F
fms
Guest
The Holy Spirit and the Inspired Authors use the word: "dogs"
- Status
H
Hadrianus
Guest
To interject a note of sanity:
St Paul employs the Greek word “arsenokoitai” which simply means men who lie with men.
Neither Greek nor Hebrew had a word which corresponds to the modern term “homosexual” English Bible translations sometime need to be treated with caution on this point as they will employ “sodomite” or “homosexuaL” or “the effeminate” in contexts where the original word is quite different.
Generally, speaking biblical language refers to actions when expressing sinful behavior.
St Paul employs the Greek word “arsenokoitai” which simply means men who lie with men.
Neither Greek nor Hebrew had a word which corresponds to the modern term “homosexual” English Bible translations sometime need to be treated with caution on this point as they will employ “sodomite” or “homosexuaL” or “the effeminate” in contexts where the original word is quite different.
Generally, speaking biblical language refers to actions when expressing sinful behavior.
F
fms
Guest
Dt23:18
Rv22:15
By inference:
Rv22:15
The Navarre Bible commentary:
.
S
SirJack
Guest
As someone who is struggling to reconcile my faith and my sexuality let me say the following: your post is not helpful.
F
fms
Guest
My Dear SirJack,
We all have our struggles. Let’s pray for each other. Isn’t our God God? He will see us through.
I actually debated whether or not to post as I did, given the loud reaction (not yours) that usually comes with stating the intrinsic/disordered evil of homosexual sins.
I have always pondered on the strong language used by the Holy Spirit/Inspired Authors.
It is true I have quoted but I hope God judges well my inner attitude and disposition.
Truth and Charity go hand in hand (The Son and the Holy Spirit being equal)
We all have our struggles. Let’s pray for each other. Isn’t our God God? He will see us through.
I actually debated whether or not to post as I did, given the loud reaction (not yours) that usually comes with stating the intrinsic/disordered evil of homosexual sins.
I have always pondered on the strong language used by the Holy Spirit/Inspired Authors.
It is true I have quoted but I hope God judges well my inner attitude and disposition.
Truth and Charity go hand in hand (The Son and the Holy Spirit being equal)
Our hope is in the Son, who reveals to us the love of the Father. They send us their Spirit who conform us to the image of the Son no matter how wretched we are or have been.
S
starsmurf
Guest
You still haven’t given a reference for your original allegation that practicising homosexuals are referred to as “dogs” in Scripture.
You also fail to realise that someone who is a “practicising homosexual” and the male prostitutes referred to in the Bible are two very different things. The prostitutes referred to were “sacred prostitutes”. They were not homosexual, they had been forced into that life. Men would go to their temples and have sex with these prostitutes in order to “commune with” their god. They saw it as a sort of prayer. The writers of Scripture are condemning this practice.
You make grand statements about Truth and Charity, well St Paul says that Charity is the greatest of Faith, Hope and Charity. You are using “Truth” as an excuse to attack those you despise. Also, as you have not given a reference for your allegation and none of us are aware of it, I do not think you are telling the truth. Isn’t it Blasphemy to falsely say something is in Scripture? Also, the rules of this forum state that we will show respect and charity towards each other, you OP does not seem to meet that requirement.
One of the Desert Fathers said something that is equally applicable to homosexuality, “**Do not judge an adulterer if you are chaste, or you break the law of God just as much as he does. For He who said ‘Do not commit adultery’ also said ‘Do not judge’ **.”
T
thistle
Guest
What has this to do with homosexuals?
