scripture and homosexuality

[revelations]

It’s the bible that “christians” use to persecute gays and lesbians, so understandably it’s also the bible that is the center of attention regarding homosexuality. And it is the bible, that deserves to be studied. And interestingly enough, when it is, church teaching becomes challenged! And rightfully so!

In my original post there is not one thing i mentioned that quoted scripture directly. Before i was a “christian” as you put it, i felt the same way about same sex couples. Before i even cracked the spine on my first bible, i felt the same way.

There is such a huge focus on scripture today because so many denominations have broken from the vine and gone out on their own. All they have to live on is the written word, and at best it’s a partial bible that is missing a few books that were taken out 500 years ago.

Let me make it clear again, the church taught these things before sacred scripture existed. Sacred scripture doesn’t contradict these original teachings.

Truagape, your scripture only approach is devastating your outlook on things. I haven’t referred to any scripture in any of my posts in regards to this topic, only the teaching of the church, which would still be true even if all the scripture in the world were destroyed at the same time.

Here are teachings from early church fathers that pre-date the creation of holy scripture:
**

Early Teachings on Homosexuality

**

Some argue that neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition condemns the practice of homosexuality. Passages such as Leviticus 18:22–30, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Jude 7 serve as ample proof that Scripture indeed condemns homosexuality. Below is ample proof from tradition. The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men.

The Didache
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria

“The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment” (ibid., 8).

Tertullian
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).

“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

So that seems pretty good. If you’re entire argument is based on an improper translation or interpretation of the word “arsenokoite”, then we will just disregard the troubles in the scriptures and look to the ECF above, who clearly back up the teachings.

Found here: catholic.com/library/early_teachings_on_homosexuality.asp

 

[revelations]

you would allow a mechanical function trump, a unification of spirit …that is that sexual intimacy is an expression and affirmation of the devotion and love of the relationship.

Ok, how do you explain the open air orgy a few months ago in San Francisco? And the blasphemy in towards the church and towards Jesus Christ?

What you are talking about is relativism. Effectively what homosexual/gay acts are is simply mutual masturbation when you get right down to it. Are we going to argue that masturbation is ok too? There is no way you can present it to appear otherwise.

Part of the expression of love between a heterosexual couple is the generation of a new being, a very sacred moment. Their child is the product of their love, whereas sexual satisfaction is the only product of a homosexual encounter.

As a heterosexual, i cannot have sex until i am married, i cannot masturbate, look at pornography, or do any of the like. Why should homosexuals be special? Even if they could marry in the church the wedding would not be sacramental before God. What we are fighting here isn’t homosexuality, it’s the way society has spun it.

The church and the people of God haven’t changed their minds for 6000 years. Society on the other hand, has.

 

[feetxxxl]

Ok, how do you explain the open air orgy a few months ago in San Francisco? And the blasphemy in towards the church and towards Jesus Christ?

What you are talking about is relativism. Effectively what homosexual/gay acts are is simply mutual masturbation when you get right down to it. Are we going to argue that masturbation is ok too? There is no way you can present it to appear otherwise.

Part of the expression of love between a heterosexual couple is the generation of a new being, a very sacred moment. Their child is the product of their love, whereas sexual satisfaction is the only product of a homosexual encounter.

As a heterosexual, i cannot have sex until i am married, i cannot masturbate, look at pornography, or do any of the like. Why should homosexuals be special? Even if they could marry in the church the wedding would not be sacramental before God. What we are fighting here isn’t homosexuality, it’s the way society has spun it.

The church and the people of God haven’t changed their minds for 6000 years. Society on the other hand, has.

where have you been?

homosexuals are also interested in families. which is evident by committed homosexual couples providing loving nurturing homes equal to those of heterosexual married couples for the adoption of rejected and abandoned children from heterosexual unions.

showing the importance is, the spirit of the nurturing parent, not if the child is adopted or biological.

 

[Eden]

where have you been?

homosexuals are also interested in families. which is evident by committed homosexual couples providing loving nurturing homes equal to those of heterosexual married couples for the adoption of rejected and abandoned children from heterosexual unions.

showing the importance is, the spirit of the nurturing parent, not if the child is adopted or biological.

Every child deserves to have a mother and a father. There are plenty of loving married couples (man and woman unions) who want to adopt children. In fact, there are not enough children to go around in this country, that man/woman couples have gone to China, Russia, Guatemala to find children to adopt. So, there is no shortage of couples that would provide a father and mother to children up for adoption. The best interest of the children should come first and the best interest of the children is always to go to a home with a mother and father. To think otherwise is pure selfishness.

 

[feetxxxl]

Every child deserves to have a mother and a father. There are plenty of loving married couples (man and woman unions) who want to adopt children. In fact, there are not enough children to go around in this country, that man/woman couples have gone to China, Russia, Guatemala to find children to adopt. So, there is no shortage of couples that would provide a father and mother to children up for adoption. The best interest of the children should come first and the best interest of the children is always to go to a home with a mother and father. To think otherwise is pure selfishness.

childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_subsid.cfm

CHECK IT OUT!

 

[feetxxxl]

childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_subsid.cfm

CHECK IT OUT!

IN ADDITION life.familyeducation.com/adoption/foster-care/45767.html

 

[Eden]

childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_subsid.cfm

CHECK IT OUT!

