Homosexuality

[churchatheist]

If we see ourselves as children of God, we should also accept the possibility that God knows better than we do. Trust in God means making an effort to conform our will and sense of right and wrong to His.

It may be hard to understand, but God is not just the reporter and educator on what is right, as if right and wrong was something that existed before God did. God is the author of right and wrong. Once you understand that perspective, you can see why we place our own personal feelings about an issue in second place.

I do think I understand this perspective. I was, after all, a churchgoing Christian for 30 years. This perspective just no longer sits right with me as the most true.

I believe morality originated with the gradual formation of societies. It exists in our minds as the result of nature and nurture, but societies have had different standards of morality throughout time. Churches have participated in shaping that morality, because their efforts to reach a more full understanding of God’s morality do contribute to the complicated discussion of ethics that takes place in a society, even if, as I believe, an ultimate standard of morality as dictated by a divinity is not actually there.

I would argue that many of the Church’s problems that people focus on today are because the church tries to maintain a bronze-age system of morality (in some respects) even though most of human society has changed its standards. Churches and religious people, too, have changed in many ways–slavery, stoning, racial discrimination, usury, and so forth. Those ethical standards have changed. With regard to homosexuality, human history has a long and consistent ethical standard that it is wrong, which is changing very rapidly. Time will tell whether most people/societies ultimately accept it or whether this is some passing fad on the moral landscape. My point with regard to the original post is that most people don’t actually rely on scripture or church for their own ethical standards, but judge for themselves based on the whole of their human experience (in which church and scripture often play a large role). Many people now judge homosexuality to be morally acceptable, just like they now judge working on the sabbath to be morally acceptable. And honoring the sabbath is one of the ten commandments for goodness’ sake! Nearly everyone ignores that one! Why? Because we as a society come to standards of morality which are based on more than ancient texts. Even the church does.

And if you insist upon saying that you trust in God for morality and you give him the benefit of the doubt and you aim to reach a full understanding of his morality, I’d respond that you have used your own judgment in choosing to be Catholic, in choosing to accept church teaching. If it struck you as immoral, I suspect you would reject it. For my part, I see no harm in homosexuality, and therefore cannot see it as immoral. Moreover, it is a kind of love, in my judgement, and should be celebrated as such.

 

[Rau]

I would argue that many of the Church’s problems that people focus on today are because the church tries to maintain a bronze-age system of morality (in some respects) even though most of human society has changed its standards. Churches and religious people, too, have changed in many ways–slavery, stoning, racial discrimination, usury, and so forth. Those ethical standards have changed. With regard to homosexuality, human history has a long and consistent ethical standard that it is wrong, which is changing very rapidly. Time will tell whether most people/societies ultimately accept it or whether this is some passing fad on the moral landscape. My point with regard to the original post is that most people don’t actually rely on scripture or church for their own ethical standards, but judge for themselves based on the whole of their human experience (in which church and scripture often play a large role). Many people now judge homosexuality to be morally acceptable, just like they now judge working on the sabbath to be morally acceptable. And honoring the sabbath is one of the ten commandments for goodness’ sake! Nearly everyone ignores that one! Why? Because we as a society come to standards of morality which are based on more than ancient texts. Even the church does.
.

Can you elaborate on what moral issues comprise the elements of the Bronze Age system of morality, beyond the issue of homosexual acts, which clearly you include.

 

[migueltojose]

I do think I understand this perspective. I was, after all, a churchgoing Christian for 30 years. This perspective just no longer sits right with me as the most true.

I believe morality originated with the gradual formation of societies. It exists in our minds as the result of nature and nurture, but societies have had different standards of morality throughout time. Churches have participated in shaping that morality, because their efforts to reach a more full understanding of God’s morality do contribute to the complicated discussion of ethics that takes place in a society, even if, as I believe, an ultimate standard of morality as dictated by a divinity is not actually there.

