Homosexuality: outdated beliefs

[MooCowSteph]

I really am hoping someone can explain this to me. Clearly, when we read the Bible, we see that homosexuality, or more specifically, the acts that accompany homosexuality, are sinful. Why do we choose to hold on to this biblical teaching but have long abandoned others, such as women’s roles in society? Women no longer cover their heads when praying/worshipping. Women are allowed to be involved in the Church and speak in church. There are also some pretty peculiar teachings in the Old Testament, mostly related to health and cleanliness. Obviously, we say today that they are ludicrous. But why these and not others?

Others have brought up this point, but it’s never really been answered sufficiently. It seems when you make rationalizations for abandoning some biblical teachings we open the door to abandoning all teachings.

Steph

 

[Poisson]

The short answer: moral issues cannot change, cultural issus can.

 

[creedseebas]

the sin of homosexuality deals with th enatural law. the tradition of women wearing certain articles of clothing in church or not deals with tradition. God himself decided that man was for woman and woman was for man. God did not make the decision whether o rnot women should wear veils in church or not. that was more of a sign of reverence or culture even (to some extent). Traditions change throughout time but natural law doesn’t. it was the same to kill someone then as it is now. same with abortion, they condemned it back then and they still do now (they meaning the church). Tradition is something that even in the old testament would change from time to time. it just sounds like you’re trying to compare apples with oranges. it doesn’t work like that and that’s what a lot of people don’t understand. We as humans cannot change the law that God has layed out for us. Obvioulsy if Man makes a law, then it is not perfect an dso can be improved or changed throughout time and that’s what i would define as tradition. whereas God’s law is perfect and cannot be changed by Man or time because it needs not to be changed since it is already perfect.

 

[JimO]

I’m sure there is a theological explanation, but there are things that are intrinsically evil, such as murder, stealing, sex outside of marriage (homosexual or heterosexual), and others. In fact, the Ten Commandments list these types of items. Other things are social customs or disciplines that can change because they are not intrinsically evil.

As an example, the Jews were prohibited from eating animals with cloven hooves that did not chew their cud. Pigs are a prime example, they were considered unclean. Why? Well, in ancient times pigs carried diseases that could be passed on to humans (they still do). Eating their flesh without cooking it thoroughly could cause trichenosis (sp?). That’s why to this day we don’t eat pork unless it is cooked thoroughly or salted, even though this parasite has been eliminated from pigs for a long time. My point is that some disciplines may have been given to the Jews for reasons other than that the restricted activity itself was evil.

The Catholic Church makes similar distinctions. Dogma cannot change (the Trinity, Christ’s virgin birth, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, etc.); however, disciplines can (married priests). Disciplines change with changes in conditions, such as the structure of society and cultural differences.

I’m no theologian, but I hope this helps.

Blessings,

Jim

 

[MooCowSteph]

I understand what you are saying and it makes good sense to me, but allow me to play “devil’s advocate” for a moment. Could one not say that since God inspired the Bible, he also inspired the traditions and early non-dogmatic teachings? I could see someone who was not a believer in biblical law claiming that since we do not follow everything, or take every law as a command from God, we are in fact hypocrites for sticking to other (what some believe to be) out of date teachings, such as homosexuality.

I’ve never actually gotten in a debate over this particular topic, but I know one day I will and I want to be well prepared!

 

[JimO]

Again, there is a clear distinction between what is intrisically evil and what is a custom or discipline. Without this distinction, you are correct, the argument falls apart. But, the Catholic Church has never changed its position on dogmatic matters. That is why the Church can never approve of sex outside of sacramental marriage between a man and woman, abortion, or contraception any more than it could deny the divinity of Christ or the virgin birth.It all comes down to what is considered dogmatic truth and what is “custom” or discipline.

Blessings,

Jim

 

[marciadietrich]

MooCowSteph:

I understand what you are saying and it makes good sense to me, but allow me to play “devil’s advocate” for a moment. Could one not say that since God inspired the Bible, he also inspired the traditions and early non-dogmatic teachings? I could see someone who was not a believer in biblical law claiming that since we do not follow everything, or take every law as a command from God, we are in fact hypocrites for sticking to other (what some believe to be) out of date teachings, such as homosexuality.

I’ve never actually gotten in a debate over this particular topic, but I know one day I will and I want to be well prepared!

But the restrictions on diet were lifted- for the most part- in the New Testament. (Acts 10, Peter says he had a dream that it was okay to eat those forbidden foods.

• Acts 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “You must stop calling unclean what God has made clean.”

)

But the teaching against homosexuality was reiterated in New Testament and early Church teaching

1 Corinthians 6:9 You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,…

**
St. John Chrysostom - Letter 1, Two Exhortations to Theodore after his fall
(newadvent.org/fathers/1903.htm)
4. And speak not to me of those who have committed small sins, but suppose the case of one who is filled full of all wickedness, and let him practice everything which excludes him from the kingdom, and let us suppose that this man is not one of those who were unbelievers from the beginning, but formerly belonged to the believers, and such as were well pleasing to God, but afterwards has become a fornicator, adulterer, effeminate, a thief, a drunkard, a sodomite, a reviler, and everything else of this kind; I will not approve even of this man despairing of himself, although he may have gone on to extreme old age in the practice of this great and unspeakable wickedness.

**

That an Orthodox Jew would still adhere to the OT laws is understandable since they do not accept the NT. Christians live under the new covenant and the fulfillment of the law in the NT.

 

[Hananiah]

MooCowSteph:

I really am hoping someone can explain this to me. Clearly, when we read the Bible, we see that homosexuality, or more specifically, the acts that accompany homosexuality, are sinful. Why do we choose to hold on to this biblical teaching but have long abandoned others, such as women’s roles in society? Women no longer cover their heads when praying/worshipping. Women are allowed to be involved in the Church and speak in church. There are also some pretty peculiar teachings in the Old Testament, mostly related to health and cleanliness. Obviously, we say today that they are ludicrous. But why these and not others?

God, as well as the Catholic Church, has the authority to legislate based on the dictates of time and circumstance. Both can ban practices which are not inherrently sinful, for example banning diseased meats, practices which a certain portion of the Christian community might find offensive, etc, at which point the acts become sinful by virtue of their being acts of disobedience to God/Church. Such laws are provisional, and can be reformed. This is a biblical principle. See Fish on Fridays on my website. The OT cleanliness laws fall under this catergory.

However, I would argue that the NT’s teaching about the roles of women in society is part of the moral law, is not provisional, and should be kept today. Women should still wear veils in Church.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Everyone makes very good sense. Thanks for the clairification!

 

[Chip_D]

What really did it for me on this issue, as a misguided liberal, was the Church’s teaching on the sacrament of marraige. What is the purpose of marraige and of sex? Once you have the answer to these two questions, and buy it, it is easy to see how all sexual relations outide of marraige are sinful and therefor dangerous to us humans. It became very clear to me that sexual relations were to exist within a marraige covenant to unite, give life and to more fully experience the love of God. The act itself is so powerful that life stems from it. It is so powerful that the sacrament of marraige is not complete until the act is completed. When sexual relations occur outside of the marraige covenant we place ourselves in a dangerous emotional, physical, spiritual and moral place. Anyone, like me, who has tested the waters of fornication and come to the truth can attest to the damage that occurs as a result. Homosexuality is fornication. It cannot fit into the confines of marraige because it does to breed life, as well as being simply unbiblical. In essence the most powerful and life giving act that we can engage in as human beings is reduced to an act of self gratification on the physical level and/or emotoinal level in homosexual unions.