over the centuries, etc. For example, I seem to remember that “The Red Sea” actually was a mistranslation of a body of water called “The Reed Sea”. That’s why I believe we have to take the Bible in the proper context. The message and spirit of Jesus shine brilliantly through to this day, but we can’t take it sentence by sentence, word for word without making an effort to understand what He meant to convey to 21st century human beings.Alisa

Alisa, that’s why we teach hermeneutics – the science of interpretation of meaning.

 

[StAnastasia]

Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Peace,Ed

Where does Jesus mention homosexuality?

 

[Leetoy]

Only God knows. That’s why each person should oppose what is evil so that those things you mentioned should be stopped and will not happen again. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I spot an interesting quote on a movie review of Bruce Willis’ Tears of the Sun. The review is written by Ben Rae who is MTS at UWA. He says, Tears of the Sun is based on two ideas: 1. man’s inhumanity to man and, 2. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It’s a classic quote of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), but later on in the review Ben has given us his Christian view on this. He says, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” That might be truth, but what if there are no good men? That’s our situation as rebels against God. The whole of humanity is evil. How wonderful then is God, who provided us with not just a good man, but the perfect man, in his Son, Jesus Christ? The assumption of Burke’s quote is that, there exists at least some good men that can balance the force. However, in the world where there is not even one righteous man, evil has surely been triumphant, and we have all been enslaved by our own sinfulness. But our loving God did do something about the evil - he sent his son to die in our place, but also through his resurrection, death has been conquered and we no longer are enslaved. Jesus Christ is the super hero in this action movie… Taken from a webpage of scott yang’s playground.

I believe Jesus Christ is our savior and personal savior when we accept him and decided to follow him. And we can change the world into good, a heaven on earth, happiness with no end, when each person starts renewing his own self to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and follow him.

 

[Leetoy]

StAnastasia, Homosexual and effeminate are men, they are the same, they are male thus (of a man) displaying characteristics regarded as typical of a woman. It is mentioned in >> 1 Corinthians 6:10 – “Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia, Homosexual and effeminate are men, they are the same, they are male thus (of a man) displaying characteristics regarded as typical of a woman. It is mentioned in >> 1 Corinthians 6:10 – “Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”

What about women who wear pants like men? Surely God hates transvestite women as well! But anyway, we’re about to be shut down you know – twenty-five posts from the end of this thread!

StAnastasia

 

[Leetoy]

StAnastasia
What about women who wear pants like men? Surely God hates transvestite women as well! But anyway, we’re about to be shut down you know – twenty-five posts from the end of this thread!

As long as they don’t do immoral and perverse sexual acts and deeds contrary to the Gospel of God, they don’t sin.

 

[StAnastasia]

As long as they don’t do immoral and perverse sexual acts and deeds contrary to the Gospel of God, they don’t sin.

I only asked because you indicated that effeminate men were destined for hell. So I wondered whether masculine women (e.g. who wear pants) were destined for hell as well. Is cross-dressing sinful in your eyes? Is it hell-worthy sinning?