Homosexual politics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Incomplete said:
Interesting. So this site is saying Josephus goes beyond the Biblical data…is that the point you’re making? Because it seems to me that this is an early example of, indeed, using the term Sodomy. But the comment about Josephus going beyond Biblical date is an assessment only made in recent years by people who are much further away from it, or at least, that’s the impression the link you provided gives me. In fact, I don’t see any citations for the statement that Josephus does this, so it looks like just the opinion of the person writing the Wikipedia page.

You did, in fact, give proof that Sodomy has been considered a sin of same-sex relations…unless I’m missing something in what you linked me to. (And it wouldn’t be my first time I’ve misunderstood!)

I initially glanced at the page and missed that this is what you sent me to…that’s why I expected to write more.

But keep looking at that page. I didn’t read it all because it seems to agree that early Christians preached against same-sex relationships. For example, from the source you linked me to:

Christians earlier than Justinian are also seen to denounce same-sex relations. St. John Chrysostom in the 4th century regarded such as worse than murder in his fourth homily on Romans 1:26-27 [4], while Paul the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans referred to same sex relations as “shameful lust” and which acts were contrary to nature, with men suffering a “due penalty” in their bodies. Just like the Jews, early Christians prior to Justinian I are not known to have used the word sodomia for the carnal sin they abhorred, though Philo of Alexandria (20 BC - 50 AD)[20] and Methodius of Olympus (AD 260-312)[21] attributed homosexual relations to Sodom, as may have Josephus, (AD 37 – c. 100)[22][23] Augustine of Hippo, (AD 354-430)[24] and certain pseudepigraphacal texts.[25][26][27]

You can argue that this states that early Christians prior to Justinian 1 are not known to have used the word “sodomia”, but that is irrelevant on a couple of accounts. First, this is still pretty early. Second, this indicates that, whatever term they used, they denounced same-sex relations.
Click to expand...
Well first off all, that quote speaks about shameless acts, unnatural relations, and such.
And half of the people where not even Christian…:confused:
 
And seems like they where already married, or they at least had a relationship.

“as may have Josephus, (AD 37 – c. 100)[22][23] Augustine of Hippo, (AD 354-430)”
May have…
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
And seems like they where already married, or they at least had a relationship.

“as may have Josephus, (AD 37 – c. 100)[22][23] Augustine of Hippo, (AD 354-430)”
May have…
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your point here.
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
Well first off all, that quote speaks about shameless acts, unnatural relations, and such.
And half of the people where not even Christian…:confused:
Click to expand...
I am also confused.

This quote, from the article you linked me to, talks about same-sex relations. You earlier said that it’s only relatively new that we referenced sodomy with same-sex relations. But this quote shows that even early Christians spoke against homosexuality.

If you read the works of early Christians, you will find that it is not new thinking to speak of homosexual behaviors as sinful.
 
Incomplete said:
I am also confused.

This quote, from the article you linked me to, talks about same-sex relations. You earlier said that it’s only relatively new that we referenced sodomy with same-sex relations. But this quote shows that even early Christians spoke against homosexuality.

If you read the works of early Christians, you will find that it is not new thinking to speak of homosexual behaviors as sinful.
Click to expand...
No, they speak of shameless acts, unnatural relations, the idea that this is homosexual behavior came later, besides the men Saint Paul was talking about men who where married.
I think you have to look at the cultural context in which something is said as well.
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
No, they speak of shameless acts, unnatural relations, the idea that this is homosexual behavior came later, besides the men Saint Paul was talking about men who where married.
I think you have to look at the cultural context in which something is said as well.
Click to expand...
This is part of the quote:
while Paul the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans referred to same sex relations as “shameful lust”
Click to expand...
That’s why you confuse me.

You linked to this to prove that sodomy was not about homosexuality. I’m still not understanding how you make that point from that particular link. Your initial point was that sodomy was not considered to mean homosexual behavior until recently. I asked a source, you gave me this link, and all I’m really asking is how you get that out of this…and the fact that it doesn’t actually matter if “sodomy” actually meant same-sex relations or not, the early teachings spoke against it.