I would argue that many of the Church’s problems that people focus on today are because the church tries to maintain a bronze-age system of morality (in some respects) even though most of human society has changed its standards. Churches and religious people, too, have changed in many ways–slavery, stoning, racial discrimination, usury, and so forth. Those ethical standards have changed. With regard to homosexuality, human history has a long and consistent ethical standard that it is wrong, which is changing very rapidly. Time will tell whether most people/societies ultimately accept it or whether this is some passing fad on the moral landscape. My point with regard to the original post is that most people don’t actually rely on scripture or church for their own ethical standards, but judge for themselves based on the whole of their human experience (in which church and scripture often play a large role). Many people now judge homosexuality to be morally acceptable, just like they now judge working on the sabbath to be morally acceptable. And honoring the sabbath is one of the ten commandments for goodness’ sake! Nearly everyone ignores that one! Why? Because we as a society come to standards of morality which are based on more than ancient texts. Even the church does.

And if you insist upon saying that you trust in God for morality and you give him the benefit of the doubt and you aim to reach a full understanding of his morality, I’d respond that you have used your own judgment in choosing to be Catholic, in choosing to accept church teaching. If it struck you as immoral, I suspect you would reject it. For my part, I see no harm in homosexuality, and therefore cannot see it as immoral. Moreover, it is a kind of love, in my judgement, and should be celebrated as such.

If you have any questions, when you go to bed at night, relax and just ask (just in case there’s someone/thing out there in the empty void of non-earth space/time) just ask in all sincerity with an open heart and you will receive your answers. Everyone has questions. Ask and you shall receive. Please.

 

[blaskoman]

That is absurd and not true. Believing that being gay is not a sin does not break any basic tenant of the faith. If I were to participate in a sex act that is not allowed by the Church, then I would have to confess before receiving the Eucharist. The “thought police” aren’t quite here yet. In addition, we all struggle in forming our true conscience.

thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/26/915071/new-jersey-archbishop-communion/

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/26/915071/new-jersey-archbishop-communion/

That doesn’t in anyway contradict what kozlosap said.

 

[christus_vincit]

I do think I understand this perspective. I was, after all, a churchgoing Christian for 30 years. This perspective just no longer sits right with me as the most true.

I believe morality originated with the gradual formation of societies. It exists in our minds as the result of nature and nurture, but societies have had different standards of morality throughout time. Churches have participated in shaping that morality, because their efforts to reach a more full understanding of God’s morality do contribute to the complicated discussion of ethics that takes place in a society, even if, as I believe, an ultimate standard of morality as dictated by a divinity is not actually there.

It does indeed seem to be the case that over the course of human history societies have looked to different standards of morality. However, history also demonstrates that there are certain norms which are present in all eras and cultures. The idea that murder is wrong, for example, has almost universal support throughout the ages. Why is this the case? Why do even non-believers cringe at the thought of the Holocaust? Because something inside of us screams out “this is wrong!”. Is this simply the result of some religious indoctrination, passed down through generations of Christian morality, or is it something more? It seems to be something more. If there is no God - no standard of right and wrong - what prevents us from living out the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest”? Nothing. The bloodbath we call the 20th century demonstrates just what can happen when society throws aside absolute standards for a Darwinian system of arbitrary ethics. Human life losses its dignity and horror ensues. After WWII, at the Nuremberg Trials, the world had no qualms with throwing the age old excuse “I was just following orders” out the window. Why? Because the world agreed that the Holocaust and the atrocities of the concentration camps were evil. The justice of the Nuremberg Trials was rooted firmly in some real standard of morality known universally - a natural law. So yes, it is evident that societies do not always abide by the same moral standards. But it is clear that the societies that do deviate from the natural law are aberrations doomed to fail. In every case, because each of us knows in our hearts what is right and what is wrong, humanity will always attempt to “right the ship” of morality.

