Leviticus and Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmygill88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Stevekehl,

Hold on a minute - you may not be in agreement with Dakota - but, your tone is coming over in a rather hostile manner. Is this what you intend? Really. Drop the attitude.

If you think Dakota’s assertion is wrong - then tell us all exactly what it is you find wrong with it. Your last two posts have been quite vague - so, maybe by just spelling out your objection(s) we could all take a look at what it is you’re talking about. 🙂

God bless
The posts seem vague because they were specific responses to Dakota’s postings, which were specific responses to my postings. If you haven’t been following every posting we’ve made then they are understandably confusing. A posted that Jesus condemnation of fornication in Matt. 15:9 included homosexuality. She asserted that fornication was not the same as sodomy, which is not the same as homosexuality. I told her she was wrong, plain and simple. If that sounds hostile then I’m not responsible for your perceptions.
 
Hi, Stevkehl,

You are certainly not responsible for my perceptions or even misperceptions… 🙂

But, in my opinion you are responsible for being both clear and reasonably charitable (I certainly don’t want anyone to get carried away in that area… 😃 ) in a public posting. Have you considered a PM to Dakota on this topic?

God bless
The posts seem vague because they were specific responses to Dakota’s postings, which were specific responses to my postings. If you haven’t been following every posting we’ve made then they are understandably confusing. A posted that Jesus condemnation of fornication in Matt. 15:9 included homosexuality. She asserted that fornication was not the same as sodomy, which is not the same as homosexuality. I told her she was wrong, plain and simple. If that sounds hostile then I’m not responsible for your perceptions.
 
A posted that Jesus condemnation of fornication in Matt. 15:9 included homosexuality. She asserted that fornication was not the same as sodomy, which is not the same as homosexuality.
Steve, at least consider that heterosexual fornication is open to God’s gift of life, which same-sex activity can never be - by design of the same God. Same-sex activity is gravely disordered and contrary to God’s plan, correct?
 
The posts seem vague because they were specific responses to Dakota’s postings, which were specific responses to my postings. If you haven’t been following every posting we’ve made then they are understandably confusing. A posted that Jesus condemnation of fornication in Matt. 15:9 included homosexuality. She asserted that fornication was not the same as sodomy, which is not the same as homosexuality. I told her she was wrong, plain and simple. If that sounds hostile then I’m not responsible for your perceptions.
  1. Who is “she”? Are you talking about me, a man using a man’s name in my user handle?
  2. If you are talking about me then I would like to point out that I am using the theological definitions not whatever definitions you are using.
  3. If you are not Catholic please consider that you are on a Catholic forum where we are supposed to use Catholic definitions for theology. If you are a Catholic please consider the fact that what you are claiming is effectively heresy and preaching heresy is mortally sinful.
Enjoy the feast day of St. Edward Campion. 👋
 
Steve, at least consider that heterosexual fornication is open to God’s gift of life, which same-sex activity can never be - by design of the same God. Same-sex activity is gravely disordered and contrary to God’s plan, correct?
I agree same-sex activity is against God’s divine order. However, premarital heterosexual activity is just as much a sin as homosexual sex. I don’t know where premarital sex falls on the mortal sin/venial sin continuum, but it is ultimately responsible for a lot of abortions.
 
  1. Who is “she”? Are you talking about me, a man using a man’s name in my user handle?
My apologies. There are half a dozen girls in my daughters class named Dakota. I just assumed.
  1. If you are talking about me then I would like to point out that I am using the theological definitions not whatever definitions you are using.
The Greek word porneia is translated “fornications” in Matthew. Porneia is Greek for sexual sins, which would include homosexuality (or same-sex intercourse for all the lawyers and philosophy majors), So fornications includes homosexuality (or same-sexintercourse for all the lawyers and philosophy majors). Sodomy is how men have sam-sex intercourse (homosexuality for the laymen). so homosexuality, which is fornication, involves sodomy. Therefore, fornication includes homosexuality (or same-sex intercourse for the lawyers and philosophy majors), which involves sodomy. So, the assertion that fornication does not include sodomy, which does not include homosexuality (or same-sex intercou …ah forget it), is wrong.
Fornication≠sodomy
sodomy≠homosexuality
  1. If you are not Catholic please consider that you are on a Catholic forum where we are supposed to use Catholic definitions for theology. If you are a Catholic please consider the fact that what you are claiming is effectively heresy and preaching heresy is mortally sinful.
If it is heresy to say that Jesus directly spoke against homosexuality,along with other sexual sins, then I stand guilty. I feel you are trying to draw attention away from the fact that Jesus considered homosexuality (or same-sex intercourse) a sin and spoke about it, and get us focusing on unimportant minutiae.
Enjoy the feast day of St. Edward Campion. 👋
I’m 6’3, 340 lbs. every day is a feast day, praise the Lord. 😃
 
