Gay to Straight?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

He wants to change so I think we should support him.

Timbo. You are not a very good reader.

He wants to change because he wants to be normal. Because he has intuited from his religion and the culture around him that he is not normal and must therefore change. Because he doesn’t want to be different. Because he wants to measure up to what other people think he should be.

Timbo, you and others here are mistaking youth and desperation for a clear-headed evaluation of options simply because the conclusion he’s reached is the conclusion you would have him reach.

Granted, I’m rooting for a different conclusion. But my wish is that he make this decision not based on a skewed understanding of normal, that vicious social idol, but based on an understanding of a particular calling to be what he is, even if what he is is not what others would have him be.

My wish is that he realize here and now, regardless of his sexuality, that he is beloved by God and does not need to change his sexuality in order to be a whole person.

If he decides, based on this real understanding of his value in the eyes of God, that he would like to go through some sort of therapy, then great. Fine! But my fear is that the pressure of heteronormativity is clouding his understanding first of what Rome teaches, and second of his relationship to grace.

The gay relative I have is the heaviest drinker I’ve ever seen, he’s not leading a very fulfilling life.

For what it’s worth, my uncle was a Vietnam Vet and an alcoholic. I guess military service leads to the living of a dissolute and unfulfilling life, too. Imagine if gays were allowed to serve openly in the military. Wow. What a bunch of alcoholic, unfulfilled people that’d make for!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[BobObob]

And here are a few other things he’s said about it:

“I’m not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it’s quite unusual.”

“I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.”

“It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right…What they don’t mention is that change is pretty rare.”

Additionally, as I’ve already pointed out, the Spitzer study does not prove that such change is even possible because it did not prove that any change had occurred.

My point with the entire Spitzer thing was to show that even a skeptic like him, who was instrumental in getting homosexuality removed from the DSM as a disorder, would, after research, conclude that in some cases changes in sexual arousal and fantasy are possible for some, regardless of probability of change. Nothing more

I’m not trying to make him my “knight in shinning armor” by stretching his study by saying that change in attraction is to be expected (which is what some have done). The reason I refer to his report is because he always was, and still is, skeptical of the ability for someone with homosexual attractions to change their attractions, yet concludes, after scientific research, that some (although he consistently says not many) have succeeded in this regard. In the video indicated that he concluded that some of these people had changed in their fantasy and arousal.

Grace & Peace!
Are you saying, in other words, that what is sinful is sinful because God doesn’t want us to do it and will punish us for it? Or is something sinful because it is bad for us, and God, in his mercy, proscribes it because it is bad? Is it possible for us to know that something is bad for us without God having to tell us? And conversely, is it possible for us to know that something is good for us without God having to tell us?

The morality you are describing is a spreadsheet morality. The legalistic, mechanical morality of a bureaucrat or statistician. It is a morality which, at best, is often merely inapplicable to lived experience because it cannot comprehend it or respond to it. At worst, it is just another idol.

I think that what is sinful is what is in itself disordered. God has often made those things clear. There were disciplinary laws and restrictions that God placed on the Israelites in the OT which were not things that not observing were not originally disordered, but were sinful because God had commanded it and disobeying God’s command is in itself disordered.

In Leviticus 18:22 when God said, “Do not lie with mankind as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination,” God is making it clear that not only should you not do it because it is a disciplinary law that God is holding the Israelites to, but it is also wrong in itself, or an abomination. The word used for lie here is “shakab”, which is used in other parts of the bible to refer to sex. Also, later in that same chapter in Leviticus 18:29-30, after having “laying with man as one lays with a woman” is listed as an abomination, God said:

“For whoever commits any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore keep my ordinance, that you do not commit any of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, that you do not defile yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.”

We have a general reference to men committing indecent acts with each other.

Okay…

So you will seemingly admit that oral sex between men (or whatever you are referring to by “indecent acts”) is wrong, but you won’t admit that homosexuality is wrong! It seems like you are in denial.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[BobObob]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

Because in this matter I’m speaking from experience, not from some legalistic moral theory I picked up from a book because it was easier to memorize some moral dictum than learn how to recognize the good. Because my experience shows that what you take for granted as a general image of what it means to be gay–this “lifestyle” of hedonism, drug addiction, depression, debauchery and dissolute living–is not a requisite or de facto part of every gay person’s experience, nor is it a function of merely being gay, much as you would seem to argue to the contrary. Because this image that you’ve constructed of what it is to be gay, is merely a titillating horror story that legalistic and petty, sentimental religionists like to tell each other because it projects the brokenness of sin that we all share onto a very specific and visible group that they can say they have nothing to do with.

Because if I am to be condemned by God, it will not be because I love my partner. And I know this. For a fact.
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

What is wrong with forming our consciences based off of what God has said?

If Christ did found a church and protected it from error (under certain conditions), than what is wrong with agreeing with it that homosexuality is wrong?

By the way, I don’t form any sort of image of what a stereotypical gay person is because of my religious values. I have formed my opinions on the morality of sexuality based off of my religious values though.

Forming our consciences off of our experiences alone can be dangerous. Doing so will get our feelings and emotions involved, which can really twist the formations of one’s conscience.

I’m not trying to get to you or anything, but I was wondering, why are you so certain that a homosexual union with a partner is not sinful?

