scripture and homosexuality

[LDNCatholic]

scripture makes references to sins commited in the midst of same sex relations, but makes no specific reference to homosexuality which is human bonding.

Absolutely right. That is why the Catholic Church does not categorise homosexual inclination as a sin. Acting on those inclinations is a sin though, all are called to chastity, for homosexuals this means celibacy.

 

[Elric]

Elric,

I am sorry to say, but this entire response seems to me to be an interpretation of scripture. As far as a mistranslation is concerned…I use the Dourary-Rheims version of the Bible which is translated directly from the Vulgate as prepared by St. Jerome in the fourth century, and it states the passage closer to the person you were responding to then it does your version.

Also, throughout this thread you have stated that you cannot be certain of this thing or the other, but you are very quick to state it certainly does NOT MEAN**** whatever the person you are responding to is saying that it does. One cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you do not know what the text states and then say that it does not state something. Thanks and I look forward to reading your response. Blessings.

???

Im sorry but Im not actually following what your stating.

Your being a bit vague with your accusations, so I cant really respond to them. You also seem to misunderstand what is meant by mistranslation and assumption.

I also dont understand what this has to do with the quote that you were replying to, aside from the version of the bible that you use (which was made in the 16th-17th century and is a translation of a translation).

 

[feetxxxl]

If that is true, then how do you explain… divorce?

explain what about divorce?

 

[Bwsherman]

i was merely saying that when scripture does not say something specifically, then what it does not say, does not mean it is untrue. scripture never said that slavery was an untolerable evil. that does mean that it is not true that it is an intolerable evil.

scripture makes references to sins commited in the midst of same sex relations, but makes no specific reference to homosexuality which is human bonding.

your comments about marriage are your opinions. this discussion is about scripture says. so you need to annotate.

You are correct in saying that just because scripture does not specifically state something does not mean it is untrue. The Holy Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and other doctrines have been developed in such a way.

However, the opinions I hold are not merely my own. They are the opinions of the Church as held against the entire Bible and the history of the Church. You still not have told me how you justify the claims you make about homosexuality and scripture. Who do you use for a reference point to make sure you are not misinterpreting what the scripture is stating?

Could you also please explain the difference between same sex relations and homosexuality as human bonding?

 

[Bwsherman]

???

Im sorry but Im not actually following what your stating.

Your being a bit vague with your accusations, so I cant really respond to them. You also seem to misunderstand what is meant by mistranslation and assumption.

I also dont understand what this has to do with the quote that you were replying to, aside from the version of the bible that you use (which was made in the 16th-17th century and is a translation of a translation).

I must say I am not really sure what I said that was unclear. Could you please tell me and I will try and clarify? And you are right that I do not understand what is meant by mistranslation and assumption. I would like to know what you mean and where you have used that on this thread.

As far as my 16th century version of the Bible being a translation of a translation, what do you think your Bible or really any Bible at this point in history is? There are no original documents that were written by the apostles or those written to establish Mosaic law. You would not even be able to read the Bible you have right now if it were not for the work of countless monks who preserved the scriptures throughout the ages. Even if you were able to read those original text now, your opinion on them would still need to be justified by some source outside of yourself to make what you say objectively true.

 

[LilyM]

so god created the possibility for one man to be attracted to another. he also created the anus as an errogenous zone, and made anal orgasms possible, of such a nature of satisfaction that heterosexuals indulge in them. and he also created the possiblity of oral sexual and masterbation as well as mutual masterbation.

and he created the possibility that the above sex could be a satisfying possibility for having a fulfilled one flesh relationship between same sexes.

holy toledo!

So? God created the possibility for unmarried heterosexual people similarly to sleep with each other and achieve orgasms in so doing - it doesn’t make what they’re doing right.

More tellingly, God also created the possibility for us to lie, steal, kill, cheat, and God created the possibility for us (or at least some of us) to get PLEASURE out of lying, cheating, killing, stealing. Some indeed get sexual kicks and orgasms out of killing others or robbing banks.

None of this makes these things right, they DO mean that some of us are disordered in our inclinations, disordered in where we find pleasure. Which is precisely what God, through the Church which He gave the power to bind and loose, teaches homosexual act are - inherently disordered.

 

[jay29]

so god created the possibility for one man to be attracted to another. he also created the anus as an errogenous zone, and made anal orgasms possible, of such a nature of satisfaction that heterosexuals indulge in them. and he also created the possiblity of oral sexual and masterbation as well as mutual masterbation.

and he created the possibility that the above sex could be a satisfying possibility for having a fulfilled one flesh relationship between same sexes.

holy toledo!

You make ZERO sense. God gave us the possibility to REFUSE salvation by our own actions. That doesn’t mean He condones those actions!

You cannot justify homosexual acts at all.

When did Jesus lift the ban that was already in place? Exactly when, please.

 

[peary]

to make homosexuality a sin under the new covenant one MUST explain how it comes against the essence and spirit of loving ones neighbor as oneself.

in truth, homosexuality is merely a form of human bonding, and like heterosexuality it is not the essence of the bonding that is a sin, but the spirit in the relationship in the bonding process that is sin.