My apologies. There are half a dozen girls in my daughters class named Dakota. I just assumed.

The Greek word porneia is translated “fornications” in Matthew. Porneia is Greek for sexual sins, which would include homosexuality (or same-sex intercourse for all the lawyers and philosophy majors), So fornications includes homosexuality (or same-sexintercourse for all the lawyers and philosophy majors). Sodomy is how men have sam-sex intercourse (homosexuality for the laymen). so homosexuality, which is fornication, involves sodomy. Therefore, fornication includes homosexuality (or same-sex intercourse for the lawyers and philosophy majors), which involves sodomy. So, the assertion that fornication does not include sodomy, which does not include homosexuality (or same-sex intercou …ah forget it), is wrong.

If it is heresy to say that Jesus directly spoke against homosexuality,along with other sexual sins, then I stand guilty. I feel you are trying to draw attention away from the fact that Jesus considered homosexuality (or same-sex intercourse) a sin and spoke about it, and get us focusing on unimportant minutiae.

I’m 6’3, 340 lbs. every day is a feast day, praise the Lord. 😃
It’s not your fault thoughtless people gave their daughters a male name because of a certain actress.

Personally for a quote against homosexual acts I would choose 1 Corinthians 6:10 because it refers to both “tops” and “bottoms”.

Words are the very base of communication. In Christianity sodomia refers to inherently sterile sexual acts with the the word perfecta or imperfect to denote if it is same sex or opposit sex partners respectively. Fornication on the other hand does not refer to inherently sterile sexual acts (indeed it excludes them), but instead refers to sex out of wedlock.

Is that muscle or the result of eating like a glutton? I am 6’3" and I can’t fathom weighing that much.
 
I often see one verse of Leviticus quoted as a condemnation of homosexuality which it clearly is. I thought that I would actually scan through the bible and in Leviticus a few lines further on is a clear instruction no to wear clothing containing mixed fibre.
Leviticus is not relevant to us or any else (today’s Jews). Homosexuality is condemned because it is against the divine and natural law.

The Mosaic covenant has been abolished, abrogated, and annulled (not fulfilled as someone said - that is the Abrahamic covenant). No one is bound to (or saved by) it.

Paul, Galatians 3:10-11: “[A]ll who rely on works of the law are under a curse”, “no man is justified before God by the law”.

Galatians 5:4: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

Chrysostom, Homily on Romans, 6:12: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law. And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace”

Homily on Galatians, 3: “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable.”

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 11: “Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one.”

Cathechism of Trent, 3, the Third Commandment: “[A]fter the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.”

Cathechism of Trent, 3, Decalogue: “It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.”

Pope Urban VIII, Profession of Orthodox Faith, 1642: “[W]e profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pope Piux XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29-30: “[T]he New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished.”

Et cetera.
While we heavily rely on one part of Leviticus we happily ignore much else in it. Who said we could do that?
The Apostles, the Fathers, and the Catholic Church say so. We do not rely on any part of the old law. But the Church may decide to keep some parts and change others (such as the Third Commandment).
 