He wants to change because he wants to be normal. Because he has intuited from his religion and the culture around him that he is not normal and must therefore change. Because he doesn’t want to be different. Because he wants to measure up to what other people think he should be.

How do you know why he wants to change? Did he indicate that that is why he wants to change or are you just speculating? I’m not certain on his reasons (although I can speculate), but I would have to ask him to know his motives.

My wish is that he realize here and now, regardless of his sexuality, that he is beloved by God and does not need to change his sexuality in order to be a whole person.

I also wish that he does realize that he is loved by God.

He does not need to change his sexual attractions in order to be saved. However, everyone has the responsibility to form one conscience in regards to sexuality and conduct themselves accordingly.

Grace & Peace!Perhaps we’re understanding intimacy in two different ways. Perhaps not. Is it your suggestion that intimacy is not a good thing to desire? Or that, the desire for intimacy being an occasion of sin, we should not desire intimacy?

I’m wondering, what do you mean when you use the word “intimacy”? Sometimes intimacy can refer to a certain openness about one’s self (such as say one’s openness about one’s problems with a psychologist). This word can be understood in may different ways.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think that what is sinful is what is in itself disordered. God has often made those things clear. There were disciplinary laws and restrictions that God placed on the Israelites in the OT which were not things that not observing were not originally disordered, but were sinful because God had commanded it and disobeying God’s command is in itself disordered.

Hi BobObob. I really think you should be careful about your vocabulary. For Rome to say that homosexual attraction is a disorder, but not a sin, and for you to say that what is sin is disordered is just the sort of confusion which goes to the heart of what this issue is all about.

Regarding the disciplinary laws and restrictions, are you saying that God just randomly said that certainly things were not to be done? That he’s just capricious that way? That one day he said, “I really don’t like that fashion with the mixing of the two different types of cloth–it’s so declasse. Anyway, I just don’t like it. ABOMINATION!” Somehow, I don’t think that’s how morality works. If that is how it works, then I wonder how Paul can write at the beginning of Romans that even pagans have an understanding of morality if morality is, essentially both random and revealed.

We have to conclude that God, in God’s mercy, proscribes something because it is bad for us, not because he’s just not into it. Does a proscription in one place at one time mean that the proscription will be eternal? No. The New Testament’s revoking of the ritual purity laws proves that.

(By the way, when Peter had his vision of the food on the cloth, I don’t think that what it meant was simply that lobster was back on the menu. The Spirit is doing marvellous things–the process of leading us into all truth, of expanding the horizons of what we believe we can love, of what is holy, of what is good, is an ongoing work of grace.)

So is there a constant that we can use in order to navigate the seas of moral uncertainty? Yes–love. Does this thing lead to more love, or less. Does this action destroy love or foster it? Is what I’m about to do going to build up a relationship of love that can bear fruit, or will it destroy it?

In Leviticus 18:22 when God said, “Do not lie with mankind as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination,” God is making it clear that not only should you not do it because it is a disciplinary law that God is holding the Israelites to, but it is also wrong in itself, or an abomination. The word used for lie here is “shakab”, which is used in other parts of the bible to refer to sex.

I’m surprised that you didn’t get into a discussion of the other Hebrew word used here–to’evah, translated as abomination and meaning what is ritually impure or taboo. In the Septuagint, the word is bdelygma. What does not appear here is zimah-that which is sinful or evil in itself. The word in the Septuagint that translates zimah is anomia and is also, consequently, lacking. You will see, given these words and given the context (of idolatry and of cultural difference, which also happens to be the context of the first chapter of Romans) that what is being discussed here is what is ritually taboo–not what is sin in itself. Disorder is not even part of the conversation.

So you will seemingly admit that oral sex between men (or whatever you are referring to by “indecent acts”) is wrong, but you won’t admit that homosexuality is wrong! It seems like you are in denial.

I didn’t think I was referencing any specific act at all, to be honest…did I reference any specific act? Given the context of our discussions here and what I’ve written, I think it’d be safe to assume that I would consider an “indecent act” either a rhetorical flourish from Paul (given his context), or would refer to an act which destroys relationship or prevents human flourishing or the ability of someone to give or receive love. All such acts are truly indecent. And within the context of idolatry, they are particularly indecent.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

What is wrong with forming our consciences based off of what God has said?

Nothing, if we do not forget that to obey comes from a root word meaning listen. Our job is not to become moral robots, but to listen and respond. And, like Jacob and the angel or Job and God himself, sometimes the correct response after listening is a wrestling match.

Forming our consciences off of our experiences alone can be dangerous. Doing so will get our feelings and emotions involved, which can really twist the formations of one’s conscience.

I do not suggest experience alone–the moral north star is simple and is derived from John’s first epistle which reveals to us what God really is: love.

I’m not trying to get to you or anything, but I was wondering, why are you so certain that a homosexual union with a partner is not sinful?

I have seen my relationship with my partner bear good fruit in me, in him, in our relationships with folks outside our little family. It has deepened my faith and brought me closer to Our Lord.

How do you know why he wants to change? Did he indicate that that is why he wants to change or are you just speculating? I’m not certain on his reasons (although I can speculate), but I would have to ask him to know his motives.

