Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris.richmond.belch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Believe me, I’ve been watching this non-Catholic rubbish go on for a lifetime now. We are no doubt in the great apostasy foretold in Scripture.
 
I’d love to see that discussion too! it sounds fascinating and I love the chance to learn more 😊
 
You’re starting at the Great Schism and the protestant reformation and pretending that it has always been that way.

Vatican II opened our eyes and really brought renewal to the Church. It took new historical research developed through the historical-critical method and, while respecting the traditions developed during middle ages, recognized the creeds and baptism as the fundamental realities that unite all Christians. It was a beautiful thing, in my opinion. Again, while I do not understand Catholics who oppose Vatican II, I certainly respect their opinions and believe that together we build a stronger body of Christ!

We, united by Baptism, are one, Holy, catholic, and apostolic Church!
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
The Catholic Church has taught otherwise for 2000 years - it has always been very specific when referring to sodomy and when referring to rape. When anyone in this world says the word “sodomy”, everyone unanimously knows exactly what it means.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, though even in a more modern context sodomy has connotations of rape.
 
It seems that the sin of Sodom was homosexual rape. The men surrounding the house were intent on that; they did not want the daughters, they wanted the two men who were actually angels sent by God. Still, the passage from Leviticus 18:22 calls even consensual homosexual relations an abomination.
 
Sorry but you have zero credibility on this. I’m not going to waste anymore time on this diabolical discussion.
 
Alex, you seem to mean well…so I do not want to get any further in the weeds with ya on this…
I do not think the Bible splits hairs…it is very consistent and very clear…that is my belief.

You interpret things in a way you feel fits…I sit under a different belief…

For the record, I said 1 Timothy was SO important…because it lumps all of us sinners together…not one worse than the other…but it is explicit on sin and how we all fall short…

1 Timothy 1
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is [c]contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Here is our great hope…
 
Last edited:
Hi BlueMaxx!

As I said, I really do not have an expertise in this field, so I am arguing from the perspective of those who taught me. They presented the information, and I read and absorbed it. Since I do not have the languages or the knowledge to debate them, I generally have to agree with them unless evidence is presented to the contrary. I also read a few perspectives that disagreed with them (don’t tell my professors!), but I honestly do not have the expertise or the authority to disagree with my professors! They could be wrong, and I could too! Your contribution is certainly welcomed! We are really probably equals in this field! I’m better at Christology and ecclesiology! I just remember telling my professor the traditional Catholic teaching of the Sodom and Gomorra story and getting schooled on why I was wrong. It helped me to remember!
BlueMaxx said:
Also I would be happy to engage in a separate thread about Lot and his daughters, but it is sort of a red herring in this discussion…
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is because the account is related. It is not a coincidence that his daughters end up getting him drunk and raping him! It’s a sense of retributive justice directly related to him offering his daughters to the men.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
It seems that the sin of Sodom was homosexual rape. The men surrounding the house were intent on that; they did not want the daughters, they wanted the two men who were actually angels sent by God. Still, the passage from Leviticus 18:22 calls even consensual homosexual relations an abomination.
Click to expand...
I believe Leviticus also has strong words to say about shellfish, tattoos, clothes of two fibres, ect.

It seems the sin is still rape. And the rape of God’s messengers at that. Actually, as they were angels do angels have a sex?
 
Thank you. But I suppose to me Timothy reads to be saying rapists are sinful, and indeed if they’d been left out I’d be even more concerned.
 
Ignatius64869 said:
Hi BlueMaxx!

