Homosexuality ~ A Deep Confliction in my Heart

[LovedForever]

Grace & Peace!

LovedForever, it looks like you’re putting words in my mouth. We have radically different definitions of this word “church”. By it, you understand Rome, I understand the entire Christian community.

Ah… the “church” arguement. Which of course, falls apart when giving it the “umbrella” approach as you do.
You cannot reconcile this concept as you are attempting with neither logic nor Christ’s words Himself in scripture.

If we follow your logic that Christ meant His church to be this big umbrella of all kinds of theologies (right or wrong!), morals, ideas and teachings (which would be the case with your “christian community” approach) - then you are in fact denying Christ and His word.
You can never reconcile what HE said in holy scripture with this “church” idea you posit.
Because Christ taught the opposite. And in fact, pleaded in prayer with His Father, “Father I pray that they ALL may be ONE.”
(Not “many”)

He in fact, designated one of his disicples, Peter, as HEAD of His church.
He gave him the “Keys to the Kingdom.” (Authority in scripture)
He changed his name.
Both significant in scripture.
He told him he was from here forward going to “build His church upon him” - Peter, the Rock, the new leader of His church on earth, the first bishop/Pope…
Then he told him: That he, our Lord, would be “with him always, till the end of time.” That “He who hears YOU - hears me.” That this church he was placing Peter, was indeed the “pillar and foundation of TRUTH.” That "the gates of hell shall NEVER prevail against her (His church)."

There is ONLY one that has never, ever, ever changed, discarded, or ignored any matter of faith and morals. For over 2,000 years.
Disciplines not to be confused with doctrine and dogma which, as truth, cannot change. Guaranteed by our Lord Himself.
She, His church, still stands. Still is “the” christian voice on earth. The authority in matters of faith, morals and truth.

**NO other christian church *can ***come close to being able identify itself as this church that our Lord instituted and maintains.
And no other church/man has.

**So you see, if we attempt to look to the broad and vague “christian community” - we will end up only confused as there are thousands upon thousands of differing ‘opinions’ and ‘theologies’ within that umbrella group. No head. No authority (according to you). Each man to himself to “decide” what he “feels” is right or wrong. This is the essence of protestantism.

This is why there are nearly 30,000 “denominations” all claiming to “preach the word of God” being inspired by the Holy Spirit as to the “truth” of the scriptures.
However, the folly of this idea is that not only do the scriptures themselves NOT teach this (and in fact, teach the opposite), the obvious flaw is demonstrated in these denominations themselves. Or they would ALL agree. (The Holy Spirit cannot lie!)

I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If there is any Truth anywhere, I am bound to say that Jesus is there**.

But who TOLD you it is “truth”…??
That my friend, is at the heart of this discussion.
And always will be.

May God Bless you with the Spirit of Truth & Wisdom

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!
I never said any such thing. Although for my opinion on “natural moral law,” see my initial post in this thread.

I am not interested in anyone’s opinion of natural moral law. One only has to *listen to *natural law to determine what is moral and in accord with God’s design and function for human sexuality and relationships.

I didn’t leave it out. I assumed ** **.

Assumption without evidence?

Interesting that when I refer to the person of Jesus Christ as your point of omission, you respond back by referring to Jesus and the three Persons of the Trinity as “it” …

Note the emphasis on “if”:

“**If **you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.You are my friends if you do what I command you.’” John 15: 10-14

Plenty–rejection of love. The will to power. The desire to take, keep, and hold onto at the expense of others. Despising the small and the weak. Unwillingness to forgive. Refusing to care for the orphan and widow. Among others.

How about sex outside of marriage?

God calls some of us to celibacy, and others he does not so call. That call has nothing to do with sexual preference.

Does God call everyone to chastity and purity? Does your jesus smile and rejoice over sex outside the covenant of marriage?

 

[fix]

Fix, your quotation does not address issues of context

It doesn’t? I think it does.

In any event, do you agree that your determination of which translation is correct and how to interpet it is exclusively a matter of what you personally decide? How do you reconcile that with all other conflicting views?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Whats the problem ? anyway you aren’t under the authority of the Pope …
So we’ll not tell it like it is, we’ll agree that the homosexual act is ok ?

By all means, tell it like it is!

