Hi everybody,
I’m back. I figured by now I’d end up having ten new pages of posts to catch up on and, therefore, as a practical matter, didn’t expect to rejoin the thread. But it looks like there’s only about three new pages instead, so I guess I will rejoin afterall…
After all, silent knight, I didn’t say no one else knows anything about homosexuality, I just said that homosexuals are the ones who best know the nature of it and can all attest to the fact that they were always that way.
Ok, peduzzi. The way your post was written, I distinctly got the impression that you were completely disregarding Christian teaching on the matter out-of-hand. If that was not the case, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
The passages about it in the New Testament are taken out of context because in Biblical times there was no concept of homosexuality as there is today - like the people I just described above.
wrinkling my brow and putting my hand up
…That’s an interesting thing to say…Are you suggesting that biological homosexuality did not exist in biblical times and only appeared in the human race later on?
Regarding the Scripture passages which speak against homosexual activity, as others have since pointed out and as I think we all agree, most (not all) of the Mosaic Law was a temporary sign post.
Most, not all. Injunctions such as “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not kill” were obviously a part of that Law. You obviously agree with the fact that these injunctions remain in full force, more than three thousand years after they were first introduced to us. They’ve never changed. Nor has the Juedo-Christian doctrine that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
You ask how we know this, that this is the correct intepretation. The answer already given is that the Church says so. You’ve countered with suggestions that “the Church” has said in the past that things such as slavery are ok. You didn’t mention this one, but I might add, in keeping with your argument that “the Church” at one time believed the earth to be flat.
The problem with this argument is that these things were common societal beliefs, not doctrines put forth by the pope or bishops. There is an essential difference. Thefore, it is incorrect to say that “the Church” has been wrong before in its interpretation of Scripture. In essentials of the Christian faith, the pope and bishops cannot err. It’s not possible per the safeguard Jesus himself has put in place.
Whatsmore, I am failing to see the ambiguity in statements like Lev. 18:22 anyway. “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” I’m sorry, but that’s not terribly cloudy. It’s not as if the injunction is listed in a set to the effect of, “You shall not lie with a male, you shall not mix your herbs when cooking, and you shall not drink goat’s milk the same day you drink the milk of a cow”, leaving room for an interpretation that suggests that homosexual acts were not allowed for a while, but God said, “Hey, later, have at it!” He simply says, "Don’t do it. The act itself is an abomination.
In case we wonder if we’re interpreting the statement correctly…
Lev 20:13, “
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” No reference to exchanging sex for money here. No reference to a man doing this to a child. Just a plain, simple assertion from the Lord that “lying with” a man the way one (man) lies with a woman is a “detestable act.”
I can only imagine the degree of difficulty this truth presents for those who have to accept it. But when it all comes down to it, all men and women have but two options: Plead that the grace of God would help you to live life as God requires for the brief period of time that we are here (and then reap massive rewards in the afterlife when all is said and done), or do what you can to deny and obfuscate the truth so that life on this earth is “easier” and more comfortable, which ends up leading to spiritual death (a.k.a. an eternity in hell).
Keep in mind that the larger the cross in this life, the larger the reward in the next.
What I don’t understand, is why people seem to inflate the gravity of the sin (if you agree it is such) - it is mentioned 5 or 6 times in the bible (like I said, ambiguously at best) - not that we should ignore it, but Jesus never even said a word about it…
How many times have you ever heard people talk about what sort of hell would come to earth if all the nations of the world that have nuclear weapons were to use them all at once? I myself am having trouble recalling more than maybe one such conversation…Why would that be? Is it because it really wouldn’t be that big a deal, or because, yes, everybody and their mother already “gets” the fact that that would be really,
really bad?
Put differently, there is seldom need to point things out when there is no disagreement and the issue is crystal clear to begin with.
If I’m not mistaken, all of the Church’s twenty some ecumenical councils in its 2,000 year history have been called to address a dispute, not to put forth commonly agreed upon or newly created doctrine.
…yet there are so many other things that he mentions countless times that most Christians have simply chosen to ignore - like divorce - talk about redefining marriage. People say gay marriage will redefine it…which it would, but my my my the fact that marriage has ceased to be a binding lifelong commitment (we may say the words but it really isn’t if you can get divorced for any reason) is the biggest redefinition we will ever see…but few ever seem to be hyped up on that - most just simply accept that it is an out-of-date rule that doesn’t apply to today’s world.
There is no such thing as divorce and remarriage for Catholics. For other Christians, you may have a point. Your implied point that many marriages are “not what they should be” today, across the board, I readily concede and lament. Of course, granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners would do nothing for that and, in fact, would tend to make the situation worse.
You may be thinking, “Truly committed homosexual couples would be a positive witness to heterosexual couples who are less than committed themselves”, but you yourself noted that homosexual marital unions are a novelty. They would no doubt simply cause people to requestion the whole nature and purpose of marriage to begin with, not in a way that would lead to an “awakening”, but in a way that would ultimately devalue and trivialize the institution. There are already “jokes” floating the internet, persuant to California’s latest misstep, about polygmists and brothers and sisters wanting to marry, as well as people wanting to marry their pets…And, I ask sincerely, why not? If marriage is only about “commitment” and not anything deeper or more intrinsic than that…???
Yet we try and use Levitical code, the brutal raping of Sodom and Gomorrah, and references to prostitution, pedophilia, and promiscuity to try and condemn an entire demographic of people who are like all of us here - moral, loving, God-fearing, and committed, and want all the same things - a relationship, love, marriage, a house, 3 kids, a dogs, and a 2-car garage.
Divine revelation applies to all and must be lived by all in its fullness. Living by nine out of ten commandments is not sufficient any more than staying inside the plane is necessary for one’s physical safety only nine times out of ten when flying, or firing a gun at someone ten times is no big deal when nine of the ten chambers in the gun are empty.
Me and my 2 closest buddies at school who will be my roommates next year, are all gay, and all catholic. We have all had a struggle in the past but have all come to terms with the fact that we can be ourselves and still live Christian lives.
I am always trying to recruit my gay friends back into at least some sort of Christian church, explaining that being gay and Christians are not mutually exclusive.
No, being homosexually oriented and being Christian are not mutually exclusive and I commend you for trying to keep your friends associated with the Church. But, see above…
I am also always explaining to fellow Catholics everything I just said in an effort to unify, rather than separate us all, and to try and spread a little compassion, understanding, and love.
And, in general, these are noble acts. But be careful. Jesus himself said, “I come not to bring peace, but the sword.” For our purposes, this means that unity, understanding, and “love” must be centered upon the truth and not absent from it, held as independent virtues of their own. As Luke 2:14 actually says, “Peace on earth to men of good will” (not “Peace on earth and good will toward men”) insofar as it is generally pain and discomfort that are the best catalysts for faith in those who do not have it (or have it weakly) and it is “men” that are not “of good will” who also have no faith and need discomfort in their lives in order to come to it.
“Peace”
SK
