W
wabrams
Guest
I think the passage that a man shall not lie down with another man as he would a woman is pretty clear.
- Status
D
Digger71
Guest
You might think that, but you would be wrong.
W
wabrams
Guest
Prove it.
D
Digger71
Guest
What proof would you accept?
W
wabrams
Guest
I didn’t ask if you had anything I would accept; I asked what proof you had, so lay your cards out.
L
Libero
Guest
Think it from a logical point of view - how do we know how the men lay with the women over two thousand years ago?
Then think of it from a historical point of view keeping in mind the social context at the time. The book of leviticus was a book displaying the laws of society, not the word of God - read a book called “The Good Book” - it will explain it with more evidence. The “laws” displayed in Leviticus are cultural laws, not universal moral laws.
Now look at it historically - how do we know this is not reffering to male prostitution that was occuring at the time?
Do you think that this comment from leviticus can be taken seriously bearing in mind all of the other rules it has, which we now dismiss - like not eating shellfish, and men not shaving.
Upon trying to understand quotes like this it is imperitive that they are thought of from an intelligent point of view rather than an emotional point of view.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
GENERAL NOTICE
The rules of the Catholic Answers Forum, to which you agreed on registering, require that members be respectful of Catholicism, as well as of other faiths. This includes the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Open and frank discussions that are also civil and courteous are encouraged.
The Church’s teaching on this subject can be found in the Catholic Catechism.
The rules of the Catholic Answers Forum, to which you agreed on registering, require that members be respectful of Catholicism, as well as of other faiths. This includes the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and homosexual behavior. Open and frank discussions that are also civil and courteous are encouraged.
The Church’s teaching on this subject can be found in the Catholic Catechism.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
ElJay said:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
three words:
LOOK WHO’S TALKING
“no amount of evidence would sway you.” That is the hypocrytical statement of the year! You yourself have ignored basic facts presenented to you in previous posts! You dont seem to notice anything in posts that prove a point against you exept gramatical errors!
I notice spelling errors too.
Clearly what you believe to be “basic facts” are not as convincing as you think they are.
An adult, for one thng…
G
gilliam
Guest
I have nothing against Leviticus but I don’t know if Leviticus would be the first place in the Bible I would look for a scriptural reference for the Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as referenced in the previous post by Robert, cites two passages from scripture condemning homosexual practices: Genesis 19:1-29 and Romans 1;24-27. The Catholic teaching that the sexual act is reserved to married people for the sake of raising a family. The sexual act, therefore, is a sacred act given by God to mankind so the the human race will continue. Acts of adultery, fornication, bestiality, pornography, masturbation and homosexuality all deviate from the purpose of sexuality as designed by God.
D
Digger71
Guest
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Just heading for the strict english translation this is not clear at all.
The rider clause “as with womankin” does not create a general prohibition. A general prohibition would be “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, it is abomination”. The rider clause creates a an instruction to keep homosex and heterosex distinct. This could be directed at activities (if you do this with women, do not do it with men), locations (do not have sex with man and women in the same locations), imagination (do not have sex with a man if you need to pretend he is female to complete the act) and several others.
Is there any additional support for this argument? Perhaps. What is noteworthy about Leviticus is the separation clauses. Leviticus has the specific instructin that the Jews shall not practice what the egyptians and the caiinites did. Thus separation is important. The rules also contain a lot about separation; no cloths of two fibres, no fields of two crops, no buttered beef sandwiches.
So separation of events rather than generic condemnation has some support in the context.
A second thread to this is ritual pagan prostitution, linked to idolotry. The customs of the time was for pagan festivals to feature temple prostitutes (‘quadesh’) of both sexes and for bisexual orgies to occur. It was not uncommon for the Quadesh to dress as women. So this injunction could very easily refer to not carying out common religious activities of the egyptians and the caiinites that lived there before. This certainly has additional support from the story of Sodom, where idolitry was common, and the occurances of the ‘sodomite’ which comes from the word 'quadesh… which means holy ones, is always in connection with ‘weavings’ the form of worship women practiced in honour to Astarte.
I quite prefer this interpretation. All condemnations (including the story of sodom) of homosexuality are actually injunctions against paganism. It’s internally consistent, directly links to practices at the time, is confirmed by links to weavings and the tranvesticism is just a cherry on top. I note, without surprise conservative jewish interpretation forbids men from wearing womens clothing and vis versa.
Additionally, a heterosexual man and a gay man would not be able to complete the sex act with a member of the inappropriate sex except through friction or more significantly through imagining that the sexual partner was a different gender. But with the religious practices of the time with a pagan sexual practices it might be a requirement; “as with a woman” can be interpreted as “remember the gender. No fantasies!”
As a final throw to the mix is a cultural artifact: we should note that eunuchs were considered a third sex, and the is exceptional evidence ‘eunuchs’ were not just the castrated, but any man who could not have sex with women. Alexander the Great worried his mother, who thought he might be a eunuch, until he took a wife, because of his interest in men. A man was not definied by genitals, but by penetrating women. If a man could not do this, then he wasnt male.