Take a look at the original post in this thread. Particularly this sentence: “I heard that people can switch, and that they are normal. I don’t want to disappoint my family either. If I am gay everything about my life means nothing, such as having no kids, living none ‘normal’, and all.” That says it all.

I’m wondering, what do you mean when you use the word “intimacy”? Sometimes intimacy can refer to a certain openness about one’s self (such as say one’s openness about one’s problems with a psychologist). This word can be understood in may different ways.

I mean physical intimacy as well as emotional intimacy–a meeting of minds, a sharing and honoring of bodies. I mean the intimacy that can arise between friends as well as that which occurs between lovers.

I don’t believe I would characterize my use of “intimacy” as referring to the merely forensic intimacy between a patient and a doctor. With such a word, I would eschew the merely forensic.

I would not insist that an intimate relationship include sex, however. I think it is possible for an intimate relationship, even an intimate physical relationship, to avoid sex (oral or otherwise). And this brings me to a version of a question that I asked in another post in another thread which remained unanswered: if homosexual acts are sin, but the attraction is not, is it possible for a Roman Catholic homosexual who is committed to abstinence to honor his sexuality, to celebrate it as a good gift from God capable of bringing forth good and not simply as a trial or a test which must be passed or overcome? Is it possible for such a person to love someone of their own gender with their body, to share intimacy with them, but not have sex? Is even a date forbidden?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Oh Timbo. What you seem to suggest is that the Bible and Tradition are little more than a list of thou shalt nots–all you have to do to live a good life is memorize them

. That is not at all what I suggest. There are some though shalt nots however, and those should be followed.

Are you that against the formation of conscience that rote and staid repetition of a moral dictum should take precedence over a personal struggle to understand and/or article virtue?

A properly formed conscience needs to be guided by the bible.

Are you saying, in other words, that what is sinful is sinful because God doesn’t want us to do it

Yes, that’s the definition of sin is it not?

Or is something sinful because it is bad for us, and God, in his mercy, proscribes it because it is bad?

I never said sins weren’t bad for you. However, just because something’s bad for you doesn’t mean it’s sinful. For instance, living in a polluted city is bad for you, that doesn’t make it sinful, nor is something not sinful just because it isn’t bad for your health.

Is it possible for us to know that something is bad for us without God having to tell us? And conversely, is it possible for us to know that something is good for us without God having to tell us?

That’s not relevant to the discussion though. The question that’s relevant to the discussion is whether or not we know more than the Lord, because you are saying that what He said is bad is actually good.

The morality you are describing is a spreadsheet morality. The legalistic, mechanical morality of a bureaucrat or statistician. It is a morality which, at best, is often merely inapplicable to lived experience because it cannot comprehend it or respond to it

. No it’s not. I never said that was the entire morality. However, to just ignore what the bible says not to do is not a good idea.

At worst, it is just another idol.

Wait a minute, you are saying that following the bible is following an idol?

Perhaps we’re understanding intimacy in two different ways. Perhaps not. Is it your suggestion that intimacy is not a good thing to desire? Or that, the desire for intimacy being an occasion of sin, we should not desire intimacy?
I’m saying that, in that instance, I would question whether or not it is sin.

Well, we might be. I was using intimate as a polite way to phrase something. I don’t think an intimate, celibate relationship would be sinful, though it might not be easy to keep it that way.

Either way, we’d discover that fornication, understood as pre-marital sex, was a late-comer to the interpretive table and is not beyond re-evaluation. But that’s a whole different topic.

Maybe someone here knows the exact verse. I’m pretty sure fornication is prohibited
.

Again, moral good and economic good are not the same thing.

That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. I would say that also applies to your “flourishing” standard, just because you could get some benifit from it doesn’t mean it’s not a sin.

I urge you to study the context of Romans and its relationship to Leviticus. You may be surprised!

Very well, I’ll break it down for you: The verse I referenced from Leviticus was, I believe, a direct commandment.

Romans makes it clear that commandment still applies. The verse I referenced in Romans was about a bunch of very sinful people, and it was listing one of their sins.

Point out, please, in what you quoted above, or even in its proper context in the epistle, a reference to gay relationships as we understand them today.
We have a general reference to men committing indecent acts with each other.

I’m just guessing that most gay relationships today involve “indecent acts”.

 

[turtle18]

Would you want to marry someone who was not attracted to you? How fair would that be to that spouse? That woman would never receive the love that God intended for her to have in her marriage, and it would be very sad for her.

As for the Sodom and Gommorah, it’s followed by a lovely little account of how Lot’s daughter’s got him drunk and slept with him so they could bear sons. If you’re going to accept that homosexuality is NOT ok because of that account, then I guess you’re going to have accept that incest is ok because of the one that follows. No cities smited over the incest, nor condemnations issued.

Literal interpretation can get you into trouble, especially in the OT.

Love is more than sexual. Love should be spiritual foremost–sharing & praying in the live of God–woefully absent in most marriages, today.

It is convenient for gay people to pretend the OT doesn’t exist because they don’t like the message. As for the incest, that is the result of the homosexuality in Sodom & Gomorrah. There is absolutely nothin saying God approves of it–to the contrary–his daughters had to get their father drunk–he wasn’t a willing participant in it.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I see you skipped the part of my post in which I attempted to explain what flourishing meant–dealing in part with a greater capacity to give and receive love.

