Homosexuality in geneology?

[Mea_Culpa]

And this, Mea Culpa is where we get to a brick wall. When all else fails for the Catholic side of the argument. one goes to the Magisterium. And that is where we part ways - because I believe it is wrong. I know what you’re going to say to that, so save yourself the time and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. But there is one more thing. One that you are more wrong about than you can possibly imagine. Same sex couples CAN have the same sort of relationship as heterosexual couples do. Whether or not you believe it to be wrong, sinful, disordered, unnatural, or whatever else is fine, but it’s still there. To presume to know what other people can or cannot feel is completely ignorant and incorrect.

What makes homosexuality immoral is that it is against God’s plan for man and woman. It has nothing to do with feelings. Love does not justify everything. A man can love someone other than his wife and commit adultery - does the fact that there is love make it OK? Even with love, the Church says premarital sex is a sin.

You can feel you love your homosexual partner all you want - that doesn’t justify committing homosexual acts, just as it doesn’t justify adultery, premarital sex, or any other sin.

Despite what you think of it, 2 men can love eachother and complement eachother emotionally in the same way as a man and a woman.

I’ll believe that when a homosexual union produces life.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. **They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. **

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Read a few posts back. Sodomite mainly appears to refer to male prostitutes, not all male homosexuals.

That’s ridiculous. The mob that came to rape the two angels (in the form of two men) visiting Lot in Sodom were not male prostitutes.
They were “the men of the city, both young and old.” In other words, Sodom was so far gone in its depravity even the young were involved in their homosexual lust for the two strangers.

 

[pathia]

What makes homosexuality immoral is that it is against God’s plan for man and woman. It has nothing to do with feelings. Love does not justify everything. A man can love someone other than his wife and commit adultery - does the fact that there is love make it OK? Even with love, the Church says premarital sex is a sin.

There is absolutely nothing in scripture about my screwed up birth, yet the church forces celibacy on me as well. Why? I have never, ever had this explained to me. Especially considering that the majority of the reason I am in such a horrible situation is because of the church’s advice in the first place to my parents!

 

[pathia]

That’s ridiculous. The mob that came to rape the two angels (in the form of two men) visiting Lot in Sodom were not male prostitutes.
They were “the men of the city, both young and old.” In other words, Sodom was so far gone in its depravity even the young were involved in their homosexual lust for the two strangers.

It was always my understanding that angels were supposed to be androgynous, and as they were ANGELS not men, I think the crime of trying to rape them was somewhat different than just what we call sodomy today. Raping God’s servants I think would be just about the worst possible thing you could do. Regardless of the sort of contact it was, rape is rape, rape is NOT sex. If angels had come down in female form, I quite imagine God would have destroyed the cities all the same.

The one time someone tried to rape me, it was a straight guy, and yet he knew what I was, he knew my history. What was the rape about? Power, domination, humiliation, brutality. It had nothing to do with ‘sex’.

 

[SilentKnight]

The word homosexual doesn’t appear in english until about the mid 1800’s, so it obviously wasn’t in any biblical translations until at least then.

The word “homosexual” may not have existed until then, but this obviously doesn’t mean the concept wasn’t there; only that there was another word used for it, that would now, with the evolution of language, best be translated as…

That alternate wording may well have been “sodomite” for many centuries for all I know. I’m not sure. I’m not an English major. All I know is that in spite of what I said earlier about the precise meaning of sodomite in 1 Tim1:10, Webster currently defines a sodomite as one who practices sodomy. (Helpful, eh?) Webster (a secular source) currently defines “sodomy” in the following fashion:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11

Date: 13th century

: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

There is absolutely nothing in scripture about my screwed up birth, yet the church forces celibacy on me as well. Why? I have never, ever had this explained to me. Especially considering that the majority of the reason I am in such a horrible situation is because of the church’s advice in the first place to my parents!

Ok, I think I might be missing something here…Could you do me a favor, Pathia, and explain for me again what your biological/anatomical situation is? You already mentioned it and I thought I was aware, but now wonder…

SK

 

[Mea_Culpa]

It was always my understanding that angels were supposed to be androgynous, and as they were ANGELS not men, I think the crime of trying to rape them was somewhat different than just what we call sodomy today. Raping God’s servants I think would be just about the worst possible thing you could do. Regardless of the sort of contact it was, rape is rape, rape is NOT sex. If angels had come down in female form, I quite imagine God would have destroyed the cities all the same.

The one time someone tried to rape me, it was a straight guy, and yet he knew what I was, he knew my history. What was the rape about? Power, domination, humiliation, brutality. It had nothing to do with ‘sex’.

And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither, that we may know them

The mob thought they were men

Then Lot offers his two daughters, “who as yet have not known man” (probably because all the men in Sodom were sodomites!) and the mob rejects them. They want the two men, not the daughters. It’s not just about rape, it’s about homosexual lust.

