Homosexual Relationships

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kitteh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
East_and_West said:
Hmmm. Jude verse 7 : “Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, 6 serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Nice try but no cigar.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

However, what do we do in exotic cases then? I cannot be qualified as male or female with any real scientific test.

What is ‘same’ and what is ‘opposite’ in someone that is genetically, physically and hormonally between? I prefer men, am I gay, or am I straight? The determination cannot really be made, and there isn’t a darned thing about that in the bible.

Before we knew any of this I was treated for SSA due to effeminate behavior as a child, run through the whole conversion therapy and all manner of treatments until they realized, nope…really I was born that way…quite literally and provably even!

Literally the answer I got from the NCBC (National Catholic Bioethics Center) was a “We don’t know”.
 
Newbie2 said:
(Answer mentioned in my last post)

By all means, I’m not sidestepping the issue. What I asked and am still waiting for is a single scripture reference to illustrate the allegation that the RCC is “anti-gay”.
Click to expand...
Here’s one easy example:
God and his word says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for several things. Homosexuality is nowhere mentioned in scripture as one of those things.
But, take someone who’s “anti-gay”, and the false, unbiblical notion arises that the cites were destroyed because of homosexuality.
That’s taking a scriptural references and twisting it so it can be used a weapon against “gays”. Hence, “anti-gay!”
 
Grace & Peace!
Daddums said:
*Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. *

I enjoyed your interpretation of scripture. I really did. 🙂

Daddums 🙂
Click to expand...
Daddums, I’m glad you enjoyed it! Though let’s please stick to the text(s) at hand–Genesis, Ezekiel and Jude. I don’t know how much of the discussion you’ve read, but we’ve lately been looking at the story of Sodom. It’s my contention that its about hospitality and violence (sexual violence, sure, but violence), not about sexuality as we understand it. The verses you quote from Romans don’t quite apply here–certainly they apply to the broader issue of homosexual activity and the Bible, but they don’t gloss the story of Sodom.

Would you like to talk about the passage from Romans in context? I’d be happy to!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
kristie_m said:
I was just listening to a show last night that addressed this very topic. (what is and is not a sin, not necessarily homosexual activity)

The speaker clarified the arguement that the sin was not necessarily eating meat on Friday, but rather disobedience to the directive.

To put it another way, if my child wants to eat a cookie there is nothing specifically wrong with that action. However, if I should tell her “no cookies” and she eats one anyway, she has disobeyed me and will get into trouble. She might not realize it, but perhaps there was a very good reason for me to tell her not to eat cookies. Maybe there was something in it that she’s allergic to, or perhaps she needs to be on a diet. These aren’t necessarily things that she’ll understand, but she still needs to be obedient.

I don’t see the church every changing her views on homosexual activity. And whether people like it or not, it is our place as Catholics to trust our Holy Father to make these kinds of decisions, and to be obedient. We might not like it, but this is where faith comes in.

I don’t like the idea of no artificial birth control, but I trust that the law is there for a good reason, and I accept it.

There are moral laws, just as there are civil laws. If you go out on a Friday night and get drunk, then get in your car you’re going to be arrested, whether you hurt someone or not. Just the same, if we break the moral law, whether or not anyone else is hurt in the process, we will pay the penalty.

If I were to rely solely on myself, my intellect, my conscience to guide me I’d be a fool. It is far too easy to rationalize behavior, and with time, your conscience becomes dull. (how many mortal sins have I committed because I convinced myself I was in the right???) And while I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, it would be incredibly arrogant to think that I understand scripture better than the pope.

The Catholic Church is not on some kind of power trip. The goal is not to control us, but rather to act as a moral compass. This is not for the good of the church and it’s heirarchy, but for the good of all God’s people.
Click to expand...
In your whole post the one word that I didn’t see you mention anywhere is “scripture”. God’s inspired and holy word. There is no Christian religion without it. And while Catholics don’t adopt the philosophy of “sola scriptura”, one thing’s for sure, they do start there. And you know what, so do I. So let’s start there and see what God, and his divinely recorded 4000 plus year old word has to say. Specifically, on the topic of “homosexuality.”
 
pathia said:
Fair enough.

However, what do we do in exotic cases then? I cannot be qualified as male or female with any real scientific test.

Literally the answer I got from the NCBC (National Catholic Bioethics Center) was a “We don’t know”.
Click to expand...
Dear Pathia,

I can understand the NCBC’s response of a “we don’t know.” However, I’m also guessing that they gave you a lengthier response that you aren’t sharing with us. I’m glad you got in contact with them. If you feel you weren’t treated with dignity from them, I would continue on in your search for answers, by going past something “National” to something “Vatican.” I would give the Vatican more clout than something “National.”