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:
Deut 23:18
Ver. 18. Dog. Many explain this in a figurative sense, as we have done in the last verse, to denote the public impudence by which some thought to honour their gods. (Haydock) — Such impiety the Lord abhors, though practiced by all the surrounding nations, as ancient records unanimously attest. How incredible soever it might otherwise appear, that a false notion of religion, joined to a natural depravity, could prompt people to such excesses, we cannot call in question the veracity of so many historians. See Herodotus i, and ii.; Just.[Justinian?], xviii. 6.; Eusebius, præp. iv. 6.; St. Augustine, City of God iv. 10; and the sacred writers, Baruch vi. 42., and Proverbs xix. 13. The Rabbins explain dog literally, and observe that a prostitute, or one who has had any commerce with a man with whom it was not lawful for her to marry, could not offer what she had thus gained to the Lord, nor what had been received in exchange for a dog. Josephus ([Antiquities?] iv. 8,) understands it of such hunting or shepherds’ dogs as had been lent for hire to propagate the breed. Maimonides thinks that what the strumpet had received in kind, could not be presented, but with the price of it she might buy suitable victims. But Josephus and Philo admit of no such exceptions. They reject all sorts of presents made by strumpets, in detestation of their crimes; and it was probably from the same motive that the Jews concluded it was unlawful to put the price of blood into the treasury of the temple, Matthew xxvii. 6. In the Christian Church, the offerings of public sinners were not received, even to be distributed among the poor. These would not even take an alms from the hands of St. Afra, while she remained a courtesan of Augsbourg. Even the pagan emperor, Severus, refused to admit into the sacred treasury the tribute arising from such unworthy means. (Lamprid.) — Some believe that Moses forbids the price of a dog to be presented, as the Egyptians had a sovereign respect for dogs; and many nations offered them in sacrifice, particularly for expiation. All the Greeks purified themselves, by making a dog be carried round them. (Bochart, p. 1, B. ii. 56.) Isaias (lxvi. 3,) seems to insinuate that dogs were sometimes immolated. St. Augustine, (q. 38,) and others, believe that dogs are not to be redeemed, as the first-born of other things are, probably because they were too mean, and the price too insignificant to purchase another victim. But we may adhere to the explication which was first proposed. (Calmet) — Both. The dog was an unclean animal, and strumpets defiled their own bodies, and draw down the indignation of that God, who is a pure Spirit, and loves chaste souls. Without are dogs and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols. (Apocalypse xxii. 15.) (Haydock)
Rev 22:15
Ver. 15. Without are dogs; meaning unbelievers, and whosever loveth and maketh a lie, i.e. all the wicked, who have not walked in the ways of truth. (Witham)
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
To be blunt, homosexuality is not reconcilable to the Christian faith, but neither are other forms of sin, or the temptations thereof. That doesn’t mean the person cannot be saved however, just that trying to reconcile it is a failed task from the outset.
S
starsmurf
Guest
Homosexuality is perfectly reconcileable to the Christian faith, it is not a sin to be homosexual any more than it is sinful to be heterosexual. In both sexualities, we are tempted to sex outwith marriage, it is not sinful to be tempted. In both sexualities, we must resist those temptations. You could say “homosexual acts are not reconcilable” but if you go around saying what you said above, you are condemning someone based on a temptation, not a sin.
J
John21652
Guest
The word “homosexual” can be used as either a noun, or an adjective.
You need to define the manner in which you use the word before you make statements about the condition’s reconcilability with morality of any kind. Usually, the difference is expressed by referring to those who have Same Sex Attraction (SSA) and those who are actively homosexual. The latter, of course, oversteps all moral boundaries.
Definition:
S
SirJack
Guest
One of the things that I have found is that use of the term SSA is mostly restricted to those involved in apologetic arguments. While the SSA terminology may be used to distinguish between people who embrace a specific cultural mindset and those who don’t, one can be SSA and act on it. Just as one can also engage in homosexual acts without having any SSA.
I have always admired the Church’s wisdom in distinguishing between acts and actors.
Perhaps the debate over the terms gay/SSA et al simply obscure the larger point: it is the sinner who is loved, not the sin.
I have always admired the Church’s wisdom in distinguishing between acts and actors.
Perhaps the debate over the terms gay/SSA et al simply obscure the larger point: it is the sinner who is loved, not the sin.
F
fms
Guest
Your own words condemn you.
S
starsmurf
Guest
As SirJack points out above, SSA is a term only used in apologetics. I had never come across the term before coming to this forum. If someone says “homosexuality is irreconcilable with Christianity” the vast majority of people, including many Catholics, will interpret that as the sexuality itself not the act. I tested my family tonight with that sentence, and they all interpreted it as meaning the sexuality itself was sinful.
Your dictionary quote does not show anywhere that the word homosexuality means the acts, it is saying that it refers to the person who is tempted to do so or the state of being subject to such temptations. Please do not use the term to refer to the acts. As Scott Hahn says in his book on sharing our Catholic faith (Reasons to Believe) we should always speak so as to be understood, in the way that will make it easiest for those we are speaking with to understand and so as to avoid misunderstanding. That is the golden rule in apologetics.
T
thistle
Guest
Modern Catholic Dictionary:
HOMOSEXUALITY. In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.
HOMOSEXUALITY. In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.
M
michelleds
Guest
please read the information at this link re language: couragerc.net/Catholic_Language.html
J
John21652
Guest
Unless you have trouble reading, the dictionary definition of homosexuality is fairly straight forward. Here, let me post it again -
Note definition No.1. It refers to someone who practices homosexuality. So, your statement that the *"…dictionary definition does not show anywhere that the word homosexuality means the acts…" is absurd. *Furthermore, definitions given in all dictionaries say the same thing. The definitions refer to the acts of homosexuals, so, pleae, do not tell me how to use the word. The word required to differentiate practicing homosexuals from non-practicing is the word ‘celibate’. SSA is a given when discussing homosexuality. Obviously.