Your earlier post was trying to make the point that this is relatively new interpretation. I’m still questioning how the link you sent me to actually proves this.
 
Incomplete said:
This is part of the quote:

That’s why you confuse me.

You linked to this to prove that sodomy was not about homosexuality. I’m still not understanding how you make that point from that particular link. Your initial point was that sodomy was not considered to mean homosexual behavior until recently. I asked a source, you gave me this link, and all I’m really asking is how you get that out of this…and the fact that it doesn’t actually matter if “sodomy” actually meant same-sex relations or not, the early teachings spoke against it.

Your earlier post was trying to make the point that this is relatively new interpretation. I’m still questioning how the link you sent me to actually proves this.
Click to expand...
I think i know why its confusing, and why you oppose my views, you think i believe the doctrines need to be changed because i WANT them to change right?

But that is not the case, my conscience tells me it needs to be changed, not my will.🙂

My will on the other hand says we should get rid of the vow of celibacy, but my conscience remains silent on that, so i reluctantly do not oppose it. 🤷
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
I think i know why its confusing, and why you oppose my views, you think i believe the doctrines need to be changed because i WANT them to change right?

But that is not the case, my conscience tells me it needs to be changed, not my will.🙂

My will on the other hand says we should get rid of the vow of celibacy, but my conscience remains silent on that, so i reluctantly do not oppose it. 🤷
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict’s conscience would disagree with yours. Why should you trust your conscience over his? He is obviously a very prayerful man, who has given up a lot to dedicate his life to God.

It’s especially interesting to me that you remain silent on an issue that is not a matter of doctrine and can be changed, but not on an issue that won’t be changed.

But my point wasn’t about your desire to change doctrine. I was trying to understand where you were coming from when you said that it is only recently that we started considering homosexual behaviors and sodomy together, because you posted a link that indicated otherwise.

I will also tell you this, as well…

Either God has a place where the fullness of truth can be known, or He doesn’t. I cannot believe in a God of truth who doesn’t find a way to teach us truth…not truth that we can only guess (you said earlier we can’t know, we can only hope) or He doesn’t. Scripture says Jesus was sending the Spirit to lead us to truth. But if there is no way to know truth, then “truth” is no good. Because we can’t know it. If we can’t know some, we can’t know any, because we can only know that on SOME issues we may be right…and can’t know which issues those are.

If God did lead us to truth, He did it from the beginning of His Church. Because, again, otherwise how would you know? How could you know at what point the Church actually had the fullness of truth? You couldn’t. You could only know that God doesn’t care about truth. Which means that if He does exist, He could be anything. Even evil.

So…if the Church changes it’s doctrine, I have no reason to believe in a God who cares about Truth. In fact, I have no reason at all then to believe in God.

So while your conscience says the Church is wrong all these years, do know that if that teaching changes, I will personally end up an atheist. And I know others who feel the same way I do. Not because of this individual teaching, but because it would prove the Church was just guessing, so there’s no real truth to be known. Everything becomes a matter of opinion.

But back to the original questions: how does the link you left me to read actually prove the point you were trying to make? And…how do you know that your conscience is right, and the conscience of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II are wrong? How can we actually know truth?
 
If the Church suddenly came out tomorrow and said “we have studied the Scriptures and have concluded that we cannot be sure about the Resurrection, and our previous teaching on that subject was in error” THEN I could see someone ending up as an atheist.

However, if the Church chose to come out tomorrow and says “we have studied the Scriptures and the history and culture of the time said scriptures were written and we have concluded that some of our previously held convictions on marriage and homosexual relationships were in error” and that makes a person choose to be an atheist-it’s not really about God at all, is it?
 
Seeker1961 said:
If the Church suddenly came out tomorrow and said “we have studied the Scriptures and have concluded that we cannot be sure about the Resurrection, and our previous teaching on that subject was in error” THEN I could see someone ending up as an atheist.