As I said, I really do not have an expertise in this field, so I am arguing from the perspective of those who taught me. They presented the information, and I read and absorbed it. Since I do not have the languages or the knowledge to debate them, I generally have to agree with them unless evidence is presented to the contrary. I also read a few perspectives that disagreed with them (don’t tell my professor!), but I honestly do not have the expertise or the authority to disagree with my professors! They could be wrong, and I could too! Your contribution is certainly welcomed! We are really probably equals in this field! I’m better at Christology and ecclesiology! I just remember telling my professor the traditional Catholic teaching of the Saddam and Gomorra story and getting schooled on why I was wrong. It helped me to remember!
40.png
BlueMaxx:
Also I would be happy to engage in a separate thread about Lot and his daughters, but it is sort of a red herring in this discussion…
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is because the account is related. It is not a coincidence that his daughters end up getting him drunk and raping him! It’s a sense of retributive justice directly related to him offering his daughters to the men.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind response…

I had to laugh tho at the mis-type of Saddam…I think he was probably just as bad though!

🤣

That made me smile…

M
 
Eddie18 said:
Sorry but you have zero credibility on this. I’m not going to waste anymore time on this diabolical discussion.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel this way. I have tried to provide quotations to show why my understanding is such. If there is a way one can pursue this topic with you, without necessarily agreeing, I’d be happy to hear it so we can hopefully talk in the future 😊
 
BlueMaxx said:
I had to laugh tho at the mis-type of Saddam…I think he was probably just as bad though!
Click to expand...
I type too fast sometimes! I should really edit before I post! Earlier today I kept spelling “remember” wrong. I messed up the b and the m like four times in a row!
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
The Catholic Church has taught otherwise for 2000 years - it has always been very specific when referring to sodomy and when referring to rape. When anyone in this world says the word “sodomy”, everyone unanimously knows exactly what it means.
Click to expand...
The concept of “sodomy” has not been around for 2000 years, but rather is an invention of 11th century Catholic theologians. “Sodomy” is not discussed in the Old or New Testaments. As Distinguished Professor of Religion and Politics at Washington University Mark D. Jordan says in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 1:
Sodomy is a medieval artifact. I have found no trace of the term before the eleventh century. It is also a medieval artifact as a category for classifying - for uniting and explaining - desires, dispositions, and acts that had earlier been classified differently and separately. But “Sodomy” is also a judgment. The judgment made in “Sodomy” has been as durable as any medieval artifact. So I speak of the invention of Sodomy for Christian theology as a whole: the medieval invention was the invention of Sodomy simply speaking. It was the invention that would be decisive for all later Christian theology in the West -hence for European or American legislation, medicine, natural science, and manners. The fearful abstraction in our use of the term is medieval, as is our prurient confusion over what the word really means.
Click to expand...
Professor Jordan further says on page 29:
The credit - or rather the blame - for the inventing the word sodomia, “Sodomy,” must go, I think, to the eleventh century theologian Peter Damian. He coined it quite deliberately on analogy to blasphemia, “blasphemy,” which is to say, on analogy to the most explicit sin of denying God. Indeed, from its origin, Sodomy is as much a theological category as trinity, incarnation, sacrament, or papal infallibility. As a category, it is richly invested with specific notions of sin and retribution, responsibility and guilt. The category was never meant to be neutrally descriptive, and it is doubtful whether any operation can purify it of its theological origins. There is no way to make “Sodomy” objective.
Click to expand...
 
Alex337 said:
I believe Leviticus also has strong words to say about shellfish, tattoos, clothes of two fibres, ect.
Click to expand...
Eating some bacon with your eggs would be an abomination, too, according to Deuteronomy 14:3-8:
Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. 4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, 5 the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois. 6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat. 7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. 8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
theCardinalbird said:
40.png
Thorolfr:
Eating some bacon with your eggs would be an abomination, too, according to Deuteronomy 14:3-8:
Click to expand...
And yet those are ceremonial laws that are not binding on Christians
Click to expand...
The division of the laws in the Old Testament into different categories, some of which are applicable and others not, is a Catholic invention. Orthodox Jews do not recognize any such distinctions. And who decides what things go into what categories?
 
Last edited:
“We can divide the law of God into three parts: the moral law, the judicial law, and the ceremonial law. The moral law was for all men, the judicial law was just for Israel, and the ceremonial law was for Israel’s worship of God. So the moral law encompasses all men, it is narrowed down to Israel in the judicial law, and to the worship of Israel toward God in the ceremonial law.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top