It’s not your fault thoughtless people gave their daughters a male name because of a certain actress.
Actually I think it is an English corruption of the name of a Sioux Nation “Lakota” that the Dakotas are named after. If your name was Steve no one would make that mistake. 😃
Personally for a quote against homosexual acts I would choose 1 Corinthians 6:10 because it refers to both “tops” and “bottoms”.
Someone posted that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality; I was showing that Jesus did speak against homosexuality in response. Corinthians 6 is a good choice and reinforces Romans 2. which some argue refers to heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, thus abandoning their natural relations. The inference is that homosexuals are naturally homosexual and are therefor not acting against their nature. :dts:
Words are the very base of communication. In Christianity sodomia refers to inherently sterile sexual acts with the the word perfecta or imperfect to denote if it is same sex or opposit sex partners respectively. Fornication on the other hand does not refer to inherently sterile sexual acts (indeed it excludes them), but instead refers to sex out of wedlock.
That’s great if you are in a forum of Latin scholars, but in lay terms they are commonly understood to be sexual sins.
Is that muscle or the result of eating like a glutton? I am 6’3" and I can’t fathom weighing that much.
A little of both, I played O line in college, I was 285 then, but I still have the 19 inch biceps. Worked 13 years as a prison guard and kept up the weight lifting. Maybe you should hit the weight room and add some bulk. It might help since you have a girl’s name. 😉
 
Leviticus is not relevant to us or any else (today’s Jews). Homosexuality is condemned because it is against the divine and natural law.

The Mosaic covenant has been abolished, abrogated, and annulled (not fulfilled as someone said - that is the Abrahamic covenant).
Ummm…that would be Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The Scriptures by Paul are well noted, we are not saved by “righteous works,” and no one ever was. The OT Jews were not saved by observing the Law, Paul rightly points out the Law was written so people would know what sin was and to illustrate our uncleanliness compared to God. Jews were saved by their faith in, and love for,God; just as we are. Observing the law was the outward expression of that devotion, just as Christians obey Christ out of love, not to earn salvation.
 
Actually I think it is an English corruption of the name of a Sioux Nation “Lakota” that the Dakotas are named after. If your name was Steve no one would make that mistake. 😃

Someone posted that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality; I was showing that Jesus did speak against homosexuality in response. Corinthians 6 is a good choice and reinforces Romans 2. which some argue refers to heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, thus abandoning their natural relations. The inference is that homosexuals are naturally homosexual and are therefor not acting against their nature. :dts:

That’s great if you are in a forum of Latin scholars, but in lay terms they are commonly understood to be sexual sins.

A little of both, I played O line in college, I was 285 then, but I still have the 19 inch biceps. Worked 13 years as a prison guard and kept up the weight lifting. Maybe you should hit the weight room and add some bulk. It might help since you have a girl’s name. 😉
I’ll probably get a name change to a Christian name, perhaps Nicholas since that was my confirmation name.

The problem with Romans 2 is that it is self referential, basically you are using it to say it is sexually immoral because it is sexually immoral whereas Corinthians explicitly condemns them as sexually immoral. The etiology is actually quite irrelevant in practice.

It matters even to plebs like us.

I can walk thirty miles with a fifty pound pack in a day.
 
I’m really grateful for a thoughtful reply. My understanding is that being homosexual isn’t in itself sinful (although ‘disordered’), but I saw quote from Paul in which he condemns 'the ‘effeminate’ which seems to require us to regard the person as sinful even before they engage in forbidden sexual practices. I have to say I have really confused myself
An effeminate is one betrayed by act and habit. One effeminate act -or even arguably a single habit- would not render a man “effeminate” in the sense it is used today. My point being that an effeminate is someone who, somewhere down the road, made choices and decisions that became habitual as our nature tends to, and this habit has become so strong that it seems to be the singular thing animating him; ergo, he is an effeminate: he has completely given himself over to some vice such that it completely vitiates his nature.

Now wrestling with a vice or temptation is actually the complete opposite of being an effeminate: even women are admonished to manfully resist temptations, the idea being to immitate something of a peculiarly or traditionally male heroism, which every culture offered plenty of examples: i.e., of men subduing desires or inclinations in order to acquire a certain greater end, result or reward: e.g., Achilles forfeiting a long, peaceful and happy life for the toils, demands and harsdhips of war and military discipline, but ultimately for glory’s sake -even for something of an immortality.

To struggle with an interior vicious inclination and strive to resist and subdue it is anything but effeminate.
 