The significance of this is that injuctions to males cannot apply to eunuchs. Eunuchs were considered the third sex. Neither male nor female. The exceptional evidence that eunuchs=congenital homosexual puts gay men outside of the rules of Leviticus. The meaning of ‘male’ has changed.
So, for various reasons I do not see that Leviticus condemns homosexuality, or congenital homosexuals. I think is does condemn idolotry and pagan activities, and does condemn straight men enjoying “any port in a storm”, but it does not condemn homosexual activity for gay men.
G
gilliam
Guest
Cut the top for space, but you are really bending over backwards with your analysis to try to make this come out the way you want it to. I know of no respected historian who would agree with you that the Biblical Hebrews took the citation in Leviticus to mean that it condems idolotry and pagan activities and not homosexual sexual behavior. The plain fact of the matter is that the Biblical Hebrews comdemned homosexual sexual behavior. They were NOT a gay accepting society and would be horrified to walk the streets of San Francisco today.
We all need to realize that the Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior cannot change. It is rooted in Natural Law and human behavior. It is a teaching that has never changed and will never change. Everyone either accepts it or moves on.
D
Digger71
Guest
of course, manners.
OK, a bit of background. I am a writer and a voracious reader. The former means that I know every word can be important (and often is), the latter means I spend some time trying to make sure I understand what is written rather than what I think is written
OK, fine. That’s my excuses.
So, please explain why the general context of Leviticus should be ingored? Likewise, why should the rider claue be ignored (given I find it obfuscates rather than clarifies), please demonstrate the distinction is not the thrust, please counter the arguments that eunuchs were not considered a third sex…
Actually, please demonstrate the flaws in the argument one by one.
I’m cool about being wrong, I just need someone to demonstrate the incorrectness of the multipe strands.
I would respectfully suggest that is a lack or reading. There is no argument about pagan temple practices at the time, there is no doubt about the sodomites pagan practices, And there is a lot of discussion about there relevance to Leviticus,
Eunuchs were not only accepted but rose to high position. Change in language can mislead that is why the historical meanings are required, not current meanings.The plain fact of the matter is that the Biblical Hebrews comdemned homosexual sexual behavior. They were NOT a gay accepting society and would be horrified to walk the streets of San Francisco today.
This is a substitution for showing my interpretation is wrong. as such, a hidden context change, it cannot counter my interpretation.
As an appeal to authority, and authority I reject in this instance (please, no meta level discussions about the implications of this, I am perfectly aware) it fundamentally dodges my points.
No disrespect intended.
G
gilliam
Guest
If you do not accept the authority of the Magistarium then the discussion ends here. Sorry. To be a Catholic means to accept the authority of the Magistarium. This is a matter of faith and not of linguistics.
To say you do not respect the authority is indeed a matter of disrespect. Yes, I agree words have meaning.
Every Sunday you recite a Creed to accept the authority of the Magistarium on faith and morals so I don’t know how you can call yourself a Catholic and reject the very Creed that confirms your faith.
Would you like to rephrase what you just said? I would be more than happy to try to explain the teachings of the Catholic Church in this area to a Catholic who respects their Church’s authority on faith and morals as handed down by Christ.
D
Digger71
Guest
This is, indeed, the digression I was hoping to avoid.
then please apply your logic to my original argument, not the meta-level argument I am aware of the difficuties of my view; as are my parish priests. It has not proved to be a bar to receiving the sacrements.To say you do not respect the authority is indeed a matter of disrespect. Yes, I agree words have meaning.
[qote]Every Sunday you recite a Creed to accept the authority of the Magistarium on faith and morals so I don’t know how you can call yourself a Catholic and reject the very Creed that confirms your faith.
I understand perfectly, but I note, with no surprise, that this is exactly the meta-level argument from authority I expected.
Please address the points of my argument, not the effect it has on my relationship with the Church or Christ, those arguments have been done to death.
If you wish to show me the error of my ways you must deal with the core of my argument. The language, the culture and the logic.
You cannot do this with reference to dogma, you must do this in reference to the direct argument. It will not work otherwise and you will have to admit that there is no counter-argument except by way of meta-level arguments.
This would mean my facts are right but the tradition disgrees.
G
gilliam
Guest
Your parish priests know you don’t accept the authority of the Magistarium of the Church as it pertains to faith and morals and they don’t see this as any kind of hinderence to you being a practicing Catholic? That I find very interesting.
What? That as a Catholic your suppose to accept authority of the Magistarium on faith and morals as handed down by Christ? Sorry, that is part of the deal in being a Catholic. If you can’t respect that, you probably are in the wrong Church.
I am. The major point is you don’t respect the authority of the Church. Your arguement holds that your opinion is just as valid as 2,000 years of Church tradition and Magistarial teaching. So you can discount the Church’s tradition and teachings as inconsiquential and then start theorizing about what some passage of the Bible may or may not mean to you (who cares what it meant to the Jews who lived by it, Natural Law, or the Church who carries on the interpretation). This is a major point in your arguement. In fact, your arguement rests on this assumption.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but your opinion, and my opinion are NOT equal to what Christ handed down to the Church.
If you cannot accept this fundamental Catholic belief, you are indeed in a fix. We can’t even start talking about how the ancient Hebrews thought about homosexuality or how the Church and early Christians thought about homosexuality until we get over this hurdle.