With more money I could give more.

Again, you have a habit of confusing a material good with a moral good.

No, I’m not confusing the 2. I’m trying to make a point by saying that some benifit to you does not mean it isn’t sinful. I made it so well that you even thought I was serious.

Perhaps this is why many of my points regarding morality and human flourishing do not compute or fit into your spreadsheet analysis of human behavior and morality.

A spreadsheet analysis? No, not breaking these basic commandments is just part of morality. However, it’s very important. Morality without them is like a house with only one wall.

Someone who writes quite well on the difference is Simone Weil, whose analysis of evil (which owes a lot to the prophet Amos’ understanding of evil as a social disease) includes a critique of our tendency to equate good and evil, or to define what is good according to our grasp of what is evil: the idea, in other words, that evil and good are opposites. So we come up with the idea that theft is bad, so private property is good–and we are missing entirely that private property (how we conceive of it, how we use it, what it means) could easily be a form of theft. But good and evil, real moral good and real moral evil are not opposites–they are not points on a moral continuum. Good is of an order beyond evil.

Again, economic good and moral good are not equal goods. An economic or material good may not have anything to do with human flourishing, or may be only tengentially related to it. It is not a good in itself. A moral good has everything to do with human flourishing.

Right, so how is me having a stable job and making more money that I can use to support my family not flourishing?

If it were not such a sad thing to behold, I would commend you on your eisegetical prowess, your ability to read into scripture what you expect to find in it.

What are you talking about? I wasn’t raise Catholic, and in fact I didn’t know if gay acts really were prohibited by the bible until I read it. I read Leviticus and when I saw that verse it was quite clear what it meant. What else could it mean?

I would commend to you, however, the practice of textual analysis which would take into consideration context. I’ll leave it at that.

Please explain to me how I took this out of context, or how this doesn’t mean what it obviously says when in it’s proper context. I’d really like to know. One is a direct commandment and the other clearly regards something as sinful.

Let’s just say that it’s clear we have different interpretations of scripture and different understandings of what its call to wholeness looks like. Because my understanding is different than yours, I’m articulating a lie? Well. If you insist.

You said it never mentioned the issue even once. That is a lie.

Nowhere did I declare that the Bible doesn’t know what its talking about. Perhaps you could point out where I did?

By saying that if it results in some benifit to us it’s not a sin, even though the bible clearly says it is.

And could you explain just how I’m lying? I don’t believe I’m lying…

By saying the bible never mentions the issue even once.

Because in this matter I’m speaking from experience, not from some legalistic moral theory I picked up from a book

I’m also speaking from experiance, of what I’ve seen, and from what I’ve read from, if I’m not mistaken, the CDC. As far as I know the bible never lists detailed dunkenness statistics

because it was easier to memorize some moral dictum than learn how to recognize the good.

Well, I’m not saying you shouldn’t learn how to recognise good. However, when the bible clearly says it’s bad, I think that’s more reliable than my own or your own guesswork.

Because my experience shows that what you take for granted as a general image of what it means to be gay–this “lifestyle” of hedonism, drug addiction, depression, debauchery and dissolute living–is not a requisite or de facto part of every gay person’s experience, nor is it a function of merely being gay, much as you would seem to argue to the contrary. Because this image that you’ve constructed of what it is to be gay, is merely a titillating horror story that legalistic and petty, sentimental religionists like to tell each other because it projects the brokenness of sin that we all share onto a very specific and visible group that they can say they have nothing to do with.

So you mean I only see what’s happened to him because I want to feel better than him?

Because if I am to be condemned by God, it will not be because I love my partner. And I know this. For a fact.

Well, I don’t know who is and isn’t beind condemmed, however, I never said that loving your partner was sinful. Commiting “indecent acts” let’s call them, is. If you know those are not sinful, how do you know this?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Timbo. You are not a very good reader.

He wants to change because he wants to be normal.

Regardless of my readin, ritin, and rithmatic skills, I was able to actually read what he said, and he said that he wants something better than being a practicing gay.

Because he has intuited from his religion and the culture around him that he is not normal and must therefore change. Because he doesn’t want to be different. Because he wants to measure up to what other people think he should be.

Try actually reading what he said. He said he wants a better life.

Timbo, you and others here are mistaking youth and desperation for a clear-headed evaluation of options simply because the conclusion he’s reached is the conclusion you would have him reach.

Try actually reading what he said. He said he gave it a lot of thought. I think he said he was almost old enough to vote, that is, to get a say in who controls America’s economy and military up to and including nuclear weapons. I trust his decision, why don’t you?

QUOTE] But my wish is that he make this decision not based on a skewed understanding of normal, that vicious social idol, but based on an understanding of a particular calling to be what he is, even if what he is is not what others would have him be. Congratulations! I think that’s what he’s done.

My wish is that he realize here and now, regardless of his sexuality, that he is beloved by God and does not need to change his sexuality in order to be a whole person.

I never said that, however, the bible is clear that there are certain acts that are sinful and should not be done.

For what it’s worth, my uncle was a Vietnam Vet and an alcoholic. I guess military service leads to the living of a dissolute and unfulfilling life, too.

