S
shaky
Guest
It says in the bible men have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God. So some go and get Castrated.
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I can only hope that the pun in post 59 was unintentional. 
H
Hadrianus
Guest
The sterility deriving from a hysterectomy is simply per accidens. There is nothing contraceptive about it, ultraceptive perhaps, but not contra.So what you are saying. when your wife gives birth and she develops bleeding problems and damage to the womb and to save her life she has a operation to have her womb removed. Or she had he womb removed because of cancer. Now she can never have children again. Now her body is a Contraceptive body in having children. Having sex with your wife is now Sodomy.
W
white_sheep
Guest
your opinion is just opinion, it is not TRUTH. How do you know they aren’t made gay in their first several years, and how also do you explain the fact that around half “became” gay in their teens.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
In search of Grace,
Where did I say that homosexual acts were not part of the wickedness of Sodom? Also you do not address the fact that Ezekiel, and also Jeremiah state that Jerusalem’s sins were worse than those of the Sodomites. Both of which suggest that even if Sodom was destroyed simply for homosexuality there were far worse sins too. Incidentally, as others have shown there is a long list of abominations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as well. they all don’t result in cities being destroyed.
As I said before, to us the ‘inhospitality’ argument seems weak because it doesn’t mean much to us today, but in the ancient Near East where death could be the result it was taken much more seriously. To refuse strangers lodging or to abuse them wasconsidered very wicked by the nomadic tribes of the region and still was down to recent times when all changed owing to the western arrival to grab oil.
From the perspective of the hierarchy of sins in moral theology it is difficult to explain why a sexual sin would result in the destruction half a dozen cities when graver sins would not.
The text of Ezekiel is very clear that it was pride( which is directed against God and Neighbor) which was Sodom’s primary sin from which the rest stemmd. Down t the present day anal rape is used in the Middle East to humiliate and degrade subject peoples. Surely this signifies an element of hatred?
The term ‘sodomy’ entered English in the 14th Century, but it is older than that. In the Middle Ages its meaning varied but always meant some immoral sexual act. The usual English term for anal sex (at least in law) is buggery which drives from’bougre" the Mediael French for Bulgarian as there was a Manichean sect of the latter which influenced the heretical Cathars who engaged in buggery to prevent conception.
I you reread my post you will see that nowhere did I say that Jude 7 does not refer to sexual activity. it obviously does. it is however the only passage in the entire Bible apart rom Genesis 19: 5 which refers to homosexual activity in that regard. All the other references to Sodom suggest a plurality of evils.
Thus looking at it from a biblical perspective I stand by my assertion that the primary sin of Sodom was not homosexual activity as such. Of course, Lot was horrified by the possibility that the men of Sodom would anally rape his guests. That’s about the worst thing that can happen to a male in a semitic culture. Women counted for a lot less then, as they still do in the Middle East today, so Lot hoped to dissuade them by offering hs daughters. To us this seems frankly grotesque, but it is a different culture.
Finally,the Cities of the Plain were destroyed simply becuae their men engaged in sodomy this does seem rather hard on their womenfolk. God wouldn’t destroy them too only because the men were homosexuals. Also given the fact that homosexuality only afflicts about 2% of the male population it’s hard to beleive that all the men of Sodom were homosexual by desire.
The Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur do not suggest that something contains an official doctrine of the Church but rather that it says nothing contrary to Faith and Morals and that it may be printed. if you doubt me on this look them up in a Catholic work of reference.
Of course this is just my opinion. Thank you for your nice comments. I’m not infallible, but I do find this line of argument more convincing than the standard approach. And there is nothing wrong with being ‘revisionist’ if the arguments are well founded.
Where did I say that homosexual acts were not part of the wickedness of Sodom? Also you do not address the fact that Ezekiel, and also Jeremiah state that Jerusalem’s sins were worse than those of the Sodomites. Both of which suggest that even if Sodom was destroyed simply for homosexuality there were far worse sins too. Incidentally, as others have shown there is a long list of abominations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as well. they all don’t result in cities being destroyed.
As I said before, to us the ‘inhospitality’ argument seems weak because it doesn’t mean much to us today, but in the ancient Near East where death could be the result it was taken much more seriously. To refuse strangers lodging or to abuse them wasconsidered very wicked by the nomadic tribes of the region and still was down to recent times when all changed owing to the western arrival to grab oil.
From the perspective of the hierarchy of sins in moral theology it is difficult to explain why a sexual sin would result in the destruction half a dozen cities when graver sins would not.
The text of Ezekiel is very clear that it was pride( which is directed against God and Neighbor) which was Sodom’s primary sin from which the rest stemmd. Down t the present day anal rape is used in the Middle East to humiliate and degrade subject peoples. Surely this signifies an element of hatred?
The term ‘sodomy’ entered English in the 14th Century, but it is older than that. In the Middle Ages its meaning varied but always meant some immoral sexual act. The usual English term for anal sex (at least in law) is buggery which drives from’bougre" the Mediael French for Bulgarian as there was a Manichean sect of the latter which influenced the heretical Cathars who engaged in buggery to prevent conception.
I you reread my post you will see that nowhere did I say that Jude 7 does not refer to sexual activity. it obviously does. it is however the only passage in the entire Bible apart rom Genesis 19: 5 which refers to homosexual activity in that regard. All the other references to Sodom suggest a plurality of evils.
Thus looking at it from a biblical perspective I stand by my assertion that the primary sin of Sodom was not homosexual activity as such. Of course, Lot was horrified by the possibility that the men of Sodom would anally rape his guests. That’s about the worst thing that can happen to a male in a semitic culture. Women counted for a lot less then, as they still do in the Middle East today, so Lot hoped to dissuade them by offering hs daughters. To us this seems frankly grotesque, but it is a different culture.
Finally,the Cities of the Plain were destroyed simply becuae their men engaged in sodomy this does seem rather hard on their womenfolk. God wouldn’t destroy them too only because the men were homosexuals. Also given the fact that homosexuality only afflicts about 2% of the male population it’s hard to beleive that all the men of Sodom were homosexual by desire.
The Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur do not suggest that something contains an official doctrine of the Church but rather that it says nothing contrary to Faith and Morals and that it may be printed. if you doubt me on this look them up in a Catholic work of reference.
Of course this is just my opinion. Thank you for your nice comments. I’m not infallible, but I do find this line of argument more convincing than the standard approach. And there is nothing wrong with being ‘revisionist’ if the arguments are well founded.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Why was Sodom destroyed? For what sins? Your argument is that inhospitality was its primary sin, with homosexual lust, as secondary, and other sins as well. My argument is that homosexual lust was primary, and inhospitality and other sins were secondary. Hence the sin of sodomy is described as such.
Both of us have provided basis for our respective positions. IMO, the revisionist approach is an attempt to water down the grievousness of homosexual sin, which in fact it is (grievous), according to the Church, as it remains to be a serious sin, in line with other serious sins, leaving no room for sanctifying grace in man or woman without repentance.
Peace,
,
- Status