Ah… the “church” arguement…

LovedForever, I appreciate your argument, but I don’t agree with your ecclesiology. I’m entirely sympathetic to the Orthodox position concerning Papal authority, church innovation, etc. I don’t think you should agree with me–as a good Roman Catholic, you shouldn’t! But that’s my position.

** But who TOLD** you it is “truth”…??
That my friend, is at the heart of this discussion.
And always will be.

The quotidian answer is that I attended a Baptist School for much of my youth and was “born again” by the time I was 5. “Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so.” That’s the quotidian answer.

The larger answer is that there comes a time (I feel) when one must consciously accept or reject the religion of one’s youth: the idea of taking it for granted that one believes what one believes just doesn’t cut it. I was convinced, not merely intellectually, but overwhelmingly spiritually convicted of the Truth of Jesus Christ. This was not something someone told me. Or something I read. Or a choice I made based on someone’s spiritual authority. But it was something I knew–I didn’t feel it was I choice that I could make based on evidence, but a choice that was somehow inevitable. It was/is the Truth. That’s all. The further elaborations of this conviction–what it means–have been variously informed by Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, the Church Fathers (particularly Origen) playing a strong role (of late) in my development.

setter:

I am not interested in anyone’s opinion of natural moral law. One only has to *listen to *natural law to determine what is moral and in accord with God’s design and function for human sexuality and relationships.

I’m sorry, setter, but I think it was my use of the word “opinion” that must have set you off here. If you’re uninterested in what I’m thinking about something, please don’t pretend to ask (or if you do ask, but would rather I not respond, please just indicate that it was a rhetorical question).

setter:

How about sex outside of marriage?

I think it can be dangerous.

setter:

Does God call everyone to chastity and purity? Does your jesus smile and rejoice over sex outside the covenant of marriage?

God calls everyone to relationship with him.

Does “my Jesus” smile and rejoice? I wasn’t aware I had in my possession a Jesus. Does your Jesus have his ups and downs? Is he ever not smiling and rejoicing? Forgive me for thinking the question, as posed, is ridiculous.

The question I’m hearing beneath the ridiculous image is–does Jesus (in my understanding of Jesus) approve of sex outside marriage? My response is–I don’t think it occupies his thoughts. What does, though, is the suffering of his children. If that’s caused by sex outside marriage, he’s worried. If that’s caused by sex within marriage, he’s worried. Does he stop smiling or rejoicing? I don’t think so.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It doesn’t? I think it does.

In any event, do you agree that your determination of which translation is correct and how to interpet it is exclusively a matter of what you personally decide? How do you reconcile that with all other conflicting views?

The quotation skirts the issue of a contextual reading of the Leviticus prohibitions by focusing attention on another use of the word in a separate context.

My determination of what translation is or isn’t correct isn’t a matter of personal choice, but has everything to do with the accuracy of the translator. Regarding interpretation, I subscribe to Origen’s reading of scripture (shared by many of the Church Fathers) as a form of revelation which has a body (literal meaning), soul (deeper meaning), and spirit (allegorical or metaphysical meaning). I think the interpretation of scripture must be informed by Tradition, as well as by Reason, and the latter includes scholarship and context (both historical and textual). And I think it’s possible to hold differing interpretations of a scriptural passage in tension if they refer themselves to different levels of scripture (body, soul, spirit).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

Grace & Peace!

The quotation skirts the issue of a contextual reading of the Leviticus prohibitions by focusing attention on another use of the word in a separate context.

My determination of what translation is or isn’t correct isn’t a matter of personal choice, but has everything to do with the accuracy of the translator. Regarding interpretation, I subscribe to Origen’s reading of scripture (shared by many of the Church Fathers) as a form of revelation which has a body (literal meaning), soul (deeper meaning), and spirit (allegorical or metaphysical meaning). I think the interpretation of scripture must be informed by Tradition, as well as by Reason, and the latter includes scholarship and context (both historical and textual). And I think it’s possible to hold differing interpretations of a scriptural passage in tension if they refer themselves to different levels of scripture (body, soul, spirit).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

How do I know which is correct?

 

[setter]

I’m sorry, setter, but I think it was my use of the word “opinion” that must have set you off here. If you’re uninterested in what I’m thinking about something, please don’t pretend to ask (or if you do ask, but would rather not respond, please just indicate that it was a rhetorical question).