I understand the stress from combat, and PTSD, can indeed make life difficult.

 

[turtle18]

Jesus makes a reference to Sodom & Gomorrah in the New Testament; he is making an inference here that the judgement for them is to be harsh–in fact he uses it as a measure to explain how bad the judgement is going to be for some other people.

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm

So there you have it–out of the mouth of the One who can speak no lies–Sodom & Gomorrah DID happen as Jesus is incapable of lying & He references it in the New Testament.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Wait a minute, you are saying that following the bible is following an idol?

It can be. Particularly if following the Bible or anything else diminishes your capacity to love–you’re either not following it right, or it’s an idol.

That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. I would say that also applies to your “flourishing” standard, just because you could get some benifit from it doesn’t mean it’s not a sin.

Again, you’re not getting the point. This flourishing is not done in a vacuum. How many times have I linked the idea of flourishing with the idea of relationships bearing good fruit? This is not about a tit for tat, economy-based reward morality, about doing something in order to get some benefit (a word I did not use, by the way). It’s about doing the things that make us more of what we are–and more of what we are involves a greater capacity to give and receive love. This implies relationship, and it implies the fostering of relationships which bear good fruit and which encourage the bearing of good fruit in others. I’m not talking about relationships which help you earn more money, relationships which help you get a discount on a car rental, or any such relationships. All of that is meaningless in the long run. I’m talking about relationships which help you to be more human.

Again, this concept is not that hard to understand.

Very well, I’ll break it down for you: The verse I referenced from Leviticus was, I believe, a direct commandment.

Romans makes it clear that commandment still applies. The verse I referenced in Romans was about a bunch of very sinful people, and it was listing one of their sins.

Check out the alternative commentary above in my response to BobObob’s post. There’s more going on in these passages than you suppose.

I’m just guessing that most gay relationships today involve “indecent acts”.

I wouldn’t know. I imagine that some involve such acts, and that others don’t. Much like in most relationships.

Keep in mind, I’ve no specific acts in mind (as I wrote above to BobObob) but am thinking of any act in a relationship which prevents that relationship from bearing good fruit (which, as you will remember from above, has nothing to do with material benefit). It could be an act of aggression, an act of lust / an objectfying act, an act of repression, an act of belittling…we all know these acts when we perpetrate them or when we come to be their victims. It’s not rocket science.

No, I’m not confusing the 2. I’m trying to make a point by saying that some benifit to you does not mean it isn’t sinful. I made it so well that you even thought I was serious.

Your point would have been more cleverly made if that bit about material benefit had anything to do with what I was saying. Since when does perpetuating a misunderstanding by propagating a misunderstanding amount to anything more than desperate misunderstanding?

A spreadsheet analysis? No, not breaking these basic commandments is just part of morality. However, it’s very important. Morality without them is like a house with only one wall.

My point is that it is easy to fall into the trap of mere legalism, a dead morality. See James’ epistle in which he discusses the Royal Law of Love versus the old law.

You said it never mentioned the issue even once. That is a lie.

Not quite. Keep in mind that our modern understanding of homosexuality, including the word itself, is largely a development of the 19th century. I do not think it is particularly wise of us to assume that the ancient writers of scripture shared our understanding of sexuality, particularly an understanding that is so comparatively recent. It is much more reasonable to assume that, while what they were talking about it is related to our understanding of sexuality, it is nonetheless different. To find a discourse on homosexuality in the Bible, one must first read our contemporary understanding of homosexuality into the Bible.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

He said he wants a better life.

That better life does not necessarily require a change in sexuality. He will have to be more explicit in this regard, but it seems like the subtext of that post is this: “I do not want to feel the pain and uncertainty involved with knowing that I am different from other people, or that other people will see me as different. I want the uncomplicated happiness everyone else seems to have.” If my reading is correct (and granted, it may be incorrect), he wants these things because that is what “normal” people seem to have.

He said he gave it a lot of thought. I think he said he was almost old enough to vote, that is, to get a say in who controls America’s economy and military up to and including nuclear weapons. I trust his decision, why don’t you?

I don’t doubt that he gave it a lot of thought. When I was 17, I gave a lot of thought to these things, too. It was a very painful and difficult time. That doesn’t mean that my thought process was particularly well-informed or well-balanced. Looking back on it now, I appreciate the struggle that I went through as it helped me grow up and contributed to my formation as a person in ways that, now, I value. But at the time, clear-headedness was not to be had in abundance, and a pressure to conform to social conditioning, familial and cultural expectations, etc. was very powerful. In the face of that conditioning, those expectations, that pressure, I often felt willing to do anything to rid myself of that unhappiness. It was all rather desperate. And not at all pleasant. But, again, it is something that now I am grateful for.

I think it is difficult to confidently conflate maturity with a particular age, regardless of the new legal benefits and responsibilities that that age entails.

What I trust in all of this is that he is being honest about where he is. Continuing to be honest will help him discover what he really values, what he really believes, and how he really sees the world in which he lives. He will therefore be in a better position, by grace, to change what he does not like within and without himself, and to celebrate what he does like. I also trust that 17 is a very peculiar age to begin with.

I understand the stress from combat, and PTSD, can indeed make life difficult.