I’m really grateful for a thoughtful reply. My understanding is that being homosexual isn’t in itself sinful (although ‘disordered’), but I saw quote from Paul in which he condemns 'the ‘effeminate’ which seems to require us to regard the person as sinful even before they engage in forbidden sexual practices. I have to say I have really confused myself
An effeminate is one betrayed by act and habit. One effeminate act -or even arguably a single habit- would not render a man “effeminate” in the sense it is used today. My point being that an effeminate is someone who, somewhere down the road, made choices and decisions that became habitual as our nature tends to, and this habit has become so strong that it seems to be the singular thing animating him; ergo, he is an effeminate: he has completely given himself over to some vice such that it completely vitiates his nature.

Now wrestling with a vice or temptation is actually the complete opposite of being an effeminate: even women are admonished to manfully resist temptations, the idea being to immitate something of a peculiarly or traditionally male heroism, which every culture offered plenty of examples: i.e., of men subduing desires or inclinations in order to acquire a certain greater end, result or reward: e.g., Achilles forfeiting a long, peaceful and happy life for the toils, demands and harsdhips of war and military discipline, but ultimately for glory’s sake -even for something of an immortality.

To struggle with an interior vicious inclination and strive to resist and subdue it is anything but effeminate.
A number of Bibles use the word effeminate as the translation for malakoi which basically means person on the bottom, the receptive person. It isn’t really all that connected to the word effeminate as we know it.
 
Ummm…that would be Jesus.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The Scriptures by Paul are well noted, we are not saved by “righteous works,” and no one ever was. The OT Jews were not saved by observing the Law, Paul rightly points out the Law was written so people would know what sin was and to illustrate our uncleanliness compared to God. Jews were saved by their faith in, and love for,God; just as we are. Observing the law was the outward expression of that devotion, just as Christians obey Christ out of love, not to earn salvation.
Christians obey Christ to earn salvation. There’s a good amount of things that Paul wrote about certain behaviors that would not allow us into heaven. Whoever denies Jesus before men will be denied by Him to the Father, whoever proclaims Jesus Christ is the Son of God will be proclaimed to the Father.

Peace,
Ed
 
The problem with Romans 2 is that it is self referential, basically you are using it to say it is sexually immoral because it is sexually immoral whereas Corinthians explicitly condemns them as sexually immoral. The etiology is actually quite irrelevant in practice.
Good point.
It matters even to plebs like us.
If we were discussing terminology, yes,
but starting that line of thinking muddies the water for a lot of people. A thread within a thread.
I can walk thirty miles with a fifty pound pack in a day.
I have a truck. 👍
 
Christians obey Christ to earn salvation. There’s a good amount of things that Paul wrote about certain behaviors that would not allow us into heaven. Whoever denies Jesus before men will be denied by Him to the Father, whoever proclaims Jesus Christ is the Son of God will be proclaimed to the Father.
Peace,
Ed
We can’t earn salvation. If you are trying you don’t understand Christianity. If someone denies Jesus before men they can be forgiven. Peter denied Jesus after vowing to die with Him. The wages of sin is death and we’ve all sinned, but eternal life is a gift from God through His Son, Jesus. Gifts aren’t earned, they are given out of love. Receiving that gift we live to show God’s love to the world, obedience out of love, not in expectation of reward.
 
An effeminate is one betrayed by act and habit. One effeminate act -or even arguably a single habit- would not render a man “effeminate” in the sense it is used today. My point being that an effeminate is someone who, somewhere down the road, made choices and decisions that became habitual as our nature tends to, and this habit has become so strong that it seems to be the singular thing animating him; ergo, he is an effeminate: he has completely given himself over to some vice such that it completely vitiates his nature.

Now wrestling with a vice or temptation is actually the complete opposite of being an effeminate: even women are admonished to manfully resist temptations, the idea being to immitate something of a peculiarly or traditionally male heroism, which every culture offered plenty of examples: i.e., of men subduing desires or inclinations in order to acquire a certain greater end, result or reward: e.g., Achilles forfeiting a long, peaceful and happy life for the toils, demands and harsdhips of war and military discipline, but ultimately for glory’s sake -even for something of an immortality.