This particular thread addresses the issue of homosexual relations. You have pointed out rightly that modern society is becoming more and more accepting of this issue. But it does not follow from this that the ethical standard has changed. Just because a majority of people think something is morally permissible, does not necessarily mean that it is. If we accept this method of defining ethics, we would also have to accept that racism would be morally permissible if it ever garnered the support of a majority. It is foolish to assume that because a society adopts something it automatically becomes correct. Was racially segregated America morally correct? By the idea that the majority dictates morality, yes it was. By the statutes of natural law - no it was not (and we all know that racism is immoral). This arbitrariness can easily infringe on human dignity - it has done so with horrifying effect in the past. This same arbitrariness that supports homosexuality today could also viciously turn on it tomorrow as the tide of morality swings. For these reasons, among many others, it is evident that a natural law - an absolute system of ethics - must be in place to govern morality. This has been proven throughout the ages time and again.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But I believe morality should be based on the harm that an act causes. I see harm in theft, adultery, murder, greed, etc. I can see no harm in two people lovingly engaging in a homosexual act. Is it really immoral if nobody is hurt by it?

The difference is that all of those actions hurt someone else. I know you’ll say gayness hurts society and the family unit, but it really doesn’t. There are plenty of other people out there having kids. Humans won’t die out.

First of all, I want to agree with both of you that being homosexual does not hurt anyone else, period. And I want to agree that bad actions are actions that tend to hurt people. However, it’s not clear to me that sodomy – whether committed by heterosexuals or homosexuals – does not tend to hurt people. In my experience, sodomy makes a person more interested in personal pleasure. This is played out in the fact that heterosexuals who engage in sodomy (anal or oral sex to orgasm) are more likely to get divorced or to be unfaithful than those who do not. The focus of the marriage often becomes personal satisfaction rather than the good of others – one’s spouse and one’s children. This is extremely destructive.

So I don’t have any problem with homosexuality, but I do feel like the sex acts themselves don’t serve any good purpose in the world. Please realize that I’m not speaking from complete ignorance on the matter, since I myself am tempted toward sex with other men, and I am quite familiar with the promiscuity that is common among gay men. It’s not a myth.

At any rate, I assure you I’m willing to listen to any evidence you give, and I’m not dead set in my position. But I am curious how acts of mutual masturbation, oral, and anal sex make the world a better place.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would argue that many of the Church’s problems that people focus on today are because the church tries to maintain a bronze-age system of morality (in some respects) even though most of human society has changed its standards.

In other words, the problem with the Church is that it tries to be a Church of God, rather than a Church of man. Not surprising, coming from someone who no longer believes there is a God.

The Church has a long history of going against the trends of society. They are out of step with society today, and they were out of step with society in the first century when they frustrated the expectations of both the Jewish establishment and the Roman occupation. The fact that the Church has not “caught up” to modern trends in acceptance of homosexuality and other sins is not in itself evidence that the Church is wrong. In fact, if the Church followed whims of society, that would be evidence against it being an authentic Church, not confirmation that it was doing right.

There has also been history of terrible abuse and corruption within the Church, which I suppose you were alluding to. If the Church were merely a human invention, this might be evidence that it had outlived its usefulness. But we see the abuses and corruption to be evidence of Man’s imperfect ability to participate in the divine institution. The fact that despite these problems the Church has endured is evidence that it is indeed under divine guidance, as we believe.

Far from being a mirror of society’s idea of morality, the Church has many times in history been the instrument of dragging society into a better understanding of morality. Much of what we now attribute to “societal values” actually came to us through the Church, though we tend to forget that now.

My point with regard to the original post is that most people don’t actually rely on scripture or church for their own ethical standards, but judge for themselves based on the whole of their human experience (in which church and scripture often play a large role).