Huh? You’ll have to explain this one. “Loving one’s neighbor as one’s self” does not mean having sex with them. Also, how is the spirit in the relationship in the bonding process among heterosexuals sinful?

 

[feetxxxl]

You are correct in saying that just because scripture does not specifically state something does not mean it is untrue. The Holy Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, and other doctrines have been developed in such a way.

However, the opinions I hold are not merely my own. They are the opinions of the Church as held against the entire Bible and the history of the Church. You still not have told me how you justify the claims you make about homosexuality and scripture. Who do you use for a reference point to make sure you are not misinterpreting what the scripture is stating?

Could you also please explain the difference between same sex relations and homosexuality as human bonding?

romans 1 says they had same sex relations motivated by shame based lust(niv). we know that lust comes against love in that its commitment is to satisfying carnal hunger. what ever essence of commitment there is to itself. there is no commitment to another. and has no similarity to human bonding between those of the same sex who bond out of mutual love, respect, trust, attraction,and devotion for a committed shared life together.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **feetxxxl **
so god created the possibility for one man to be attracted to another. he also created the anus as an errogenous zone, and made anal orgasms possible, of such a nature of satisfaction that heterosexuals indulge in them. and he also created the possiblity of oral sexual and masterbation as well as mutual masterbation.

and he created the possibility that the above sex could be a satisfying possibility for having a fulfilled one flesh relationship between same sexes.

You are giving God too much credit. Rather, it is the inquiry into the human body that is natural that has probably ‘discovered’ these things, but that does not make them morally admissible. You seem to suggest that if it feels good, do it (right from the 1960s, by the way). “Feeling good” is not a point for moral judgment. The Church has been adamant that any sexual activity outside of sacramental marriage is wrong, and that sex within sacramental marriage should always be open to life. Why? Because we are cooperating with God in the creation and bringing forth of life into the world, and allowing Him to create the soul of another human being to give him or her eternal life. It is from that frame of reference that various forms of sexual activity be judged morally.

 

[Lilyflower]

I happen to have a couple homosexuals in my life who, aside from the gay thing, live generous, compassionate lives, and it’s hard for me to believe that God would instill a natural urge in them which was absolutely contrary to His law. I think someday we will discover a “gay” gene, or genetic abnormality which will not necessarily have the Church saying “we’re okay with gay”, but maybe not being so fast to condemn them, much the way the Chuch has addressed suicide, with consideration to severe mental illness. While I believe it is their hurdle to overcome,** I don’t believe it is for any one of us to decide the truth between them and God. All we can offer is love to homosexuals, as we do with all our brothers and sisters, for we are all guilty of sin each and every day.** Just because his sin is a public lifestyle that people know about, doesn’t make it any worse than the sin I hold private to myself.

My emphasis

I will gladly say ‘amen’ to that.

Blessings and peace to you.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **leslierx82 **I happen to have a couple homosexuals in my life who, aside from the gay thing, live generous, compassionate lives, and it’s hard for me to believe that God would instill a natural urge in them which was absolutely contrary to His law.

Why would you think that, first, it is a ‘natural’ urge and, secondly, that God instilled it within them?

I think someday we will discover a “gay” gene, or genetic abnormality

Science has already codified the genetic map of the human specie. So far, nothing even close to what could be termed a “gay gene” has been discovered. The vast majority of those involved in psychiatry and psychoanalysis point to early behavior experiences in the developing personality that may point one in the direction of same-sex attraction, and not to a physical cause.

which will not necessarily have the Church saying “we’re okay with gay”, but maybe not being so fast to condemn them, much the way the Chuch has addressed suicide, with consideration to severe mental illness.

The Church does not ‘condemn’ those who have same-sex attraction. It teaches that the sexual acts committed are wrong, just as it condemns the sexual acts of a male/female relationship outside of sacramental marriage. Read the CCC for further clarification.

While I believe it is their hurdle to overcome, I don’t believe it is for any one of us to decide the truth between them and God. All we can offer is love to homosexuals, as we do with all our brothers and sisters, for we are all guilty of sin each and every day. Just because his sin is a public lifestyle that people know about, doesn’t make it any worse than the sin I hold private to myself.

And that is what the Church’s position has been. Again, read the CCC with regards to homosexuality for clarification.

 

[Lilyflower]

In my understanding judgment in favor is acceptance, and judgment in opposition is condemnation.

hate the sin, love the sinner. after all, right?

A thousand 'Amen’s to that

 

[Bwsherman]

romans 1 says they had same sex relations motivated by shame based lust(niv). we know that lust comes against love in that its commitment is to satisfying carnal hunger. what ever essence of commitment there is to itself. there is no commitment to another. and has no similarity to human bonding between those of the same sex who bond out of mutual love, respect, trust, attraction,and devotion for a committed shared life together.

This response is still your opinion. I would ask again, how do you justify this position or can you not make any justification outside yourself?