To struggle with an interior vicious inclination and strive to resist and subdue it is anything but effeminate.
I disagree. I have observed naturally effeminate men and boys. It’s clearly innate in some. I also thin the word is an adjective rather than a noun. Using
 
The book Bible Basics for Catholics addresses the laws of books like Leviticus in an interesting way. The author seems to contend that the 10 commandments were revealed by God but that Moses, in his anger against the Israelites gave them numerous other laws to very strictly define what was allowed. If the Israelites had been able to perfectly follow the 10 commandments, they wouldn’t have needed more.
Jesus seems to acknowledge this when he sums up the entire law and commandments by saying that we are to love The Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourself. He also acknowledged that Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts but that God did not design marriage to be subject to divorce.
If you look at the 10 commandments, they are all laws that are revealed in nature. This is the reason homosexual relations are condemned. When we take something God designs for a certain purpose and twist that purpose, then we are elevating our will over God’s and when we do that we sin. The human body was very clearly designed a certain way and when we decide to use “our” body however we want to, we get into trouble. I have great sympathy for people with homosexual feelings, but there is nothing God allows that He will not also help us with. We are not merely sexual beings but rather spirit and flesh that are called to love our God with all that we are.
Blessings and Peace.
The idea that there are different aspects or features of the law becomes clearer when reading the book of Numbers, along with Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Moses made three distinct “trips” up Mount Horeb in the Book of Numbers. After the first, he verbally delivered the Ten Commandments to the Israelites to which the people assented. Moses was called back up the mountain and in the meantime the people created the golden calf. Moses was sent by God to do something about the calf. After that was taken care of, God gave the direction to Moses to write the law to guide the people (Mosaic or practical Law). After delivering this to the (reduced number of) the people and securing their agreement with a covenant feast, Moses then went back up and received the liturgical or ritual law.

The three kinds or forms of the law were then
  1. Moral law (Ten Commandments)
  2. Practical application of the moral law (Mosaic Law)
  3. Liturgical or Ritual Law.
The Mosaic law that included, for example, punishments for transgressions, was based upon the moral or natural law explicitly defined in the Ten Commandments, but how the law was to be executed was not “written in stone” by the finger of God. If you read between the lines, God left the details of how the law would be spelled out in practice to Moses since he knew the hearts of the people, i.e., he was human. That specific behaviours were identified as wrong in Moses’ expansion of the Ten Commandments into Deuteronomy can be deduced from the intent of the original Ten Commandments, but the punishments, such as stoning for serious offences did not derive from the moral law and therefore, these, depended upon a number of factors, in particular, how and why the community as a whole would practically punish or deter immoral behaviour. All the precepts of the practical or Mosaic Law were fulfilled by Jesus because, after Pentecost, the Holy Spirit provided the means by which the moral requirements of the law could be fulfilled without the need to resort to punishment or deterrence.

The point being that the moral law grounded in the Ten Commandments is still binding, but the execution and practical application of the moral law in daily life is no longer through the individual precepts of the Mosaic Law as detailed in Deuteronomy and to a lesser degree in Leviticus. Leviticus is more concerned with the liturgical practices of purification and sacrifice. Levites were the priests of Israel.
 
We can’t earn salvation. If you are trying you don’t understand Christianity. If someone denies Jesus before men they can be forgiven. Peter denied Jesus after vowing to die with Him. The wages of sin is death and we’ve all sinned, but eternal life is a gift from God through His Son, Jesus. Gifts aren’t earned, they are given out of love. Receiving that gift we live to show God’s love to the world, obedience out of love, not in expectation of reward.
We are saved by faith through grace but faith without works is dead.

bible.cc/philippians/2-12.htm

bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm

bible.cc/luke/6-35.htm

bible.cc/matthew/25-24.htm

bible.cc/matthew/25-25.htm

bible.cc/matthew/25-26.htm

bible.cc/matthew/25-27.htm

bible.cc/matthew/25-28.htm

bible.cc/matthew/25-29.htm

bible.cc/matthew/25-30.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top