I agree with this to a point. As you just admitted, “Church and scripture often play a large role”. People can and do learn what is moral from Church teaching. But then they must make an act of will to internalize this sense of morality to ultimately make it their own. People do not turn over, once and for all, the entire job of moral decision making for them to the Church. They exercise their free will on a continual basis to try to conform their understanding to what the Church teaches. This is not always easy. Sometimes it shakes us to the very core. Some, perhaps you, have found this impossible to do, and have rejected the Church and the belief in God. I understand that. That is your free will choice. But don’t expect everyone to do as you have done.

And if you insist upon saying that you trust in God for morality and you give him the benefit of the doubt and you aim to reach a full understanding of his morality, I’d respond that you have used your own judgment in choosing to be Catholic, in choosing to accept church teaching. If it struck you as immoral, I suspect you would reject it.

When you say “if it struck you as immoral”, you are treating the moral decision as a static choice, made from the first impression of the question. But moral perspectives are malleable. They can and do vary over time. What a faithful Catholic does when he encounters a Church teaching that does not seem right to him is he studies it further. He looks into the Church’s reasons for teaching what they do. In so doing, many will come to change from their first impression to a later impression that might be quite different. If this person were to follow your advice, he would stick with his initial impression and perhaps leave the Church over it. That is sad, because this person has missed the opportunity to receive guidance from the Church. But I suppose if a person is dead set on the assumption that his own private compass is always in perfect working order, it is not surprising that he will reject any such assistance.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I am currently reading the link below, I am on section III, and so far it has been pretty good. It may be of help for those wanting to understand more about homosexuality.

ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo.htm#Index

 

[churchatheist]

Can you elaborate on what moral issues comprise the elements of the Bronze Age system of morality, beyond the issue of homosexual acts, which clearly you include.

The three that come to mind are:

-Condemnation of homosexuality
-Insistence that sexual acts are for procreation
-The position that women cannot be priests

Most of the other elements of bronze-age morality, like the right to murder your own slave, the right to sell your daughter, the right to stone adulterers, and the right to slaughter the livestock and salt the earth of your enemy, Christian societies have long since done away with. But not all societies. For example, some Orthodox Jews must demonstrate to their Rabbi that they are not menstruating and receive permission to have sex. That happens in the 21st century in America. Some moral standards that stood back then, like do not murder and do not steal, still apply today. But we have discarded most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy because much of their legal code is outdated. So thankfully, I cannot think of many examples of the legal code of the ancient Israelites that the Catholic Church now endorses. But the three items listed above are underpinned by moral arguments which I believe have ancient roots and are now unpersuasive.

The fact that most of the rest of the ancient Israelites’ legal code is ignored underscores my point that we use our own judgment, informed by social interactions, to draw conclusions about moral issues. That is not to say that “whatever I think is right” or some simplistic egocentric morality. But I also think that relying on an ultimate foundation of morality rooted in a sacred text–or even worse, what other people tell you is God’s will–is fallacious.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The three that come to mind are:

-Condemnation of homosexuality
-Insistence that sexual acts are for procreation
-The position that women cannot be priests

Most of the other elements of bronze-age morality, like the right to murder your own slave, the right to sell your daughter, the right to stone adulterers, and the right to slaughter the livestock and salt the earth of your enemy, Christian societies have long since done away with. But not all societies. For example, some Orthodox Jews must demonstrate to their Rabbi that they are not menstruating and receive permission to have sex. That happens in the 21st century in America. Some moral standards that stood back then, like do not murder and do not steal, still apply today. But we have discarded most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy because much of their legal code is outdated. So thankfully, I cannot think of many examples of the legal code of the ancient Israelites that the Catholic Church now endorses. But the three items listed above are underpinned by moral arguments which I believe have ancient roots and are now unpersuasive.

The fact that most of the rest of the ancient Israelites’ legal code is ignored underscores my point that we use our own judgment, informed by social interactions, to draw conclusions about moral issues. That is not to say that “whatever I think is right” or some simplistic egocentric morality. But I also think that relying on an ultimate foundation of morality rooted in a sacred text–or even worse, what other people tell you is God’s will–is fallacious.

