same sex marriage question for all faiths.

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While I do not beleive scripture indicates Ruth or Naomi were lesbians…I find an irony that not much after their pledge to one another was penned, it has been used in marriage ceremonies. I attended a beautiful marriage ceremony between two lesbian friends…and the passage from Ruth was their wedding vows to one another.

Johnathan and David are another matter…I think the verdict is out on this 100%…I do not believe they were of homosexual orientation…they MAY have been bi-sexual…but not a lot of hard evidence.

As for Paul…it’s possible that his “thorn in the flesh” was sexual in nature…there’s is not proof. I think John Spong addresse the issue in passing in his “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism”…but makes not hard and fast determination on the subject…Paul’s lament certainly sounds like some of the laments I have heard from gay men when first dealing with their sexual orientation.
 
(name removed by moderator);:
a reductionist model for Paganism or Wicca then on the lines which states that ‘let do what you will be the law so long as you hurt none.’ .
Click to expand...
You are misquoting
  • Law of Thelema: “Do what Thy Wilt Is the Whole of Law, Love Under Law, Love Under Will”;
  • Wiccan Rede: “Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill: An’ it harm none, Do what ye will.
    Blessed Be to thee.”;
Both of those ethical codes of conduct demand far more of one than any of the three sets of the Ten Commandments that are found in the Torah.

Amber
 
In context…the whole first chapter into the second of Romans addresses “worship practices” and “worship”…it is not about sexuality…to gain the favor of a god, temple prostitutes, both male and female, took the place of the god and ritual sex…“sex magic” was performed…Paul is not addressing sexual orientation…the first few verses of chapter 2 are quite interesting as well…yet I rarely…if ever…see them quoted along with the passage you just quoted.🙂
 
Publisher said:
I don’t know if Jesus spoke those words to Mary Magdalene…there is no record of him doing so as far as I know.

I do know of two gay men who live together and share no sexual intimacy. I know of two lesbian women who share living accommodations and are not intimate either…as well as a couple heterosexual couples…they share living accommodations…but nothing else…it’s a financial thing.

My question again…if you feel you need to say something to a gay couple…do you also feel the need to speak about “sin” to the couple using ABC…divorced…etc…as you do the gay couple? Is the same need exercised?
Click to expand...
You obviously did not read my original response then. Because yes, I said if I learned that a catholic couple were practicing ABC I would most definitely point out what the catholic church teaches. Just as I would a non married hetero sexual couple living together. Please read more carefully.
 
I have read that as well…that a same sex understanding could legitimately be read into the words used for “servant” to me is telling…it’s not as cut and dry as we have been led to beleive…and “not as cut and dry” IS the sticking point for me…I’d rather err on the side of love and mercy and accept my gay brothers and sisters than err on the side of judgement…that there is even a possibility to read the Centurion and Servant in a same sex relationship connotation…pulls me closer and closer to the side of love and mercy…
 
Publisher said:
Actually Rinnie…it is not plain as day…that’s the issue…cultural and religious prohibitions that reflect a mindset that NEVER understood sexuality and orientation IS the issue.
Click to expand...
How do you conclude that the mindset “NEVER” understood sexuality and orientation? Perhaps they did not perceive it in the way our culture does, but that is not the same thing as having no understanding whatsoever of sexuality? I think you may be going too far with such a statement.
40.png
Publisher:
I accept that the passage in Leviticus forbids men engaging in sexual relations within a pagan religious practice. The verses preceeding the one you quote…AND the whole purpose that Leviticus was written shines light on the issue…
Click to expand...
Neither the prior verses, nor the “purpose” of Leviticus limits the clear prohibition against homosexual practices that is being laid upon the Israelites in Chapter 18 of Leviticus. Here is a link to the chapter, which ends with a clear command to avoid all of the proscribed forms of sexual misconduct, and does not simply restrict the conduct to within religious practices.
So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God." (Lev 18:30)
Click to expand...
It notably does NOT say (or even hint) that the Israelites may engage in these sexual acts, provided that they simply do not not incorporate them into religious practice. If what you say is correct, then all of the other sexual practices listed in Lev. 18, i.e. incest, bestiality, etc., are OK as long as such practices are not part of religious practices. That sort of interpretation seems to strain credulity.

I think the scripture passages are pretty clear in their prohibition of homosexual acts, and it is disingenuous to try to say that it is not really the authors’ intent. There’s no real support for the opinion.

Peace,
Robert
 
You and I sincerely disagree with one another…I once thought as you…but as I got older and met gay people…listened to their struggles…spoke to them of faith…and finally decided "Is there another way of looking at the “clobber verses”…especially after a gay man asked me…“You use scripture to condemn us…why will you not allow the possibility that scripture can redeem us instead?”

I then read every book on the subject I could find…and that the possibility was present…no matter how slim an alternate understanding could be…if the words used COULD be understood in a more accepting way…I would rather err on love and mercy than on judgement and condemnation…my life has changed because of it.