The obvious inference from this post of yours is that homosexuality in a marriage is OK, just as heterosexual sex in a marriage is OK. You need to get it into your head that homosexuality within a so called ‘marriage’ is just as much an abomination as homosexual sex is outside a so called ‘marriage’. Homosexuality is not reconcilable with Christianity and never will be, unless the latter is perverted by the gay apologists. Something they are trying hard to do.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi Starsmurf,
I am really not following your point here…
The title of the thread contains the adjective PRACTICING as it modifies Homosexuals. While I am not convinced that there is something genetic or biologic here - your statement seems to simply address one’s attractions (lustful temptations) towards others of the same sex. And, yes, you are correct, it is NOT SINFUL to be tempted. The sin comes in when we yield to temptation - and, I understand the OP, that within the context of PRACTICING homosexual acts these people are engaged in sin.
Actually, I think Babylonisfalling addressed the matter clearly and correctly - engaging in homosexual acts is not reconcilable with the teachings of the Catholic Church. For that matter, heterosexual acts outside of marriage are not reconcilable, either… as is drunkeness, murder, theft, etc. Those are the cards that we all have been have been handed and that we are to play as best we can.
And, just to make sure we are clear on this matter, while engaging in homosexual acts is disordered and always wrong, herterosexual acts outside of marriage is simply wrong. The hetersexuals marry and and then engage in sexual intercouse - this is perfectly right. There is no ‘pass’ on homosexual acts as ever being without sin. The Catholic Church has already done the work when it comes to judgment - and it has condemned homosexual ACTS - but not the sinner. We pray for all sinners (regardless of whatever their sin is) to come back to Christ. And, just to keep this straight, the Church has already condemned drunkeness, murder, theft, etc., too. Homosexuals, individually or collectively, have not been singled out for condemnation. Those who promote sin are taken to task to encouraging others to sin - and this is too is wrong.
God bless
I am really not following your point here…
The title of the thread contains the adjective PRACTICING as it modifies Homosexuals. While I am not convinced that there is something genetic or biologic here - your statement seems to simply address one’s attractions (lustful temptations) towards others of the same sex. And, yes, you are correct, it is NOT SINFUL to be tempted. The sin comes in when we yield to temptation - and, I understand the OP, that within the context of PRACTICING homosexual acts these people are engaged in sin.
Actually, I think Babylonisfalling addressed the matter clearly and correctly - engaging in homosexual acts is not reconcilable with the teachings of the Catholic Church. For that matter, heterosexual acts outside of marriage are not reconcilable, either… as is drunkeness, murder, theft, etc. Those are the cards that we all have been have been handed and that we are to play as best we can.
And, just to make sure we are clear on this matter, while engaging in homosexual acts is disordered and always wrong, herterosexual acts outside of marriage is simply wrong. The hetersexuals marry and and then engage in sexual intercouse - this is perfectly right. There is no ‘pass’ on homosexual acts as ever being without sin. The Catholic Church has already done the work when it comes to judgment - and it has condemned homosexual ACTS - but not the sinner. We pray for all sinners (regardless of whatever their sin is) to come back to Christ. And, just to keep this straight, the Church has already condemned drunkeness, murder, theft, etc., too. Homosexuals, individually or collectively, have not been singled out for condemnation. Those who promote sin are taken to task to encouraging others to sin - and this is too is wrong.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, John21652,
I think this pretty well sums it up.
One of the things I have found quite distressing is those who simply live the words of Isaiah thinking they do not apply to them (Is 5:20-24)
“Ah! Those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness to light, and light into darkness, who change bitter to sweet, and sweet into bitter! 21Ah! Those who are wise in their own eyes, prudent in their own view! 22Ah! Those who are champions at drinking wine, masters at mixing drink! 23Those who acquit the guilty for bribes, and deprive the innocent of justice! 24Therefore, as the tongue of fire licks up stubble, as dry grass shrivels in the flame, Their root shall rot and their blossom scatter like dust; For they have rejected the instruction of the LORD of hosts, and scorned the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
Sodomy and other forms of homosexual activies are disordered, immoral and sinful. Whoever says other-wise is simply ignoring God’s written word and the teachings of the Catholic Church. There really is no ‘middle ground’ here - such sins must be recognized for what they are: mortal sin.
God bless
I think this pretty well sums it up.
One of the things I have found quite distressing is those who simply live the words of Isaiah thinking they do not apply to them (Is 5:20-24)
“Ah! Those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness to light, and light into darkness, who change bitter to sweet, and sweet into bitter! 21Ah! Those who are wise in their own eyes, prudent in their own view! 22Ah! Those who are champions at drinking wine, masters at mixing drink! 23Those who acquit the guilty for bribes, and deprive the innocent of justice! 24Therefore, as the tongue of fire licks up stubble, as dry grass shrivels in the flame, Their root shall rot and their blossom scatter like dust; For they have rejected the instruction of the LORD of hosts, and scorned the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
Sodomy and other forms of homosexual activies are disordered, immoral and sinful. Whoever says other-wise is simply ignoring God’s written word and the teachings of the Catholic Church. There really is no ‘middle ground’ here - such sins must be recognized for what they are: mortal sin.
God bless
- Status