There is nothing rhetorical about my responses. I live in the here and now concrete reality of the personal choices for or against God that I make on a daily basis. By talking around my question posed to you, can I assume that you have not yet allowed natural [moral] law speak clearly and plainly to you?

I think it can be dangerous.

Is it immoral in the sight of God?

God calls everyone to relationship with him.

True. How does one know (discern) that they are hearing the voice of God pesonally speaking to them in specific areas of faith and morals?

Does “my Jesus” smile and rejoice? I wasn’t aware I had in my possession a Jesus. Does your Jesus have his ups and downs? Is he ever not smiling and rejoicing? Forgive me for thinking the question, as posed, is ridiculous.

It was not my intent to distract you with the reality of a real and present person of Jesus Christ, who is fully human, fully God, and mourns every lost soul and rejoices at every repentant sinner come home.

The question I’m hearing beneath the ridiculous image is–does Jesus (in my understanding of Jesus) approve of sex outside marriage? My response is–I don’t think it occupies his thoughts.

Just as I suspected.

What does, though, is the suffering of his children. If that’s caused by sex outside marriage, he’s worried. If that’s caused by sex within marriage, he’s worried. Does he stop smiling or rejoicing? I don’t think so.

The Jesus you describe sounds like a doll that makes only happy sounds and words when you pull the cord. Why would Jesus Christ smile when the eternal souls that He created are heading down the road leading to personal destruction …but wait, that’s right, in your understanding, no one goes to hell after all, so Jesus can keep smiling and rejoicing. Did I get that right?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

There is nothing rhetorical about my responses.

Sorry. Perhaps I’m confused. It looked like you were asking a question in your post, to which I responded, to which you then responded that you weren’t interested in hearing my response.

I live in the here and now concrete reality of the personal choices for or against God that I make on a daily basis. By talking around my question posed to you, can I assume that you have not yet allowed natural [moral] law speak clearly and plainly to you?

I wasn’t aware that I had talked around your question–I referred you to a previous post in which I explicated my view. I’ll summarize, though–natural moral law appears to be an interpretation of biological evidence through a given set of socio-cultural filters. I distinguish natural moral law from the law written on our hearts–the former I take to be an explication of rules from evidence, the latter I take as disposition, a response, not a code.

Is it immoral in the sight of God?

I cannot say that it is in every circumstance.

How does one know (discern) that they are hearing the voice of God pesonally speaking to them in specific areas of faith and morals?

By comparing the what one is “hearing” to the promptings of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition.

It was not my intent to distract you with the reality of a real and present person of Jesus Christ, who is fully human, fully God, and mourns every lost soul and rejoices at every repentant sinner come home.

It wasn’t a distraction, and I didn’t find it a particularly potent representation of the dual-nature of Christ–a perfect representation of a sentimentalized Hallmark greeting card Christ, okay.

The Jesus you describe sounds like a doll that makes only happy sounds and words when you pull the cord. Why would Jesus Christ smile when the eternal souls that He created are heading down the road leading to personal destruction …but wait, that’s right, in your understanding, no one goes to hell after all, so Jesus can keep smiling and rejoicing. Did I get that right?

Not quite right, setter. My understanding of Jesus is that he is terribly good. That is–awsome and terrifying in the all-embracingness of his goodness and love. So awesome and terrifying, in fact, that it boggles the mind. This is not a Jesus who nods his head and agrees and coos when you pull the string any more than it is a Jesus who literally weeps uncontrollably in a golden hall somewhere in the sky because someone did something bad. No. His joy is inseparable from his justice, inseparable from his love.

Regarding hell, I cannot say with any certainty that anyone is there or will be there. And it is my Christian hope that hell is empty. If anyone were headed towards hell, I do not think that Jesus would rejoice, but if we consider the witness of the church fathers concerning the nature of God, I wonder if it is even possible to posit that God, being One, and being Love, would feel Love and Divine disapointment or sorrow at the same time. Would not this introduce a division into the Unity? And is hell not the choice of the sinner, not the mandate of God? If hell is the state of being in which one radically rejects the love of God, and heaven the state of being in which one radically embraces it, are not both states conditioned by the Love of God? Are not both saved and damned present to the Love of God? Does God love the one more fiercely than the other? Does he not Love them both with the same all-consuming and terrible Loving Fire?

Regarding everyone being saved, I put my trust in the promise that God will be All in All. I will not deny the radical possibility of apocatastasis, a possibility of God’s radical grace. Nor will I insist on it. I’m surprised at the depth of your scorn for it.