This story is so clearly about homosexual depravity (Sodom did have other problems as well), it has been accepted for centuries, it has even entered our language with terms like sodomite and sodomy. The “gay theology” movement (e.g., the Metropolitan Community Churches) wants to muddy the waters and create confusion, so Christians will start to doubt what’s right before their face - that homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible, that it is a sin, and homosexual acts “can never be approved.” (CCC)

 

[pathia]

Ok, I think I might be missing something here…Could you do me a favor, Pathia, and explain for me again what your biological/anatomical situation is? You already mentioned it and I thought I was aware, but now wonder…

SK

I’m a intersexed individual who rejected the assignment I was given shortly after birth, therefore I am also a transsexual. Transsexual with intersexed past, or maybe Intersexed person who is also transsexual? I don’t know, there is not much terminology for people like me, because it involves two subgroups that don’t usually work together politically (Intersex and GLBT)

As for anatomy…uh…that’s kinda personal

 

[pathia]

And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither, that we may know them

The mob thought they were men

Then Lot offers his two daughters, “who as yet have not known man” (probably because all the men in Sodom were sodomites!) and the mob rejects them. They want the two men, not the daughters. It’s not just about rape, it’s about homosexual lust.

This story is so clearly about homosexual depravity (Sodom did have other problems as well), it has been accepted for centuries, it has even entered our language with terms like sodomite and sodomy. The “gay theology” movement wants to muddy the waters and create confusion, so Christians will start to doubt what’s right before their face - that homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible, that it is a sin, and homosexual acts “can never be approved.” (CCC)

This doesn’t make much sense to me. Since does ‘know them’ mean anal sex? I’m pretty steeped in the gay agenda and its history. I don’t think ‘know you’ or ‘know them’ has ever been innuendo for sex. Also, if they were ALL sodomites, why did God have to bother destroying it? They would have all died out after a generation. That particular story has never made any sense no matter how it is explained to me. There is something missing.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I don’t think ‘know you’ or ‘know them’ has ever been innuendo for sex.

Have you ever READ the Bible?

 

[pathia]

Have you ever READ the Bible?

Yes, and the book of Mormon, and the Koran even. I don’t pay much attention to the Old Testament though, it’s steeped in myth and legend as much as epic greek/roman poems.

 

[truagape]

Let me remind you yet again: “catholic” means “worldwide” or “universal.” If you believe that the good news about Jesus Christ is meant to be spread across the entire earth, then you too agree that the early church - just like the modern church - was “catholic.”

I think you and I both know that it is not that cut and dry. To take Jesus’s words about spreading the good news throughout all the nations, and then to synnonymise “worldwide” with “catholic” only to validate what is known outside of scripture today as the “Catholic Church”, is to create a false preception of continuity. The fact remains that none of the congregations (as you believe to be headed by the first pope, Peter) ever referred to themselves as Catholic. Despite this, the “early Church”, still took Jesus commend to “spread the Gospel across the entire earth” just as seriously, as exemplified by Paul.
If you want to support the belief that “even the early Church called itself Catholic”, find continue on. It just needs to be clear that the “early Church” that did this was the “early Catholic Church”, whose first reference, as you state is in AD110; not the same “early Church” as depicted all throughout the New Testament.

 

[truagape]

This story is so clearly about homosexual depravity (Sodom did have other problems as well), it has been accepted for centuries, it has even entered our language with terms like sodomite and sodomy.

Given your need to post outside sources and references, you ought to have access to enough information to see the fallacy, dishonesty, and the manipulation the above quote of yours is guilty of!

You take the narrative of the Sodom story as recorded in Genesis and proceed to extract from it what you see fit. Using this flawed approach you could just as easily find no problem with a present day father throwing his daughters to an angry mob in an effort to control their sexual appetite since this action takes place in Genesis without condemnation. (that is, if what the mob indeed wanted was of a sexual nature to begin with!)

You’re post above is right about one thing though. The blatant lie that Sodom’s sin was homosexuality “has been accepted for centuries…” and … “even entered our language with terms like sodomite and sodomy.” In fact you may want to fire up your mouse and start point-clicking your way to some more facts! At what point in history did the word “sodomite” come onto the scene? Because not one passage in all of scripture ever uses this word. Out of all the supposed “anti-gay” scriptures that exist, not even one of them ever uses the Sodom story as a reference. In fact, it’s the Jude 7 passage, with it’s use of the term “sarkos heteras”, that makes the equation of Sodom and homosexuality impossible! Perhaps you can point-and click up commentary from the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (by the way a Catholic translation), if you’d rather not hear it from me.