What do you do in your situation? I truly believe that the Catholic Church is the only Church that is clear on this.
You do the same thing I do. The same thing millions of single Catholics are doing. You abstain from sexual relations. While I don’t have SSA, I am a single unmarried female. Due to my state in life, there is only one thing for me to do, remain celibate. “Not fair,” you think?

Have you read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? A good introduction to his work is Christopher West’s Good News for Sex and Marriage. Then you might wish to delve into Theology of the Body Explained.

As a lapsed Catholic, you might find that the Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that addresses your particular situation. Celibacy for the Kingdom is entirely Biblical.

Jesus didn’t hesitate to address you. If you truly desire to follow God in your life, I think you have a remarkable testimony and could really be used by God in this area that makes you so unique.

But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:11-12

Your question is the question JP2 asks in his theology of the body. “How do I live my life in accord with the truth of my humanity?” Living you life in accordance with Christ’s teaching is living out the truth of your sexuality.

"A eunuch for the kingdom is someone who freely forgoes sexual relations as a sign of that state in which men and women “neither marry nor are given in mariage.”

"Those who are celibate for the kingdom “skip” the sacrament in anticipation of the ultimate reality, the “Marriage of the Lamb.”

(quotes by Christopher West)

The purpose of celibacy for the kingdom is to proclaim that the Kingdom of God is here now, the wedding supper of the Lamb and His Bride (The Church) is here, and it is our ultimate heavenly fulfillment.

He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.

Well, pathia,

God bless you on your search for meaning in this life and the life to come. I will pray for you.

graceandglory
 
Originally Posted by Newbie2
(Answer mentioned in my last post)

By all means, I’m not sidestepping the issue. What I asked and am still waiting for is a single scripture reference to illustrate the allegation that the RCC is “anti-gay”.
truagape said:
Here’s one easy example:
God and his word says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for several things. Homosexuality is nowhere mentioned in scripture as one of those things.
But, take someone who’s “anti-gay”, and the false, unbiblical notion arises that the cites were destroyed because of homosexuality.
That’s taking a scriptural references and twisting it so it can be used a weapon against “gays”. Hence, “anti-gay!”
Click to expand...
Sure, “anti-gay” people do that all the time, but the allegation was that the RCC was “anti-gay”.

I’m still waiting for a reference that illustrates how the RCC is “anti-gay”, not “someone”. :whistle:
 
graceandglory said:
What do you do in your situation? I truly believe that the Catholic Church is the only Church that is clear on this.
You do the same thing I do. The same thing millions of single Catholics are doing. You abstain from sexual relations. While I don’t have SSA, I am a single unmarried female. Due to my state in life, there is only one thing for me to do, remain celibate. “Not fair,” you think?

Have you read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? A good introduction to his work is Christopher West’s Good News for Sex and Marriage. Then you might wish to delve into Theology of the Body Explained.
But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." Matthew 19:11-12

Your question is the question JP2 asks in his theology of the body. **“How do I live my life **in accord with the truth of my humanity?” Living you life in accordance with Christ’s teaching is living out the truth of your sexuality.

graceandglory
Click to expand...
That’s where things get complicated though. I am engaged.
 
truagape said:
In your whole post the one word that I didn’t see you mention anywhere is “scripture”. God’s inspired and holy word. There is no Christian religion without it. And while Catholics don’t adopt the philosophy of “sola scriptura”, one thing’s for sure, they do start there. And you know what, so do I. So let’s start there and see what God, and his divinely recorded 4000 plus year old word has to say. Specifically, on the topic of “homosexuality.”
Click to expand...
Well, if you want to get technical, I did mention the word “scripture” in the second to last paragraph.😃

However, if you require references, how about we start with Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Or, how about Romans 1:27 And the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

I’m not sure if you were arguing with my point of obedience, or if you just didn’t like that I didn’t give the reaasons why we should be obedient. My point was that much of what the church teaches IS based on scripture, and I’m pretty sure that the theologians understand it better than I. Therefore, I’m going to trust what they tell me, whether I agree with it or not.
 
truagape said:
You just refuse to to give scripture any significance don’t you! Nowhere in God’s inspired word is this city even equated with homosexuality. And contrary to your above claim, “sodomy”, a 13th century invention, is mentioned NOWHERE in scripture. From Genesis to Revelation!
Click to expand...
No. You refuse to give scripture its significance. You are twisting the word of God ot suite your own purposes. Such is extremely dangerous. I will pray for you.
 