Rather, I will hope for it, and trust in the Mercy of God.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[LovedForever]

Grace & Peace!

By all means, tell it like it is!

LovedForever, I appreciate your argument, but I don’t agree with your ecclesiology. I’m entirely sympathetic to the Orthodox position concerning Papal authority, church innovation, etc. I don’t think you should agree with me–as a good Roman Catholic, you shouldn’t! But that’s my position.

The quotidian answer is that I attended a Baptist School for much of my youth and was “born again” by the time I was 5. “Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so.” That’s the quotidian answer.

The larger answer is that there comes a time (I feel) when one must consciously accept or reject the religion of one’s youth: the idea of taking it for granted that one believes what one believes just doesn’t cut it. I was convinced, not merely intellectually, but overwhelmingly spiritually convicted of the Truth of Jesus Christ. This was not something someone told me. Or something I read. Or a choice I made based on someone’s spiritual authority. But it was something I knew–I didn’t feel it was I choice that I could make based on evidence, but a choice that was somehow inevitable. It was/is the Truth. That’s all. The further elaborations of this conviction–what it means–have been variously informed by Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, the Church Fathers (particularly Origen) playing a strong role (of late) in my development.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Actually what you do is “pick and choose” which PARTS of Scripture, Church Fathers and Tradition suits you, then simply minimize, re-interpret or discard the rest.
There would be no need for you to dissent as you are if you hadn’t.

The bottom line is that while you may have “informed” yourself with these sources, you have not ACCEPTED the truths they teach and promulgate. So how can you accept ANYTHING from these sources then? You cannot claim them to be “authoritative” for some things - and not for others.

 

[nomolos]

I read that too, Chrysostom15, but that just wasn’t telling me the why I needed so badly, so much as God ordering it. I wanted to know why he ordered it.

Fix, Fix you hit something I hadn’t thought about. Our bodies were meant to be together, but it’s that we were clouded by sin that homosexuals came into being. I never thought of that. Originally, men were made for women and women for men…and the reason there are homosexuals is sin tainted our minds and bodies. That really, honestly, didn’t occur to me. I know it sounds silly, but sometimes the most obvious answers are right under your nose. God really didn’t mean for there to be homosexuals.

Now I have another question. God hadn’t meant for humans to eat meat originally either. So why is it okay for humans to eat meat after the original sin but not for them to be homosexual?

I may be answering my own question or I may not be, but is it because needing to eat meat was a punishment and homosexuality wasn’t? Just trying to finish figuring this out…

Did not God show Paul in a dream of a canvas or blanket, with all kinds of animals and told him to eat??? When he was starting to spread the word to the Gentiles.

 

[nomolos]

Now bare with me people, everyone reads scripture and many people come up with there own interpitations here is mine and not to bash any group and I am no saint.
From my understandings and little wisdom i claim to have, from the beginning God has shown his Love and wrath. All the law’s he gave to Moses on the mountain where because, really to save the people from heart ache. If you really look into the rule’s of life it is not the actuall sin but the repurcustions that come to haunt people, we are created in his image body and spiritually. Is he not hurt when we sin did not Jesus suffer for our sins. Pain emotional or spiritual. Adultry the sin is commited, but what happens to the scorn player in this instance he becomes angry mad full of hate,revenge even lead to killing, someone murders another’s son/daughter, what happens angry again maybe revenge. So God knews these thing and at the time and now even now people don’t understand forgiveness. So God lays down the law with punishment,leprosy to show that the sinner is unclean for an example. If you read the book of the Roman’s Paul describes a group of people that are really going against his law,what does God do he makes man look at man and woman look at woman as a punishment. why? think about if these individual where allowed to continue living like this it would have infected the other good Law biding followers. Why? in the book of proverbs it says the wicked would have wicked children. So he stop’s it before it gets out of hand,God really stopped the reproduction of this group. Each time the people get out of hand, he laided down the law, even now. Well what is Jesus for then? if you are commiting sins you are not a follower of Christ and his mercy does not pertain to you, till your confession and sinning no more. Even King David twice used this as a curse “may one of your children be unmanly” why? one time a sheperd did not share of his flock, the other a man killed an anointed one.Punishment. Even now with sometime in the pass someone did something a did not attone for that sin, it is called ancestral sins. just as God show’s favor for people who pray, family members are saved down the line for what someone did in the past, I can’t recall the prayer but if said with out breaking for eleven years God will show favor to you and 5 generations. Same for sin if your bad, you will pay unless you confess and sin no more. If homosexuality is ok then why did he destroy Sodom and Ghemora.
Yes I know I went off on a tangent, but really just as Jesus said people could not understand the concept of forgiveness, how are we to understand and stop wasting time trying to figure out how homosexuality is wrong. Even a murder show’s kindness a times, does it make it right?