And while you’re at it, consider this: You seem to like the man-made word of “sodomite”. Well, you’re obviously not alone, because many influential, biased “bible translators”, have erroneously used this word to “translate” a word found in 1 Cor. 6-9 and 1 Tim. 1-10. Do you know what Greek word that is? I’m sure you do. Do you care? If Truth is your concern, you should. It’s “arsenokoite(s)”. Since modern “religious authorities” have progressed the manipulation process to the point of equating this Greek word with “sodomites” and inturn “homosexuals”, perhaps you can find one Church Father (there no quotes are you happy?) that too recognized this Greek word in reference to “homosexuality”. I asked you before, and you evaded the question, so I’m asking you again.

If you put to the test that which I propose within this post, you will have no choice but to retreat from your erroneous, cultrually biased, unscriptural view that “Sodom’s sin was homosexuality”. Not to mention that the first commentary recorded regarding their reason for destruction was by God himself, expressed around 591 B.C.E with no mention of “homosexuality”! If however, you choose not to put to the test any of my words, this too is your choice. And the facts of your position will confirm that it will indeed be a dishonest one!

 

[SilentKnight]

I’m a intersexed individual who rejected the assignment I was given shortly after birth, therefore I am also a transsexual. Transsexual with intersexed past, or maybe Intersexed person who is also transsexual? I don’t know, there is not much terminology for people like me, because it involves two subgroups that don’t usually work together politically (Intersex and GLBT)

As for anatomy…uh…that’s kinda personal

Yeah, normally I don’t ask questions of that nature (if you can believe it ). I just was thinking you had been pretty candid earlier in this thread (or maybe somewhere else?) and spoken of that already?

I don’t want to pry, but, if you haven’t already noticed, usually my prerogative is to acquire as much knowledge of a given situation as possible before replying to questions (or simply forming “beliefs” in general). I don’t like providing overly simple (or just plain inaccurate) answers and like to be as informed as I can be in general, so…

Anyway.

SK

 

[Mea_Culpa]

And while you’re at it, consider this: You seem to like the man-made word of “sodomite”. Well, you’re obviously not alone, because many influential, biased “bible translators”, have erroneously used this word to “translate” a word found in 1 Cor. 6-9 and 1 Tim. 1-10. Do you know what Greek word that is? I’m sure you do. Do you care? If Truth is your concern, you should. It’s “arsenokoite(s)”. Since modern “religious authorities” have progressed the manipulation process to the point of equating this Greek word with “sodomites” and inturn “homosexuals”, perhaps you can find one Church Father (there no quotes are you happy?) that too recognized this Greek word in reference to “homosexuality”. I asked you before, and you evaded the question, so I’m asking you again.

Yes, all translators of the Bible are wrong, and the “gay theologians” are now here to tell us the truth. Alleluia!

Why are you so fixated on the Church Fathers and what they say? I showed you how Ignatius of Antioch was the first to use the term “Catholic,” and you twisted up a tornado of confusion and nonsense to try to show that the Church founded by Peter and Paul was not the Catholic Church, which of course it was and is (and ever shall be).

Here’s a website that debunks most of the standard lies of “gay theology” - which is what truagape is repeating over and over. Here is what they say about “arsenokoite(s)”:

Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament. The terms do not, because they are original, significantly change the context of the verses they appear in.

Nor is it remarkable he would have coined this one, considering he derived it directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint):

meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos
(Lev 18:22)

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos
(Lev 20:13)

In other words, when Paul adopted the term arsenokoite, he took it directly from the Levitical passages-in the Greek translation- forbidding homosexual behavior. The meaning, then, could not be clearer: Though the term is unique to Paul, it refers specifically to homosexual behavior.

As for the inference that it applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the word shows it implies nothing of the sort. ‘Arsene,’ as mentioned earlier, appears few times in the New Testament, always referring to “male.” ‘Koite’ appears only twice in the New Testament, and means “bed,” used in a sexual connotation:

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality [koite] and debauchery… (Rom 13:13)

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed [koite] kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Heb 13:4)

The two words combined, as Paul used them, put “male” and “bed” together in a sexual sense. There is no hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make arsenokoite.

truagape’s “arguments” are just standards lies of “gay theology” and there are plenty of resources to show how they are wrong. The technique used with the “arguments” seems to be the “Big Lie” technique perfected by the Nazis - just keep repeating the same lie over and over, and eventually people will come to believe (or accept) it. I am personally sorry that I ever got roped into this discussion in the first place, and this will be my last post on this topic.

 

[truagape]

Here’s the deal…

In the RSV (one of the most literal renderings of Scripture available), in 1 Tim 1:10, the English word used is “sodomites”, which we might - because of conventional usage - be tempted to translate “homosexuals” in general. There is good reason to believe, however, that the reference here to “sodomites” is specifically to those who make use of male prostitutes. Yes.

In 1 Cor. 6:9, the word used in the RSV is “homosexuals”…much less wiggle room. But I’m gonna give this one to you too, just 'cause. It’s free. Let’s pretend it to is actually a reference to men who, say, engage in orgies.