However, if the Church chose to come out tomorrow and says “we have studied the Scriptures and the history and culture of the time said scriptures were written and we have concluded that some of our previously held convictions on marriage and homosexual relationships were in error” and that makes a person choose to be an atheist-it’s not really about God at all, is it?
Click to expand...
If the Church says that something that it has proclaimed as truth was not, after all, true, then I would have no reason to believe that other truths would also not be true. Including the truth about the Resurrection. I don’t believe the Church has been right through the centuries because of study of Scripture and the culture of the times; I believe they have been right because the Holy Spirit provides a way that we can know truth. I do not believe in a God who values truth and gives us no way to know truth.
 
fix said:
It is never changing. It cannot change.
Click to expand...
Why not?, the teaching on usury changed.
I do not see why it cant, but if you do i will not hold that against you. 🙂

And no, it will not cause me to doubt in the word of our lord.
Why should it?
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
Why not?, the teaching on usury changed.
I do not see why it cant, but if you do i will not hold that against you. 🙂

And no, it will not cause me to doubt in the word of our lord.
Why should it?
Click to expand...
Usury is still a sin. The meaning of money changed.

No, the teaching on sexual morality cannot change.
 
fix said:
Usury is still a sin. The meaning of money changed.

No, the teaching on sexual morality cannot change.
Click to expand...
I do not see why not.
But if you believe so i will not hold that against you. 🙂
 
Incomplete said:
If the Church says that something that it has proclaimed as truth was not, after all, true, then I would have no reason to believe that other truths would also not be true. Including the truth about the Resurrection. I don’t believe the Church has been right through the centuries because of study of Scripture and the culture of the times; I believe they have been right because the Holy Spirit provides a way that we can know truth. I do not believe in a God who values truth and gives us no way to know truth.
Click to expand...
In over 2000 years of history the beliefs that we profess in the Creed have not changed. Beliefs about science and culture HAVE changed over those 2000 years.

After years of studying theology, law and history I know two things-the Holy Spirit is always speaking, but humankind is not always listening. The forces of greed, ignorance and power are strong, and they can often drown out that still small voice appealing to our better nature.
 
Seeker1961 said:
In over 2000 years of history the beliefs that we profess in the Creed have not changed. Beliefs about science and culture HAVE changed over those 2000 years.

After years of studying theology, law and history I know two things-the Holy Spirit is always speaking, but humankind is not always listening. The forces of greed, ignorance and power are strong, and they can often drown out that still small voice appealing to our better nature.
Click to expand...
Beliefs about science have changed, but the things that the church defines as truths do not change. There is a difference between evolving understanding and saying that something taught as truth turns out not to be.

You are right that humankind does not always listen. That is why we cannot trust to individuals. That is why it only makes sense to me that God set forth some way we can know His truths.

If we cannot know the truth because we are not listening (and as individuals, we can’t) and God provided no other place to know truth…then truth doesn’t matter because we can’t know any truth…because we don’t know if what we hold as “truth” truly is “truth.”
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
And no, it will not cause me to doubt in the word of our lord.
Why should it?
Click to expand...
Of course, the problem becomes…how do you know the Word of our Lord, if we can decide that what was true at one time was not true after all?
 
Incomplete said:
Beliefs about science have changed, but the things that the church defines as truths do not change. There is a difference between evolving understanding and saying that something taught as truth turns out not to be.

You are right that humankind does not always listen. That is why we cannot trust to individuals. That is why it only makes sense to me that God set forth some way we can know His truths.

If we cannot know the truth because we are not listening (and as individuals, we can’t) and God provided no other place to know truth…then truth doesn’t matter because we can’t know any truth…because we don’t know if what we hold as “truth” truly is “truth.”
Click to expand...
All I can say is that over the course of the last 2000 plus years, there have been changes in what the Church held as “truths” about culture and human relationships. Again, study the history yourself if you don’t believe that, I’ve already done my homework. Learning about those changes in college and graduate school didn’t drive me to become an atheist, but it did make me more realistic about how I view the man made institution that is the Church.

I can stand up in Church every week and say the Creed without hesitation while also knowing that the Church is now and has always been run by human beings who can get the message wrong now and then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top