 

[LittleDeb]

Avenara: I hesitate to jump back into this thread with the direction it is going. I don’t know if my responses would be considered “off-topic” at this point. I was praying a lot before I started to respond just now. I also sense another long post coming so those who find me just too long-winded can skip this post starting here.

I think there are two major points I want to address. 1. In approaching our friends with SSA we must first have a deep love for them, not just as homosexual persons, but as great human beings. We are addressing something so incredibly intimate that to do any less is a great disservice. I will admit that in my 20 years in theatre, I have had these intimate conversations on less than a handful of occasions. The depths of this issue are really best addressed by those who have an intimate knowledge and a deep abiding love for the person in question. The moment I find myself trying to “save” anyone, I just shut my yap!

We must meet everyone where they are. If just quoting Scripture worked we would not have these hot topics. If everyone followed One Tradition or One Authority, we would agree. Sadly we don’t. Some people may appear to further from, or closer to, the Truth than we think. There are even people on this board that it would be an honor to watch them take that one tiny tip and dwell in real Truth, even though from the outside they appear to be far from home. It would be an honor, but I doubt I will get to see it. (I have hope though! I joined this board in 2004 to respond to a contracepting woman, and rejoiced recently when she said she finally got it. I prayed for her all the time.)

Secondly, I really want to address that phrase again, “two become one.” I am like a dog with a bone. I won’t let go of that one. Exploring it from every angle I can find has been a 10-15 year journey that I know will continue. I can’t even really remember where I started anymore, but looking back it has been the phrase that stood out more than any other. I sort of started with contraception, “gay marriage,” and “women’s ordination,” in my effort to understand. What I found was that exploring “two become one” allowed an understanding of many more topics on a deep, deep level.

I really wish I could go into the depths of it here, but there is just too much. What I will go into to try to keep it brief (too late!) are some questions I started asking and where the answers led me. First and probably foremost…Why 2? Why not 3, or 4? What was so special about 2? That led to questions on masculine and feminine. Then I started asking about universal masculinity/femininity. I wondered if we had defined what it was to be masculine and feminine or if there was some understanding that transcended time and culture. (I discovered the answer was yes.) This led to questions on complementarity. Until then I only understood a more simple understanding of “opposites attract.” That seemed to focus on a meeting of positives and negatives until they canceled each other out, or “balanced” each other. This seemed to lead to a neutering affect. I tended to view a “negative” as a “wrong” rather than a “receiver.” Starting to understand a negative as a receiver helped me to understand more deeply the universal feminine. It helped me understand God the Father as masculine, yet not male. This started me in understanding “In His image he created them male and female,” in an authentic way. I no longer viewed women as “oppressed,” or “the weaker sex only because we have been dominated by men” garbage. I started to understand our internal masculinity/femininity in a way that made me fully embrace my femininity while at the same time acknowledging that small amount of masculinity and nurture it too. Most importantly I let go of the neutering ideas inherent to contraception, homosexuality, women’s “ordination” “Father or Mother God” and “sexual oppression.”

God the Father is Masculine. He is all giving. We, as his creations, are all feminine. We receive and return. God the Son is masculine and male. His Bride the Church, is feminine. God the Holy Spirit is masculine. He overshadowed a female, (all generations shall call her blessed) and conceived the Son of Man.

Many blessings to you in this journey!

 

[blessedtoo]

And I think it’s possible to hold differing interpretations of a scriptural passage in tension if they refer themselves to different levels of scripture (body, soul, spirit).

Okay, let’s forget all that other stuff about whose Church is THE Church and all that. My question to you was how is it that your interpretation differs not only from Catholic teaching but most Protestant teaching as well? How can everyone’s opinion be right on something this important? How can differing interpretations (meaning personal) of scripture be anything other than complete confusion? Is our God a God of confusion or order? Why is it that the only Scripture that is ever open to “differing interpretations” are the one’s having to do with sexual morality? More importantly, I could almost understand you desperately wanting to believe the “new and improved” interpretation of S & G. But how do you also get around these passages?