They certainly did for my uncle. However, I never particularly believed that this difficulty was necessarily a result of all military service–just that it was the result of his. In other words, I never extrapolated from my experience of his condition that all veterans would be similarly or identically afflicted. Because that would have been silly of me.

(By the way, Turtle, context of that particular passage in which Jesus mentions S&G will reveal that he was referencing the prophetic tradition (Ezekiel 16:49) that claimed–“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” A warning to us all.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

CarlaOLS, I was referring to the OP. He was referring to himself as an “abomination” which is something that hurts me deeply.

I felt I had to explain myself in that post you responded to. :ehh:

Ironically Yours.

 

[BobObob]

Hi BobObob. I really think you should be careful about your vocabulary. For Rome to say that homosexual attraction is a disorder, but not a sin, and for you to say that what is sin is disordered is just the sort of confusion which goes to the heart of what this issue is all about.

I believe the word disorder can refer to anything that is not as it ought to be. It can refer to evil or it can also refer to something that is not evil in itself but is for some reason not as it ideally ought to be.

I believe that when the church says that homosexual attraction is a disorder, they are saying that it is not something one ought to have, in the sense that it is a deviation that may further tempt one to sin, although it is not a sin in itself.

When I used the word “disorder”, I was using it in the other sense, that of being something of an intrinsic evil.

The same word can be used either of those two different ways.

Regarding the disciplinary laws and restrictions, are you saying that God just randomly said that certainly things were not to be done? That he’s just capricious that way? That one day he said, “I really don’t like that fashion with the mixing of the two different types of cloth–it’s so declasse. Anyway, I just don’t like it. ABOMINATION!” Somehow, I don’t think that’s how morality works. If that is how it works, then I wonder how Paul can write at the beginning of Romans that even pagans have an understanding of morality if morality is, essentially both random and revealed.

We have to conclude that God, in God’s mercy, proscribes something because it is bad for us, not because he’s just not into it. Does a proscription in one place at one time mean that the proscription will be eternal? No. The New Testament’s revoking of the ritual purity laws proves that.

(By the way, when Peter had his vision of the food on the cloth, I don’t think that what it meant was simply that lobster was back on the menu. The Spirit is doing marvellous things–the process of leading us into all truth, of expanding the horizons of what we believe we can love, of what is holy, of what is good, is an ongoing work of grace.)

It seems that no matter what I say you always find a way to misinterpret it. I mentioned the disciplinary laws to separate them from those things which are evil in themselves. My point in mentioning the word abomination was to mention that God was indicating that it was something wrong and evil in itself, rather than a restriction placed on Israel for disciplinary reasons. By “evil” I am broadly meaning the opposite of Godly and Holy.

Many of these laws were placed on the Israelites after breaking God’s commands as sort of punishments.

I believe the purpose of the vision that Peter, the head of the newly founded church, had, was for God to reveal to him that the laws that God placed on the Jews for disciplinary reasons, and other Jewish laws, were no longer in effect. The new covenant with Christ is better than the Jewish laws.

I talked to you a little bit about “love” elsewhere. Many people use love as a synonym for lust and use it as an excuse for their sexual behavior. Thus, someone could use your exact words to mean very different things. What do you mean when you use this word?

If you are a true Catholic, you can use the Church as the constant to navigate the seas of moral uncertainty and to be the official interpreter of the Bible. After all, if I am correct it was the early Church which composed the canon of the Bible. This does not mean that a Catholic shouldn’t blindly follow their faith (Catholics should understand why they are Catholic by, in a healthy way, playing “devil’s advocate” with their faith).

Grace & Peace!I’m surprised that you didn’t get into a discussion of the other Hebrew word used here–to’evah, translated as abomination and meaning what is ritually impure or taboo. In the Septuagint, the word is bdelygma. What does not appear here is zimah-that which is sinful or evil in itself. The word in the Septuagint that translates zimah is anomia and is also, consequently, lacking. You will see, given these words and given the context (of idolatry and of cultural difference, which also happens to be the context of the first chapter of Romans) that what is being discussed here is what is ritually taboo–not what is sin in itself. Disorder is not even part of the conversation.

That word can also refer to what is ethically unclean, not just ritually, although it can be used either way. It is used as meaning intrinsically evil in these places:

Deuteronomy 7:25-26 (idolatry)
Deuteronomy 18:12 (magic)
Deuteronomy 23:18 (prostitution and homosexual prostitution)
Deuteronomy 27:15 (idolatry)
2 Chronicles 28:3 (child sacrifice)
Proverbs 6:16-19 (six abominations)
Proverbs 8:7 (wickedness)
Proverbs 11:1 (false balance)
Proverbs 12:22 (lying lips)
Proverbs 15:9 (ways of the wicked)
Proverbs 15:26 (thought of the wicked)
Proverbs 16:5 (pride)
Ezekiel 18:12-13 (oppressing poor, idolatry)

The list goes on, but I’m going to stop because I’m tired and my eyes are bleeding from looking at the computer screen for too long. My point is that this that this word does not always refer to just what is ritually taboo, but, in many cases, what is intrinsically evil and directly opposed to God.

I would also recommend that you read 1 Kings 14:22-24, 2 Kings 23:7.