 

[LilyM]

leslierx82:

I think someday we will discover a “gay” gene, or genetic abnormality

No. What we may possibly discover, akin to already discovered genes which predispose one to alcoholism, is just that - a predisposition.

No amount of genes, though, will mean that a person is inevitably gay - or inevitably alcoholic.

Because alcoholism and homosexuality both have certain lifestyle and behaviour components which must also be present and acted upon - and which are preventable. An alcoholic, in the end, chooses to pick up a bottle, and the homosexual person to sleep with others of their own gender. That can’t be simply put down to genes.

 

[Elric]

I must say I am not really sure what I said that was unclear. Could you please tell me and I will try and clarify?

I didnt say that it was unclear, the accusation was very clear, I said that it was vague brcause there was no mention of where I did this other than “throughout this thread”.

And you are right that I do not understand what is meant by mistranslation and assumption. I would like to know what you mean and where you have used that on this thread.

I really dont know how else I could explain it, I have explained it several times already and to me it seemed quite clear.

Perhaps you could explain what you dont understand with what I said.

As far as my 16th century version of the Bible being a translation of a translation, what do you think your Bible or really any Bible at this point in history is? There are no original documents that were written by the apostles or those written to establish Mosaic law. You would not even be able to read the Bible you have right now if it were not for the work of countless monks who preserved the scriptures throughout the ages.

Im not really sure what to say. When I said it was a translation of a translation I meant that it was translated from a Latin document rather than the original which was not in Latin but Hebrew and Greek.

Even if you were able to read those original text now, your opinion on them would still need to be justified by some source outside of yourself to make what you say objectively true.

Here is a couple of links to check out:

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

truthsetsfree.net/study.html

 

[feetxxxl]

Originally Posted by **feetxxxl **
so god created the possibility for one man to be attracted to another. he also created the anus as an errogenous zone, and made anal orgasms possible, of such a nature of satisfaction that heterosexuals indulge in them. and he also created the possiblity of oral sexual and masterbation as well as mutual masterbation.

and he created the possibility that the above sex could be a satisfying possibility for having a fulfilled one flesh relationship between same sexes.

You are giving God too much credit. Rather, it is the inquiry into the human body that is natural that has probably ‘discovered’ these things, but that does not make them morally admissible. You seem to suggest that if it feels good, do it (right from the 1960s, by the way). “Feeling good” is not a point for moral judgment. The Church has been adamant that any sexual activity outside of sacramental marriage is wrong, and that sex within sacramental marriage should always be open to life. Why? Because we are cooperating with God in the creation and bringing forth of life into the world, and allowing Him to create the soul of another human being to give him or her eternal life. It is from that frame of reference that various forms of sexual activity be judged morally.

the exlanation of biology is to show possibility. where does swscripture say this possibility is a sin.

because some choose to have children while others do not where in scripture does it say its a sin surely not in matt 19

-without any explanation as to how sex outside of marriage (premarital)comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself, then it is sin according to regulation and that is not our relationship to the written code under the new covenant.

is it your understanding that we are to replace the old regulation with new regulation. where in scripture does it say that? or instead of regulation is it your understanding that old regulation is now replaced with new inferences.

where in scripture does it say that?

 

[Elric]

I found this site when I was wandering the wonderful world of google:

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9409.htm

It shows some interesting comments on the subject from different sources. I doubt it will sway anyone, but I found it an interesting read.

 

[feetxxxl]

No. What we may possibly discover, akin to already discovered genes which predispose one to alcoholism, is just that - a predisposition.

No amount of genes, though, will mean that a person is inevitably gay - or inevitably alcoholic.

Because alcoholism and homosexuality both have certain lifestyle and behaviour components which must also be present and acted upon - and which are preventable. An alcoholic, in the end, chooses to pick up a bottle, and the homosexual person to sleep with others of their own gender. That can’t be simply put down to genes.

since when was our theology suppose to rely on science?

according to christ we will recognize them by their fruit.
the fruit of the spirit is love, joy peace, kindness,goodness,faithfulness, selfcontrol,gentleness andpatience…which of themselves are spirit… spirit creating spirit.

 

[Catherine_S]

The Lord YOUR GOD did not create the human race to be homosexual AT ALL.

*:nope: ! *
They are finding out so much more in terms of it being against nature!
Homosexual Acts Defy Design of the Body,
Immunological Journal Finds
*The author notes that from "an immunological point of view, the body itself considers homosexual acts to be disordered. For instance, there are substances in seminal fluid called ‘immuno-regulatory macromolecule’ that send out ‘signals’ that are only understood by the female body, which will then permit the ‘two in one flesh’ intimacy required for human reproduction. When **deposited **elsewhere, these signals are not only misunderstood, but cause sperm to fuse with whatever somatic body cell they encounter. This fusing is what often results in the development of cancerous malignancies. (See **"Sexual Behavior *and Increased Anal Cancer," Immunology and Cell Biology 75 (1977); 181-183.)
http://www.narth.com/docs/defy.html
.