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

13If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

9Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

10Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

10For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

I mean no disrespect here as you have kindly kept this debate friendly and civilized. I really just want to know what machinations are involved to get the meaning you have derived from these Scripture passages.

 

[Eireann]

. Even now with sometime in the pass someone did something a did not attone for that sin, it is called ancestral sins. just as God show’s favor for people who pray, family members are saved down the line for what someone did in the past, I can’t recall the prayer but if said with out breaking for eleven years God will show favor to you and 5 generations.

Although you’ve sidelined the thread with this, I think it’s worth reading, personally I don’t believe in generational healing.

Although I agree with you that prayer can help those gone before and those still living.

 

[setter]

I distinguish natural moral law from the law written on our hearts–the former I take to be an explication of rules from evidence, the latter I take as disposition, a response, not a code.

This the Church’s (and mine) understanding of moral law, which all other laws are an expression there of:

37 Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

**1952 **There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

I cannot say that it is in every circumstance.

This is the mantra of moral relativism.

Not quite right, setter. My understanding of Jesus is that he is terribly good. That is–awsome and terrifying in the all-embracingness of his goodness and love. So awesome and terrifying, in fact, that it boggles the mind. This is not a Jesus who nods his head and agrees and coos when you pull the string any more than it is a Jesus who literally weeps uncontrollably in a golden hall somewhere in the sky because someone did something bad. No. His joy is inseparable from his justice, inseparable from his love.

I agree that there is only God of the three persons of the Trinity, with the dual aspects of infinite mercy and infinite justice of His infinite love. You problem is that you have made yourself the final arbitrator of what is good and bad.

And is hell not the choice of the sinner, not the mandate of God? If hell is the state of being in which one radically rejects the love of God, and heaven the state of being in which one radically embraces it, are not both states conditioned by the Love of God?

They are conditioned by our capacity and willingness to receive God’s love.

Are not both saved and damned present to the Love of God? Does God love the one more fiercely than the other? Does he not Love them both with the same all-consuming and terrible Loving Fire?

God’s love sustains the existance those in the state of eternal separation from God, because God cannot deny Himself, i.e., destroy the life that He created. The hell of hell is realizing that one has cut themselves off from the love of God for all eternity. This should certainly make one want to be damn sure that their idea of God’s judgment criteria is in close proximity to God’s, especially if one has not been entirely honest or earnest in their search for and surrender to the truth. IOW, one should want to know that they know that they know what is God’s standards for morality, lest they face the fires of purgation or hell.

Regarding everyone being saved, I put my trust in the promise that God will be All in All. I will not deny the radical possibility of apocatastasis, a possibility of God’s radical grace. Nor will I insist on it. I’m surprised at the depth of your scorn for it.

I do not scorn the truth, which is either a friend or a foe or a distant concept, depending on one’s disposition and relationship to the Truth. The angels have already sealed their fate, and the other order of creation, human beings, will each seal their fate at the final judgment. God can only be all in all to the extent that His sanctifying grace, that is the grace needed to exist in the beatific vision, is accepted by each one of His creatures.

Rather, I will hope for it, and trust in the Mercy of God

.
**2002 **God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Okay, let’s forget all that other stuff about whose Church is THE Church and all that. My question to you was how is it that your interpretation differs not only from Catholic teaching but most Protestant teaching as well?

Hi blessedtoo. Being an Anglican (and admittedly on the more “liberal” side of things) I don’t really find my interpretation all that radical. It’s not just mine. I didn’t weasel my way into it.

But I’ve a feeling you’re looking for me to articulate the standard by which I approach these things, against which I measure my personal judgment and find that it (my judgment) falls short or conforms.