CONTINUED…

 

[BobObob]

(…CONTINUED AND FINISHED)

It can be. Particularly if following the Bible or anything else diminishes your capacity to love–you’re either not following it right, or it’s an idol.

I was just wondering, if you don’t mind me asking you, Deo Volente, how would you describe you religious beliefs? How did you come upon those religious beliefs? What do you think about the Bible? Would you say that you are a “Bible believing Christian?”

Not quite. Keep in mind that our modern understanding of homosexuality, including the word itself, is largely a development of the 19th century. I do not think it is particularly wise of us to assume that the ancient writers of scripture shared our understanding of sexuality, particularly an understanding that is so comparatively recent. It is much more reasonable to assume that, while what they were talking about it is related to our understanding of sexuality, it is nonetheless different. To find a discourse on homosexuality in the Bible, one must first read our contemporary understanding of homosexuality into the Bible.

I think that the Bible is very clear that any use the sexual faculty between guys is evil and contrary to what God intended when He invented sexuality. Even though what we mean by “homosexuality” may have changed recently, the Bible seems clear that sex (by sex I mean any use of the sexual faculty) between guys is immoral. If you disagree with me here, please tell me how you think the understanding of sexuality has changed in such a way that the Bible in no way condemns homosexual acts. tell me how you think the understanding of sexuality has changed in such a way that the Bible in no way condemns homosexual acts.

Even in the scenario that the writers were mentioning related, but not identical things with regard to sexuality, that does not mean that homosexual acts are moral. The Bible is not supposed to be a catechism that explicitly lists everything that we should or should not do. There are many things that are explicitly, rather than implicitly, condemned in the Bible.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Here is a small part of what he said about his study and the conclusions he drew from it:

video.yahoo.com/watch/206187/901910

BOB O BOB ROCKS!

Thanks Bob!

 

[CarlaOLS]

I thank you for presenting that document. It has helped me to form a more factual opinion of the Catholic Church and her teachings on sexuality.

You’re Welcome Mking. I think it is best if we Catholics try to understand the issue, to understand why the SSA is not sinful, but why it is disordered and why any action on that attraction is intrinsicly sinful. In this way we can not only understand the issue, but more importantly, reach out to our fellow Catholics who suffer SSA with compassion, prayer and real help in the form of groups, resources, pooling faithful counselors and therapists, and a super inclusive support system.

Here is the whole booklet: cathmed.org/publications/homosexualityarticle.htm

---

Send an email with the words, “YES! I Will Pray” in the title to
sorrowfulheart4ssa@yahoo.com
to join a group who pray the St. Michael Prayer daily for people with SSA.
Joining is just a way to share information and good news about SSA lambs that have returned to the faith and share the progress of those on the Sorrowful Heart Prayer list. The prayer takes just 15 seconds a day - If you email, the group will send you a magnet with the prayer for your fridge to remind you to pray for SSA every day. * “Once a Day for SSA!”*

 

[CarlaOLS]

Here is an example of the difference in rates of mental illness for practicing homosexuals.

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

*C. Mental Health

1. Psychiatric Illness

Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people’s unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of "the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."80

The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders. *

Also check out:
traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf

And how bout this whopper :

*LONDON - A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one’s life by only 1 to 7 years on average.

While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50’s, or in their 40’s if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

My point in mentioning the word abomination was to mention that God was indicating that it was something wrong and evil in itself …].

We’ll get into this word “abomination” (actually, we’ll get into to’evah) below.

Many of these laws were placed on the Israelites after breaking God’s commands as sort of punishments.

So God punishes us by giving us a commandment? That’s a bit odd, I think.

I believe the purpose of the vision that Peter, the head of the newly founded church, had, was for God to reveal to him that the laws that God placed on the Jews for disciplinary reasons, and other Jewish laws, were no longer in effect. The new covenant with Christ is better than the Jewish laws.

I would argue that’s a narrow reading of the universal implications of the gospel message, the proclamation of the Royal Law of Love.

I talked to you a little bit about “love” elsewhere. Many people use love as a synonym for lust and use it as an excuse for their sexual behavior. Thus, someone could use your exact words to mean very different things. What do you mean when you use this word?

I suppose words are multivalent aren’t they. Like disorder, apparently. Like abomination (but we’ll get to that).

When I speak of love, I am not speaking of lust. If I were speaking of lust, I would use the word lust. When I speak of love, I understand a term that encompasses the various forms of love which we often like to parse out of our understanding of love because we somehow find it difficult to, for instance, comprehend that God can be in erotic love as well as in agape love. In all the various forms of love, self-giving without expectation of reward appears to be the keynote. Objectification of the other, such as that which occurs with lust, is not part of the conversation here. This objectification is at the root of what I understand by “indecent acts”–I said as much in posts above.