The reason the three issues you listed at the beginning have not been overturned is that they are still true. The fact that much of society accepts these sexual sins as not sins does not prove the Church’s position to be wrong. Right or wrong do not flow from taking a poll. Society’s laws do. The position regarding women priests is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women as priests. Authority comes from God, not from human invention. You seem to be asserting that it is self-evident that women should be priests. It is obviously not. If you want to pursue the matter further, you might try examining closely the reasoning that the Church gives for this.

As for the issues that you list as “discarded”, most of them were part of the old covenant. When Jesus became man, He instituted a new covenant. Jesus changed the way we relate to God in a fundamental way. The changes did not come about by people suddenly deciding to “use their own judgement”.

 

[Rau]

The three that come to mind are:

1. Condemnation of homosexuality
2. Insistence that sexual acts are for procreation
3. The position that women cannot be priests

Seems a pretty thin basis to declare the Catholic Church’s system of morality “Bronze Age”!

By the way, number (2) is not correct. Were it the case, post-menopausal women should not have sex. Perhaps your language was just a bit loose, and you meant to say that sexual relations are to be ordered in accordance with their unitive **and **procreative purposes.

 

[DanielJT]

The three that come to mind are:

-Condemnation of homosexuality
-Insistence that sexual acts are for procreation
-The position that women cannot be priests

Most of the other elements of bronze-age morality, like the right to murder your own slave, the right to sell your daughter, the right to stone adulterers, and the right to slaughter the livestock and salt the earth of your enemy, Christian societies have long since done away with. But not all societies. For example, some Orthodox Jews must demonstrate to their Rabbi that they are not menstruating and receive permission to have sex. That happens in the 21st century in America. Some moral standards that stood back then, like do not murder and do not steal, still apply today. But we have discarded most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy because much of their legal code is outdated. So thankfully, I cannot think of many examples of the legal code of the ancient Israelites that the Catholic Church now endorses. But the three items listed above are underpinned by moral arguments which I believe have ancient roots and are now unpersuasive.

The fact that most of the rest of the ancient Israelites’ legal code is ignored underscores my point that we use our own judgment, informed by social interactions, to draw conclusions about moral issues. That is not to say that “whatever I think is right” or some simplistic egocentric morality. But I also think that relying on an ultimate foundation of morality rooted in a sacred text–or even worse, what other people tell you is God’s will–is fallacious.

G. K. Chesterton said, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

There are many rules that used to be that no longer are. There are also rules that never were that have appeared, for instance the Church’s teachings on birth control did no exist in the “bronze age” for obvious reason. The trick is to weed through these rules and determine which ones are best for our human nature - which is inherently valuable but often seeks out damaging habits.

Laws and the such need to hold up human worth while at the same time restrain it from its own destructive patterns and disordered desires.

So the question is WHO is best to determine this? When we set our morals according to popular culture, the most votes, the unnamed masses (whatever you want to call it) it is unrealistic to believe that the crowd will consistently restrain itself. Mob mentality is a direct proof of this. The fact is, the crowd often works towards the path of least resistance. A lynch mob does not care about due process, only result (and possibly spectacle).

So WHO?

I’m sure know what I would propose here, but I’m curious to hear WHO or WHAT ideology you would put at the reigns?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am currently reading the link below, I am on section III, and so far it has been pretty good. It may be of help for those wanting to understand more about homosexuality.

ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo.htm#Index

 

[inthespirit]

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines the basis of God’s created order where God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman – not two men, not two women – to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It also undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife, the God-ordained means of procreation.

Are you sure there were only Adam and Eve?

1:27 So God created humanity in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

(Rev. distinguishes 144,000 first unmarried **fruits **from the rest of the human race…?)

2:7 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams** came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis is clearly chronological in order: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc, action followed by action…

YHWh is two masculine and two feminine elements according to scholars, and G-D made us in His image: Male-man-Female-woman?