You may not like the answer. I follow this guide–if an interpretation disagrees with the faith set forth in the Nicene Creed, it is wrong. Informing that is the hermeneutic articulated by Origen and which I’ll paraphrase–if we interpret a passage of scripture in a way that is incompatible with our understanding of God as revealed through Christ, then our interpretation is faulty. Many folks who attack the church and her scriptures will say (and this has happened to me), “Oh, you think God’s so loving, what about those verses in which he condemns people for wearing a cotton blend shirt? Or in which he mandates that babies’ brains be dashed out on stones? Or in which he commands that whole cities be mercilessly slaughtered? Where’s your merciful God there?” Origen’s standard answers this criticism–there are more ways to interpret scripture than just looking at the literal surface of the text. Personally, the implication is this: I will not believe in a God of Murder. I will not. It is unconscionable to me. I will not do it. I will not excuse human monstrosity with Divine bloodlust. I reject it. It is anathema to me. More importantly, though, it is anathema to the image of God in Christ and incompatible with the faith as articulated in the Creed.

Where does that leave me, then, with passages in Leviticus which demand death for “lying with a man as with a woman”? It leaves me with an inkling of an image of God’s holiness, but with a greater sense of a particular culture’s socio-religious mores and its attempts at self-definition in contra-distinction to surrounding peoples and cultures. In other words, because a commandment to kill a homosexual is anathema to the image of God in Christ who said, “Neither do I condemn you,” the verse says more to me about the development of ancient Hebrew culture than about the nature of God.

Now, I am not saying that Jesus was a libertine and “smiles” on any and every sin. No. I am saying that in this particular instance, because of the context of Leviticus, and based on the authorities/standards that I enumerated above, the particular issue of homosexuality seems less of a moral or theological issue and more of a cultural one which, when it is mentioned in Paul’s epistles, becomes even more clear. His argument at the beginning of Romans is to characterize all of Gentile culture as misguided in terms of the Gentiles’ lack of the law–in other words, in terms of it being an “abomination”. He uses the Greek word construction from the septuagint used to describe the Hebrew phrase in Leviticus (which is literally translated “lying the lyings of a woman with a man”) for rhetorical effect, as he later turns the tables on the culture purists in the next chapter (“but you’re like that too! What gives?” he says). Homosexual activity is not mentioned again once the cultural point is made, and, in summary, appears to have been mentioned in the first place to characterize those icky Gentiles.

Regarding the passages you list, blessedtoo, the word arsenokoitai (which is often translated as “liers with mankind”) is a relatively rare one and is believed to refer to a male prostitute. The word translated “effeminate”, malakoi, literally means soft and could refer to libertinism or a general lack of moral character in a sexual context. Menstealers seems to be a clear reference to kidnapping for prostitution or purposes of slavery. There is no understanding, in Paul, or in any of the Bible, of homosexuality as we understand it. None at all (and to expect a 19th and 20th century understanding from the ancient Hebrews or the first century Paul is stretching it). There are only activities carried out in particular contexts that are condemned: idolatry, prostitution, loose morals, kidnapping.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

Again, my open-ness to these interpretations has fundamentally to do with the Creed and Origen’s standard. My own experience clinches the deal for me–contrary to what many may believe, I did not choose my sexuality. I did not worm my way into being homosexual. I did not have a poor relationship with my father, I am not a victim of some strange psychological happenstance that scarred me for life and defaced my otherwise pristine heterosexual orientation. I refuse, then, to see my sexuality as anything other than given to me by God, not as a trial of chastity, but as a gift. I do not believe God doles out random trials to folks for the fun of it. And while I believe in the value of suffering, I do not believe in a God who sanctions pointless suffering or pain for its own sake. God is no sadist. Which is why I cannot believe that homosexuality is a de facto call to celibacy.

Augustine says, “Love–then do what you will.” Well, I think we just disagree to some extent on what it means to love. When Jesus tells us that loving him is obeying him, I do not take that to mean that there is fine print there which says, “for further explication on “love” and it’s relationship to obedience, refer to Pentateuch book 3, and the proceeding subsections.” What commandments did Jesus give us? Love God, love your neighbor. How did James interpret that? True religion is looking after the widow and orphan and keeping oneself unstained by the world. How did Paul interpret it? Nothing is unclean in itself, but it’s unclean to anyone who thinks it is, yet for the sake of everyone’s growth, we should not put stumbling blocks before each other but support each other in love.

But, you may argue, isn’t homosexuality the world? Isn’t it part of the world? Well, popular “gay” culture is certainly poisonous. Our market culture of me me me me is certainly poisonous, and unfortunately that characterizes a lot of “gay” culture too. But is that what it means to be a homosexual? No. I can tell you from experience, it is not.