When we back up and take a look at Romans 1:26-27, we start to see something different. Rather than labels for homosexuals, we start seeing a description of the behavior itself. Romans does not say that, “God gave ‘sodomites’ up to their dishonorable passions.” It says first that, “God gave them up to dishonorable passions.” The passage then elaborates on this and proceeds to say that “Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural.”

Ok. So…“natural” and “unnatural” relations. What are they? Could they be a reference to a “committed” sexual relationship of any kind and a promiscuous relationship? Well…No. Not if one has any regard at all for the context in which the passage is found, no.

The very next verse says that, "the men likewise - " stop here; “likewise” meaning, of course, also. Meaning, “in the same way” “gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another”. And thus, it becomes obvious that what Paul means by “natural” relations is heterosexual ones and his reference to “unnatural relations” is to homosexual relations across the board. No reference to promiscuity, no reference to prostitution, no reference to pedophilia. Only a simple declaration that for a man to lie with a man is, as it already appears without the aid of divine revelation, “unnatural” (that is, contrary to the proper design of nature). Likewise when it comes to women lying with women.

You mentioned that in using the term “homosexuals” there is a little less wiggle room. Of course you’re referring to the Greek word “arsenokoite(s)”. Since you want to connect Romans 1 with the Corinthian passage, tell me where in Romans is the Greek word “arsenokoite(s)” used?

 

[SilentKnight]

This doesn’t make much sense to me. Since does ‘know them’ mean anal sex? I’m pretty steeped in the gay agenda and its history. I don’t think ‘know you’ or ‘know them’ has ever been innuendo for sex.

It is in the Bible. When the Bible speaks of someone “knowing” someone else, it is often a very discreet reference to sexual “knowledge”, not mental knowledge about someone, the way we use the word today.

One of the gospels speaks of Joseph not “knowing” Mary until Jesus’ birth. (The word “until” bringing up it’s own translation quirks as well in that when we use the word today, it typically has the connotation of a circumstance changing after the “until point”; whereas, in biblical times, the word was used simply to illustrate that a situation was what it was “until the until”, no inference at all about what might or might not happen after.

Peace,

SK

 

[truagape]

Yes, all translators of the Bible are wrong, and the “gay theologians” are now here to tell us the truth. Alleluia!

Why are you so fixated on the Church Fathers and what they say? I showed you how Ignatius of Antioch was the first to use the term “Catholic,” and you twisted up a tornado of confusion and nonsense to try to show that the Church founded by Peter and Paul was not the Catholic Church, which of course it was and is (and ever shall be).

Here’s a website that debunks most of the standard lies of “gay theology” - which is what truagape is repeating over and over. Here is what they say about “arsenokoite(s)”:

Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament. The terms do not, because they are original, significantly change the context of the verses they appear in.

Nor is it remarkable he would have coined this one, considering he derived it directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint):

meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos
(Lev 18:22)

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos
(Lev 20:13)

In other words, when Paul adopted the term arsenokoite, he took it directly from the Levitical passages-in the Greek translation- forbidding homosexual behavior. The meaning, then, could not be clearer: Though the term is unique to Paul, it refers specifically to homosexual behavior.

As for the inference that it applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the word shows it implies nothing of the sort. ‘Arsene,’ as mentioned earlier, appears few times in the New Testament, always referring to “male.” ‘Koite’ appears only twice in the New Testament, and means “bed,” used in a sexual connotation:

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality [koite] and debauchery… (Rom 13:13)

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed [koite] kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Heb 13:4)

The two words combined, as Paul used them, put “male” and “bed” together in a sexual sense. There is no hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make arsenokoite.

truagape’s “arguments” are just standards lies of “gay theology” and there are plenty of resources to show how they are wrong. The technique used with the “arguments” seems to be the “Big Lie” technique perfected by the Nazis - just keep repeating the same lie over and over, and eventually people will come to believe (or accept) it. I am personally sorry that I ever got roped into this discussion in the first place, and this will be my last post on this topic.

So in essence, this is your round about way of not putting anything I posted to the test. It’s dishonest, and I’m not suprised in the slightest.

 

[SilentKnight]

You mentioned that in using the term “homosexuals” there is a little less wiggle room. Of course you’re referring to the Greek word “arsenokoite(s)”. Since you want to connect Romans 1 with the Corinthian passage, tell me where in Romans is the Greek word “arsenokoite(s)” used?

Actually, I did the opposite. I disconnected the two and said you could have 1 Cor 6:9. Might help to re-read my post. Do so carefully please.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

So in essence, this is your round about way of not putting anything I posted to the test. It’s dishonest, and I’m not suprised in the slightest.

I have not been following the discussion between yourself and Mea with great precision, so maybe I am missing something but how does this not at least claim to completely repudiate what you’ve posited thus far?

SK