So, according to Genesis, Male and Female came first; man and woman were subsequent. If man and woman were heterosexual Adam and Eve, just who were the first lot?

Lev. distinguishes between Male and man in its sex laws: a (straight) man shall not lie with a (gay) male as he does a woman…?

In Eden, Adam and Eve were assigned to tend to the garden, including the trees of fruit. If they were limited to the garden and to work the ground, how were they supposed to fill the world and rule the fish in the sea when they weren’t near the coast?

They then ate the fruit and started to sew, aprons of all things. Was this the first instance of cannibalism, and hence the reason why G-D became so angry? (Cannibalism is practised to absorb the spirit, nature and wisdom of the victim.)

In summary, the literal sense of Genesis is that gays and lesbians were created first and blessed, then came man and woman who were created to serve the blessed and work the ground, but instead ate one of them, inventing needle-point and the butcher’s apron at the same time. They went on to become the first politicians (“Read my lips: It was just some **fruit **we ate, those are the facts”), and resentful of the blessed, established a policy of segregation for the rest of time?

I know this isn’t the usual interpretation, but it is objective, logical and follows the events as they are described. Where would we be if each book of the Bible weren’t chronological and jumped back and forth through time without saying? That would mean everything after the crucifixion could equally have happened before it! Which is it to be? **

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are you sure there were only Adam and Eve?

1:27 So God created humanity in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

(Rev. distinguishes 144,000 first unmarried **fruits **from the rest of the human race…?)

2:7 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams** came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis is clearly chronological in order: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc, action followed by action…

YHWh is two masculine and two feminine elements according to scholars, and G-D made us in His image: Male-man-Female-woman?

So, according to Genesis, Male and Female came first; man and woman were subsequent. If man and woman were heterosexual Adam and Eve, just who were the first lot?

Lev. distinguishes between Male and man in its sex laws: a (straight) man shall not lie with a (gay) male as he does a woman…?

In Eden, Adam and Eve were assigned to tend to the garden, including the trees of fruit**. If they were limited to the garden and to work the ground, how were they supposed to fill the world and rule the fish in the sea when they weren’t near the coast?

They then ate the fruit and started to sew, aprons of all things. Was this the first instance of cannibalism, and hence the reason why G-D became so angry? (Cannibalism is practised to absorb the spirit, nature and wisdom of the victim.)

In summary, the literal sense of Genesis is that gays and lesbians were created first and blessed, then came man and woman who were created to serve the blessed and work the ground, but instead ate one of them, inventing needle-point and the butcher’s apron at the same time. They went on to become the first politicians (“Read my lips: It was just some **fruit **we ate, those are the facts”), and resentful of the blessed, established a policy of segregation for the rest of time?

I know this isn’t the usual interpretation, but it is objective, logical and follows the events as they are described. Where would we be if each book of the Bible weren’t chronological and jumped back and forth through time without saying? That would mean everything after the crucifixion could equally have happened before it! Which is it to be?

 

[inthespirit]

Sorry, what does that mean? Filling? Engrossing (like the movie you watch while eating it)? Way bigger than you’d ever expect compared to the grain it comes from? Sweet?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry, what does that mean? Filling? Engrossing (like the movie you watch while eating it)? Way bigger than you’d ever expect compared to the grain it comes from? Sweet?

It means that I think that what you wrote is very good as entertainment.

I don’t find it to be very good scholarship, but that’s just me. If you’d like to hear my criticisms, I will give you a couple. In the meantime, though, I was just eating some popcorn.

 

[Kamaduck]

Are you sure there were only Adam and Eve?

1:27 So God created humanity in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

(Rev. distinguishes 144,000 first unmarried **fruits **from the rest of the human race…?)

2:7 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams** came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis is clearly chronological in order: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc, action followed by action…

YHWh is two masculine and two feminine elements according to scholars, and G-D made us in His image: Male-man-Female-woman?