I’ve gone on enough, but I hope that gives you some sense as to where I’m coming from here. All of which is to say that I do not feel that I’m using some wacky hermeneutic to excuse myself from a moral obligation to remain celibate as a homosexual man. I am attempting to remain true to this rudder: the Creed, which invariably points me to Christ.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

Personally, the implication is this: I will not believe in a God of Murder. I will not. It is unconscionable to me. I will not do it. I will not excuse human monstrosity with Divine bloodlust. I reject it. It is anathema to me. More importantly, though, it is anathema to the image of God in Christ and incompatible with the faith as articulated in the Creed.

The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. God does not murder. He does issue just verdict and recompense, which are temporal and spiritual. To reject the temporal and spiritual consequances of sin is to reject God’s perfect justice and mercy. Only the devil is a murderer of souls.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. God does not murder. He does issue just verdict and recompense, which are temporal and spiritual. To reject the temporal and spiritual consequances of sin is to reject God’s perfect justice and mercy. Only the devil is a murderer of souls.

Setter, i don’t believe that the God of the OT is different from that of the NT. I believe the understanding of God is different–and that that is highly significant in terms of Scriptural interpretation.

I do not think that God is a celestial issuer of verdicts, that heaven is a divine courtroom. And I hope that you mean these images as metaphorical rather than actually descriptive of the Ineffable Trinity.

I do not reject the temporal or spiritual consequences of sin. I accept that there are consequences to sin, but that all consequences of sin are self-inflicted–i.e., sin (because it is separation from God) is its own punishment. It is existential, not merely forensic. I will not accept, therefore, that God orders that homosexuals be put to death.

In reference to your previous posts, I don’t think fear of hell is a particularly good justification for belief. I really don’t. It’s a good thing to awaken an impulse of self-preservation, but as a means to a relationship with the God who says we must lose everything (including ourselves) in order to find ourselves (i.e., find ourselves in him through Christ), it’s rather poor. That’s not a relationship. That’s just saving your neck.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

Again, my open-ness to these interpretations has fundamentally to do with the Creed and Origen’s standard. My own experience clinches the deal for me–contrary to what many may believe, I did not choose my sexuality. I did not worm my way into being homosexual. I did not have a poor relationship with my father, I am not a victim of some strange psychological happenstance that scarred me for life and defaced my otherwise pristine heterosexual orientation. I refuse, then, to see my sexuality as anything other than given to me by God, not as a trial of chastity, but as a gift. I do not believe God doles out random trials to folks for the fun of it. And while I believe in the value of suffering, I do not believe in a God who sanctions pointless suffering or pain for its own sake. God is no sadist. Which is why I cannot believe that homosexuality is a de facto call to celibacy.

So bottom line, what you are saying is: I will not take up my cross, die to self, and radically, completely and faithfully follow Jesus Christ. You are guilty of putting limitations on the extent of God’s live and making God conform to your own likeness and preference. Yours is a distorted and false gospel that leads one away from Jesus Christ.

Augustine says, “Love–then do what you will.” Well, I think we just disagree to some extent on what it means to love. When Jesus tells us that loving him is obeying him, I do not take that to mean that there is fine print there which says, “for further explication on “love” and it’s relationship to obedience, refer to Pentateuch book 3, and the proceeding subsections.” What commandments did Jesus give us? Love God, love your neighbor. How did James interpret that? True religion is looking after the widow and orphan and keeping oneself unstained by the world. How did Paul interpret it? Nothing is unclean in itself, but it’s unclean to anyone who thinks it is, yet for the sake of everyone’s growth, we should not put stumbling blocks before each other but support each other in love.

Implicit for Augustine was that true love is inseperable from truth and doing God’s will. Paul was not referring to intrinsic evil. James was referring to love of neighbor as inseparable from the truth.

231 The God of our faith has revealed himself as HE WHO IS; and he has made himself known as “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6). God’s very being is Truth and Love. (CCC)

2518 The sixth beatitude proclaims, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” “Pure in heart” refers to those who have attuned their intellects and wills to the demands of God’s holiness, chiefly in three areas: charity; chastity or sexual rectitude; love of truth and orthodoxy of faith. There is a connection between purity of heart, of body, and of faith:

The faithful must believe the articles of the Creed “so that by believing they may obey God, by obeying may live well, by living well may purify their hearts, and with pure hearts may understand what they believe.” (CCC)