Peace to you friend.
 
After doing some digging in my bible I found a chapter to which supports the churches teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts and also states the following:
Romans 1:18-32

The following chapter I have quoted from scripture is referring to the statements made earlier in the chapter (c&v provided above).

Chapter 32 states: " Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

So from what I am reading God also condemns those who show approval to homosexual acts. Or am I misunderstanding these verses?
 
Mamanurse said:
After doing some digging in my bible I found a chapter to which supports the churches teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts and also states the following:
Romans 1:18-32

The following chapter I have quoted from scripture is referring to the statements made earlier in the chapter (c&v provided above).

Chapter 32 states: " Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

So from what I am reading God also condemns those who show approval to homosexual acts. Or am I misunderstanding these verses?
Click to expand...
I believe you are misunderstanding the verses…Paul is not dealing with homosexuality per se…but worship practices of pagans…and contrasting the new life Christians live with the old life pagans lived…as I said before…why is the beginning verse in chapter 2 ignored…there were no chapter division in Paul’s writings…

" 1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? "

I will trust in the mercy and kindness of God and err on the side of love and mercy.
 
Perhaps if it wasnt for so much support for those who commits such grave sins, we wouldnt have so much in the word. There is so much acceptance now and days that the tendency is to get much worse. All in the name of my rights. God did not give us the right to commit sins, the world does this.
 
Publisher said:
I believe you are misunderstanding the verses…Paul is not dealing with homosexuality per se…but worship practices of pagans…and contrasting the new life Christians live with the old life pagans lived…as I said before…why is the beginning verse in chapter 2 ignored…there were no chapter division in Paul’s writings…

" 1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? "

I will trust in the mercy and kindness of God and err on the side of love and mercy.
Click to expand...
True, but it also says that God “handed them over to* degrading* passions.” He literally turned His back on these idolators to see how far they would actually go. If you read on…it says: Rom 1:28 “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is* improper.”*

I am not saying we shouldn’t love people who struggle with homosexuality, but I have a clear understanding of what I believe is right because of the guidance of the church. If these acts are* degrading and improper* isn’t the Catholic church correct then in stating homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered?
 
Mamanurse said:
True, but it also says that God “handed them over to* degrading* passions.” He literally turned His back **on these idolators to see how far they would actually go. If you read on…it says: Rom 1:28 "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper."

I am not saying we shouldn’t love people who struggle with homosexuality, but I have a clear understanding of what I believe is right because of the guidance of the church.
Click to expand...
My point…Paul was addressing idolatrous practices…not homosexuality as a permanent sexual God given orientation…I too have a clear understanding as to what is right…with the guidence of patient men and women in my Meeting…long prayerful consideration and years of study of the “clobber verses”…I see an alternate understanding…don’t know if it is “right” but because the POSSIBILITY exists that the alternate understanding DOES EXIST and is a viable understanding…I chose to err on the side of love and mercy…for me a “better” side to be on when God’s judgement is ahead of me.🙂
 
Publisher said:
In context…the whole first chapter into the second of Romans addresses “worship practices” and “worship”…it is not about sexuality…to gain the favor of a god, temple prostitutes, both male and female, took the place of the god and ritual sex…“sex magic” was performed…Paul is not addressing sexual orientation…the first few verses of chapter 2 are quite interesting as well…yet I rarely…if ever…see them quoted along with the passage you just quoted.🙂
Click to expand...
Of all the revisionist biblical themes I have ever come across, yours truly takes the cake.

The “sex magic” you so blithely refer to was a whole lot more insidious and perverted than your politically correct phrase allows. In Romans 1 Paul is tearing to bits the disgusting practices that were rife all along the coasts of Paul’s journeys. Same sex orgies and many of the participants were self mutilated to alter their sexes so they could join in. Self castration, women dressed as men and wearing false male genitalia, priests dressed as women and joining in the perverted religiosity. If you were the biblical scholar you make out you are, you’d also know Paul used the terms
aresenokoitai and malakoi. Contrary to what you state, Paul is explitily addressing sexual orientation. The gay lobby has bent over backwards to tell the world just how irrelevant these two words are, if they are’nt irrelevant, they refer to something else than homosexuality. In fact, some of the more extreme gay apologists would have us believe these words did not even exist until Paul “coined” them. What trumped up rot! One merely needs read Aristotle and Plato to find these same descriptive words and to know full well that homosexuality has been frowned on for thousands of years and across all societies. Catholicism’s charitable stance towards homosexuality is revelatory compared to the treatment homosexuals have recieved down through history.

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians Paul goes to a lot of trouble to point out and explain that a person’s body is a temple of God. The perversions he refers to defile that temple. He rails against those perversions and at (20) says unequivocally to ‘…Glorify God in your body’. Your biblical revisionism does exactly the opposite.
 
John21652 said:
Of all the revisionist biblical themes I have ever come across, yours truly takes the cake.