So, according to Genesis, Male and Female came first; man and woman were subsequent. If man and woman were heterosexual Adam and Eve, just who were the first lot?

Lev. distinguishes between Male and man in its sex laws: a (straight) man shall not lie with a (gay) male as he does a woman…?

In Eden, Adam and Eve were assigned to tend to the garden, including the trees of fruit**. If they were limited to the garden and to work the ground, how were they supposed to fill the world and rule the fish in the sea when they weren’t near the coast?

They then ate the fruit and started to sew, aprons of all things. Was this the first instance of cannibalism, and hence the reason why G-D became so angry? (Cannibalism is practised to absorb the spirit, nature and wisdom of the victim.)

In summary, the literal sense of Genesis is that gays and lesbians were created first and blessed, then came man and woman who were created to serve the blessed and work the ground, but instead ate one of them, inventing needle-point and the butcher’s apron at the same time. They went on to become the first politicians (“Read my lips: It was just some **fruit **we ate, those are the facts”), and resentful of the blessed, established a policy of segregation for the rest of time?

I know this isn’t the usual interpretation, but it is objective, logical and follows the events as they are described. Where would we be if each book of the Bible weren’t chronological and jumped back and forth through time without saying? That would mean everything after the crucifixion could equally have happened before it! Which is it to be?

That is officially the weirdest interpretation I’ve ever heard.

Setting aside Church teaching (since you’re not Catholic) and focusing just on the Genesis text, there are several obvious problems with your interpretation.

Firstly, on what basis do you distinguish men from males and women from females? How did you come to the conclusion that all “males” are gay while all “men” are straight? Are you saying there’s no such thing as a gay man? Or that men are not also male?

Assuming that the fruit was actually another person just because the English word “fruitful” is used is also an interesting leap in logic. If there were other people there, they sure didn’t put up a fight, such that Eve, the serpent, and eventually Adam were able to have a leisurely conversation about whether or not they were going to eat them. Clearly this would make the first sin murder, not cannibalism, unless you think they ate the person live. And surely it wouldn’t have been just eating someone that was forbidden, but killing them in the first place? So if they were already dead, why would the serpent bother convincing them to eat the corpse? And furthermore, why would anyone be tempted to eat raw human, when they have literally all the plants ever to choose from?

Even stranger is the fact that Eve felt it was wrong to even touch the fruit. Do you think she felt it was wrong to touch other people, despite having no shame?

And if all the fruits are actually people, does that mean that there was a person running around who they could have eaten in order to gain eternal life on Earth? This story is getting weirder by the minute.

Do you have explanations for all of that?

 

[inthespirit]

John 1 In the beginning was the Word…

The hebrew uses different words for the genders, most confusingly in Lev. Man and Male lying together? Twice? It is not a slip of the author. It is a marked distinction implying two masculine genders. In Gen why are there two instances of human creation again employing different words for gender. The Word is God not the Words so repetition is not on the cards. Each statement is independent and True like God. God doesnt repeat Himself so neither does the Word. So two genus must have been created.

Murder and killing gays have been treated differently throughout history. The latter has always been socially more acceptable and encouraged as in Iran where gays are executedd, not murdered.

We dont know how many fruit there were. However why would they attack Adam and Eve knowing God would deal with them. It would also just not be right. They knew Good from Evil.

The serpent was vertical at the time and probably crushed the fruit. A freshly dead corpse emits pheremones and is clammy. Instinct tells us to stay clear so Eve would have felt that.

The practice continued hence the longevity of men. Noah was 900. The Flesh ended up corrupting the earth and men, who are not flesh but dust, were extinguished along with the Flesh. Gods covenant to the Flesh was made in their absence to Noah by proxy. The men in Sodom wanted to know the angels, not for sex but cannibalism. Lots wife became a condiment.

I think that is it…