Deo_Volente said:
You are reading your personal (and your cultural) bias into the story. Lot is a paragon of hospitality here, in contrast to the raving mob. He offers his daughters to the mob because his daughters are not his guests, and because he believes the mob will be satisfied with the offer. Not because he appreciates heterosexual gang rape more than he does homosexual gang rape. Not because he thinks heterosexual gang rape is a lesser evil than homosexual gang rape. The mob raping his daughters is a lesser evil than the mob raping his guests. That’s just the way it is. Sexuality (particularly sexuality as we understand it today) really has nothing to do with the story.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
Click to expand...
Actually, it is clear that you are reading your own modern bias that homosexuality is ok, into the story when it is not in anyway ok. And if you actually believe that allowing two girls to be rapped is better than inhospitality, then you have a very warped view of morality.
 
Newbie2 said:
Sure, “anti-gay” people do that all the time, but the allegation was that the RCC was “anti-gay”.
:
Click to expand...
Do what all the time? Please define what you mean when you say ““anti-gay” people do that all the time.”
 
truagape said:
No, he is showing that to read homosexuality into the story is where the bias is. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
He has yet to show that. In fact, all I have seen is him jumping through hoops trying to prove his point and failing. I am sorry that you feel the need to justify the homosexual disorder no matter how unreasonable it may be. I will pray for you.

Everyone might want to take a look at this paper. Its pretty interesting:
augustinecollege.org/papers/EH_00_3.htm
 
East_and_West said:
He has yet to show that. In fact, all I have seen is him jumping through hoops trying to prove his point and failing. I am sorry that you feel the need to justify the homosexual disorder no matter how unreasonable it may be. I will pray for you.

Everyone might want to take a look at this paper. Its pretty interesting:
augustinecollege.org/papers/EH_00_3.htm
Click to expand...
Actually, he has shown it. And he’s been rather detailed about it too. You’re just yet to have seen it. But sooner or later you will. In fact I would encourage you to put to the test anything that has been supplied in regards to the real sin of Sodom.
As far as you praying, that’s not a bad idea. Pray for us all, because the last thing any of us need to be denied of is the truth as expressed in his inspired word.
 
truagape said:
Actually, he has shown it. And he’s been rather detailed about it too. You’re just yet to have seen it. But sooner or later you will. In fact I would encourage you to put to the test anything that has been supplied in regards to the real sin of Sodom.
Click to expand...
Where has he shown it? Show me. What statement has he made to prove his case? I would like to know
truagape said:
As far as you praying, that’s not a bad idea. Pray for us all, because the last thing any of us need to be denied of is the truth as expressed in his inspired word.
Click to expand...
Yep. We will keep in mind what the scriptures say, that homosexual sex is unnatural, an abomination, and will cause one to forfit the the kingdom of heaven if one does not repent from such a life. I fully admitt this as a man who used to stuck in that sin.
 
Grace & Peace!
East_and_West said:
Actually, it is clear that you are reading your own modern bias that homosexuality is ok, into the story when it is not in anyway ok. And if you actually believe that allowing two girls to be rapped is better than inhospitality, then you have a very warped view of morality.
Click to expand...
East and West, not once have I written here that the story of Sodom tells us that homosexuality is okay. My point has always been that the story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality at all–which neither makes it okay or not okay. It means that the story is silent on homosexuality. Completely silent. It is not silent on sexual violence, and it is not silent on the importance of hospitality. But it is silent on homosexuality.

Regarding Lot’s actions–with my 21st century urban Christian American morality, I do indeed find his actions disturbing. But then, I’m not an ancient Hebrew nomad wandering around Mesopotamia. The exigencies of survival are different between us–Lot and I (which goes towards explaining why he would later commit incest with his daughters, too–they thought in their cave that they were the last people on earth and had to continue the species–incest was more palatable than the prospect of extinction).

We would like to think that our morality is universal and eternal. That what we value has been valued from time immemorial. That’s not necessarily the case, particularly if we insist on seeing good and evil as strict opposites when, in fact, the good transcends the evil and cannot be put on the same level as evil, even by way of comparison, without degrading the nature of the good. So naturally, when we speak of good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral as if we were dealing with one thing and its opposite, then we are talking of ethical systems in which the good has been degraded. In which we are doing our best to move toward the good given a very limited cultural vocabulary with which to comprehend it–which explains differences in what is and is not good between times and cultures. Do I believe there is an absolute good? Of course! But it isn’t a moral system, nor is it a law–it is the Person of Jesus Christ. That fact alone reveals just how limited our concepts of the moral and the immoral are, and how utterly transcendent the nature of the Good truly is.

For Lot, defending his guests was more important than defending his family. For us, that seems more than a bit monstrous. But how we feel about what Lot did is beside the point. The fact is that Lot did it because he thought it was the right thing to do given his particular set cultural circumstances and expectations. Those circumstances and expectations are not our own. What Lot did was good given his limited understanding of the Good. Would it have made for a nicer story if Lot had kindly accepted our particular cultural and moral perspective for a time and dealt with the mob as a 21st Century Western Christian? Well, it might make us feel better. But what would be the point?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top