The “sex magic” you so blithely refer to was a whole lot more insidious and perverted than your politically correct phrase allows. In Romans 1 Paul is tearing to bits the disgusting practices that were rife all along the coasts of Paul’s journeys. Same sex orgies and many of the participants were self mutilated to alter their sexes so they could join in. Self castration, women dressed as men and wearing false male genitalia, priests dressed as women and joining in the perverted religiosity. If you were the biblical scholar you make out you are, you’d also know Paul used the terms
aresenokoitai and malakoi. Contrary to what you state, Paul is explitily addressing sexual orientation. The gay lobby has bent over backwards to tell the world just how irrelevant these two words are, if they are’nt irrelevant, they refer to something else than homosexuality. In fact, some of the more extreme gay apologists would have us believe these words did not even exist until Paul “coined” them. What trumped up rot! One merely needs read Aristotle and Plato to find these same descriptive words and to know full well that homosexuality has been frowned on for thousands of years and across all societies. Catholicism’s charitable stance towards homosexuality is revelatory compared to the treatment homosexuals have recieved down through history.

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians Paul goes to a lot of trouble to point out and explain that a person’s body is a temple of God. The perversions he refers to defile that temple. He rails against those perversions and at (20) says unequivocally to ‘…Glorify God in your body’. Your biblical revisionism does exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
Yes…I beleive the worshippers of Cybel castrated themselves…other pagan practices included temple prostitution as a form of worship…there too were male prostitute cults in Israel at times…

I too believe our bodies are the Temple of God…and “that of God” dwells in each of us…even my gay brothers and sisters…it is “that of God” I seek to honor…Paul never coined “sexual orientation” nor “homosexual”…these are modern terms to denote ones sexuality…Paul was ignorant of human sexuality and its many forms of expression…no one is denying that our bodies are God’s Temple…some of these Temples are of homosexual orientation…others of heterosexual orientation…“biblical revisionist”…I can live with that as well…I chose to err on the side of love and mercy…not fear and judgement in matters of the extremely complex field of human sexuality.
 
Publisher said:
My point…Paul was addressing idolatrous practices…not homosexuality as a permanent sexual God given orientation…I too have a clear understanding as to what is right…with the guidence of patient men and women in my Meeting…long prayerful consideration and years of study of the “clobber verses”…I see an alternate understanding…don’t know if it is “right” but because the POSSIBILITY exists that the alternate understanding DOES EXIST and is a viable understanding…I chose to err on the side of love and mercy…for me a “better” side to be on when God’s judgement is ahead of me.🙂
Click to expand...
It s called that because this is a practice among those who do not obey God’s law. in Judaism, this was considered a deadly sin. God makes no approval of such a thing among His people.
 
wisdomseeker said:
It s called that because this is a practice among those who do not obey God’s law. in Judaism, this was considered a deadly sin. God makes no approval of such a thing among His people.
Click to expand...
That is a charicature of what is believed…what does “abomination” mean in Hebrew…what are the word meanings it carries with it? When used in the “clobber verses” does it carry with it the connotation of “deadly sin”?

What else is called an “abomination” in Leviticus…but Christians have no problem embracing these “abominations” and probably as you read this…you are practicing an “abomination” as you sit…something clearly condemend in Leviticus as “abomination”.

Intersting word study by the way concerning “abomination”…
 
Publisher said:
My point…Paul was addressing idolatrous practices…not homosexuality as a permanent sexual God given orientation…I too have a clear understanding as to what is right…with the guidence of patient men and women in my Meeting…long prayerful consideration and years of study of the “clobber verses”…I see an alternate understanding…don’t know if it is “right” but because the POSSIBILITY exists that the alternate understanding DOES EXIST and is a viable understanding…I chose to err on the side of love and mercy…for me a “better” side to be on when God’s judgement is ahead of me.🙂
Click to expand...
Idolatrous practices doesn’t only mean the idolatry of animals and things, in this passage is also means the way these people worshiped one another and their bodies. The idolaters are obviously not living in the eyes of God, I don’t think the passage means anything less if it were to pertain to non christians, catholics, jews, whatever the group is…The passage is pointing out the sinfulness of the homosexual act in itself. If we were to tear apart the bible to the certain groups that a particular passage was intended for, we would be left with nothing. I am not jewish, so therefore I must not adhere to anything that was said in reference to a jew then, right?
 
Mamanurse said:
Idolatrous practices doesn’t only mean the idolatry of animals and things, in this passage is also means the way these people worshiped one another and their bodies. The idolaters are obviously not living in the eyes of God, I don’t think the passage means anything less if it were to pertain to non christians, catholics, jews, whatever the group is…The passage is pointing out the sinfulness of the homosexual act in itself. If we were to tear apart the bible to the certain groups that a particular passage was intended for, we would be left with nothing. I am not jewish, so therefore I must not adhere to anything that was said in reference to a jew then, right?
Click to expand...
I understand that is your belief…I simply do not share it…it’s not “cut and dry” IMO…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top