D
Digger71
Guest
So do I. I am being prayed for.
Firstly, I care. Judaic exegenesis is quite clear that the qualifier controls the interpretation of the clause, and this is logically true of all arguments. “Do not go through the door if it is red” does not mean “do not go through any doors”
As you started by saying I was bending over backwards to get a result I like I would be very grateful if you demonstrated this in terms of the argument, and showed factual errors. The meta-level stuff is well known to me, and i the only counter argument I have ever met. But it does not answer my facts. It is a different argumnent.
G
gilliam
Guest
Being prayed for is a wonderful thing.
We still have the hurdle that you seem to have contempt for the Catholic belief that the Magistarium is the authority on faith and morals. I would like to investigate this contempt first. Why do you have it? It has little to nothing to do with Leviticus, I know, but if you can’t get over this hurtle, you are not going to accept any traditional interpretation of scripture. You are going to play around with word parsing all year and it will not get us anywhere. As you well know.
Your intent on coming here was to learn, correct? Not to simply push an agenda? I get the feeling you will not accept the fact that your interpretation of Leviticus is, in fact, wrong without someone proving it to you beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that is not what faith is all about. That is not what following the Magistarium on faith and morals is all about. That is not what abiding by tradition (in this case, both Jewish and Christian) is all about. What you are doing is playing “Lord Judge High Executioner, Arbitrator of All Things Moral” … in other words, trying to be Christ. And Christ did NOT give YOU the keys to the kingdom. He gave them to … tada! The Magistarium!
You do believe in a real Christ, that He did come down to earth and He did give the keys of the kingdom to Peter, right?
D
Digger71
Guest
We still have the hurdle that you seem to have contempt for the Catholic belief that the Magistarium is the authority on faith and morals.
But appearance can be deceptive. I simply wholly disagree with certain interpretations of scripture and natural law. This is not contempt. This is simply disagreeing. It is possible to disagree without contempt.
I would like to investigate this contempt first. Why do you have it?
It is not contempt, disagreement is not contempt.
contempt |k?n?tem(p)t| noun the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn : he showed his contempt for his job by doing it very badly. • disregard for something that should be taken into account : this action
disagreement |?dis??gr?m?nt| noun lack of consensus or approval
But appearance can be deceptive. I simply wholly disagree with certain interpretations of scripture and natural law. This is not contempt. This is simply disagreeing. It is possible to disagree without contempt.
I would like to investigate this contempt first. Why do you have it?
It is not contempt, disagreement is not contempt.
contempt |k?n?tem(p)t| noun the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn : he showed his contempt for his job by doing it very badly. • disregard for something that should be taken into account : this action
disagreement |?dis??gr?m?nt| noun lack of consensus or approval
Everyday I learn good things and bad things here. But I am moved by many arguments.
If only someone would and not engage in arguments that conflate disagreement with contempt.
G
gilliam
Guest
God did not come down to earth to give you the authority to interpret Natural Law. He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, not to you.
OK, I will take you on your word and move on with a question. Do you believe Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter and the Magistarium?
We all do. The reason this is important is that you seem to still be setting your self up as the sole interpreter of Scripture and Natural Law. But Christ didn’t make you that. He made Peter and the Magistarium that. Your disrespect for the Magistarium on the interpretation of faith and morals (unless their teachings are agreed upon by you), makes it so you place yourself above the Magistarium as the final judge of good and evil. That unless we can convince you, for example, that what the Magistarium teaches about Leviticus is correct (beyond your reasonable doubt) you will reject this teaching on good and evil for one that is more to your liking. Is that how you look at it? That to even try to take the Magistarium as the final authority on faith and morals is beneath consideration, in other words by your definition, contemptible?
Now why is all this important? Well the primal sin of mankind is to make oneself like God. To replace what God wants with what man want. And one of the strongest desires mankind has is to have sex in all sorts of ways. Chastity does not come naturally to most people and in our current society it is even a harder thing to do. But we have all gone to school, and many of us have learned to debate. We can twist language and arguement so that we can argue to get most of what we want from our parents at an early age. We continue to do that as adults. IMHO, most of “gay theology” is base upon these principles. We want what we want, when we want it, to make ourselves feel good, and if someone tells us no (like that big parent in the sky) we argue and twist words around until we justify our sin to ourselves. We explain to ourselves why we can ignore the authority He placed upon this earth. And we sin and sin again. It is part of the game the Devil helps us play (yes, I do believe in a Devil).
So is the Mega question important? In the end, that is all that is important and to ignore it is to play into the Devil’s hands.
K
Kristopher
Guest
Dear Reader:
It seemed there was a question asked: how do we know that homosexuality existed in the past? An art book containing somewhat of a frescoe of Grecian times depicts three men involved with anal course simultaneously, while a woman laid on a table receives vaginal intercourse.
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
It seemed there was a question asked: how do we know that homosexuality existed in the past? An art book containing somewhat of a frescoe of Grecian times depicts three men involved with anal course simultaneously, while a woman laid on a table receives vaginal intercourse.
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
- Status