That word can also refer to what is ethically unclean, not just ritually, although it can be used either way. It is used as meaning intrinsically evil in these places:

Deuteronomy 7:25-26 (idolatry)
Deuteronomy 18:12 (magic)
Deuteronomy 23:18 (prostitution and homosexual prostitution)
Deuteronomy 27:15 (idolatry)
2 Chronicles 28:3 (child sacrifice)
Proverbs 6:16-19 (six abominations)
Proverbs 8:7 (wickedness)
Proverbs 11:1 (false balance)
Proverbs 12:22 (lying lips)
Proverbs 15:9 (ways of the wicked)
Proverbs 15:26 (thought of the wicked)
Proverbs 16:5 (pride)
Ezekiel 18:12-13 (oppressing poor, idolatry)

The list goes on, but I’m going to stop because I’m tired and my eyes are bleeding from looking at the computer screen for too long. My point is that this that this word does not always refer to just what is ritually taboo, but, in many cases, what is intrinsically evil and directly opposed to God.

I would also recommend that you read 1 Kings 14:22-24, 2 Kings 23:7.

Ah! To’evah!

There are readily available studies of the incidences of the word which plot the development of the word’s meaning over time, but the overall scholarly consensus indicates that in the majority of references, it refers either to ritual taboo or an incidence of idolatry. Where it does not, the word appears in a later text (such as a prophetic text, or its uses in Proverbs) which represents a development of the meaning from it’s original context, say in Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

Or, say, in the story of Joseph eating with his brothers in Egypt, which is the word’s first appearance in the Bible–that is, Joseph did not eat with his brothers, because it was to’evah for Egyptians to do so. The context of Leviticus indicates that it is exactly this use of the word which the book supports–what is to’evah (like eating shrimp or visiting a temple prostitute) is related either to idolatrous practice or to what other cultures do. It is therefore taboo.

I Kings supports this understanding as well with the expulsion of the male and female cult prostitutes from the temple. Now, granted, the word could mean something different in another book of the Bible, but context indicates that here in Leviticus, to’evah is referring to ritual taboo, not something evil in itself.

For what its worth, there is a rabbinical argument that that passage of Leviticus, given the curious Hebrew expression used in it (*mishk’vei ishah) *which does not appear anywhere else in the Torah or in the Talmud (where homosexual acts are generally referred to by a different phrase-- mishkav zakhar–which is used elsewhere in the Torah to refer to a woman having sex with a man) refers in fact to two men having sex with one woman, the correct reading being something like, “along with another male, you shall not lie in sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Granted, though, the more common understanding is, of course, that the passage in Leviticus is referring to male cult prostitution, not, of course, to your run of the mill contemporary loving homosexual relationship.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

I was just wondering, if you don’t mind me asking you, Deo Volente, how would you describe you religious beliefs? How did you come upon those religious beliefs? What do you think about the Bible? Would you say that you are a “Bible believing Christian?”

I think more specific parameters of your question are needed to answer it well. Suffice to say that I was raised a non-liturgical Protestant and am currently a high-church Anglican (Anglo-Catholic), in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. If you were looking for a basic explication of my beliefs, I could do no better than to refer you to the Nicene Creed. I will say, in addition, that reading the sayings of the Desert Fathers occasioned a profound, fundamental, revolutionary and radical shift in my understanding of Christianity, my life, the world, and my relationship to all of it.

How did I come to believe as I do? By God’s grace.

What do I think about the Bible? I think it’s great! But that, again, it is a very open-ended question–more specifics would be needed to answer it properly, I think. I do subscribe to that old Anglican chestnut of the three-legged stool–Scripture, Reason, and Tradition–as sources of revelation. For what it’s worth, when it comes to Biblical interpretation, Origen’s admonition that if we read anything in scripture that appears to go against our sure knowledge that God is Love, then our interpretation of that part of scripture must be in error. It’s our job to go deeper. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life. I also believe that Scripture is dynamic, not static, meant to be engaged with, not set up on a pedestal and worshipped.

Am I Bible believing Christian? In the way that many Protestants and crypto-literalists like to use that phrase, no. Do I believe that the Bible is one form of revelation, yes. But it’s not the only form.

I think that the Bible is very clear that any use the sexual faculty between guys is evil and contrary to what God intended when He invented sexuality. Even though what we mean by “homosexuality” may have changed recently, the Bible seems clear that sex (by sex I mean any use of the sexual faculty) between guys is immoral. If you disagree with me here, please tell me how you think the understanding of sexuality has changed in such a way that the Bible in no way condemns homosexual acts.

We clearly disagree. My reasoning has been in evidence throughout my posts, including my understanding of the word “to’evah” in its proper context. The Bible condemns expressions of homosexual acts within the context of idolatry, i.e., cult prostitution, a reading which is supported by the context of the passage in Romans 1. That’s as far as the Bible goes.

Even in the scenario that the writers were mentioning related, but not identical things with regard to sexuality, that does not mean that homosexual acts are moral.

This is a matter of interpretation. It does not mean that homosexual acts within the context of a loving relationship (see our discussion of love above) are necessarily immoral, either. More often than not, I have found that the conclusion that loving homosexual relationships are immoral is arrived at through the application of social pressure, the demands of the idol of normativity, and the power of self-hatred all combining to shed a particular light on certain Biblical passages.

The Bible is not supposed to be a catechism that explicitly lists everything that we should or should not do. There are many things that are explicitly, rather than implicitly, condemned in the Bible.

As I wrote to Timbo, I think it is possible for us to come to an understanding of what is good or bad for us based on the fruit that it bears.

I notice that you did not answer my question re: the possibility of an abstinent homosexual celebrating their homosexuality as a good gift.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!