What am I checking out?

 

[Eden]

IN ADDITION life.familyeducation.com/adoption/foster-care/45767.html

Married couples (a man and a woman) should always have priority for adoption of any child, as the family construct composed of a married mother and father is superior to all other family arrangements for children.

“[C]hildren need both a mother and a father in order to grow into emotionally mature adults… Children navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents… On the contrary, however, studies of children reared in lesbian homes indicate that girls become more masculinized and boys become more feminized in their behaviors. (Stacy and Biblarz, 2001) Both boys and girls in homosexual households were more likely to experiment with homosexuality than those reared in heterosexual homes… Regarding gender complementarity and child-rearing, tradition and science agree: mothers and fathers provide optimal development for children.”

christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=26

 

[revelations]

Is the desire by the adopting couple truly to provide a better home for the child, or is it to feel more normal by having a child to take care of?

 

[truagape]

In my original post there is not one thing i mentioned that quoted scripture directly. Before i was a “christian” as you put it, i felt the same way about same sex couples. Before i even cracked the spine on my first bible, i felt the same way.

There is such a huge focus on scripture today because so many denominations have broken from the vine and gone out on their own. All they have to live on is the written word, and at best it’s a partial bible that is missing a few books that were taken out 500 years ago.

Let me make it clear again, the church taught these things before sacred scripture existed. Sacred scripture doesn’t contradict these original teachings.

Truagape, your scripture only approach is devastating your outlook on things. I haven’t referred to any scripture in any of my posts in regards to this topic, only the teaching of the church, which would still be true even if all the scripture in the world were destroyed at the same time.

Here are teachings from early church fathers that pre-date the creation of holy scripture:
****So that seems pretty good. If you’re entire argument is based on an improper translation or interpretation of the word “arsenokoite”, then we will just disregard the troubles in the scriptures and look to the ECF above, who clearly back up the teachings.

Found here: catholic.com/library/early_teachings_on_homosexuality.asp

First off, none of the references you posted pre-date Scripture. None of them! Whether the church feels compeled to take credit for it’s compilation does not in any way change the birth date of the original manuscripts. You build your whole arguement to the contrary. And that’s a really big problem. Everything the Catholic Church hones in under the umbrella of “Sacred Tradion”, supposedly has it’s roots and tangents sprouting from “Sacred Scripture” in some form or fashion . You should already be keenly aware of this. Your posts, however, reflect otherwise. And until you realize the authentincity, authority, and reliance all of Christianity has on the Scriptures including “Sacred Tradition”, your posts will be devoid of substance and inturn a response.

 

[truagape]

As a heterosexual, i cannot have sex until i am married, i cannot masturbate, look at pornography, or do any of the like. Why should homosexuals be special?

Special? Please don’t even go there! In your above quote, take out the words “UNTIL I AM MARRIED”, and then tell me how special you would feel.

 

[LilyM]

Special? Please don’t even go there! In your above quote, take out the words “UNTIL I AM MARRIED”, and then tell me how special you would feel.

As an older woman who knows that she is almost certainly never going to be married, and is living life on the assumption that she never will be, there is no difference between my situation (or my mindset anyway) and that of a homosexual. If I can accept the fact that sex is not an option for me, why can’t they?

Why do we, who supposedly follow the celibate Christ and hold in high esteem his virginal mother Mary, make such a big deal about doing without sex? Why do we see sex - or marriage for that matter - as some sort of right or entitlement when it’s absolutely nothing of the sort?

Why do more of us who claim to be Christian not put our money where our professions of faith go, truly live as our faith bids us, and take to heart the teaching of St Paul who says it is good for those who are virgins or celibate to remain so? Even if they CAN get married?

 

[Elric]

As an older woman who knows that she is almost certainly never going to be married, and is living life on the assumption that she never will be, there is no difference between my situation (or my mindset anyway) and that of a homosexual. If I can accept the fact that sex is not an option for me, why can’t they?

I think the point was choice/option.

For yourself, you still have the option of marriage. They dont.

In your first sentence you state “almost certainly” and “living on the assumption”, that suggest that the possibility is still there (no matter how small you think it is). Homosexuals dont have that, for them there is no possibility at all.

There is a big difference between your situation and a homosexuals.

 

[revelations]

First off, none of the references you posted pre-date Scripture. None of them! Whether the church feels compeled to take credit for it’s compilation does not in any way change the birth date of the original manuscripts. You build your whole arguement to the contrary. And that’s a really big problem. Everything the Catholic Church hones in under the umbrella of “Sacred Tradion”, supposedly has it’s roots and tangents sprouting from “Sacred Scripture” in some form or fashion . You should already be keenly aware of this. Your posts, however, reflect otherwise. And until you realize the authentincity, authority, and reliance all of Christianity has on the Scriptures including “Sacred Tradition”, your posts will be devoid of substance and in turn a response.

Who cares if they pre-date scripture or not. The references given clearly show the teaching of the church in the early years of its infancy. I’m not talking to you about scripture, I’m talking about the statements and teachings of church leaders 2000 years ago.

No matter which way you spin it or ignore the fact, sodomy (the act of coitus between two men, modern day definition) was a sin then, and it’s a sin today.

 

[LilyM]

I think the point was choice/option.

For yourself, you still have the option of marriage. They dont.

In your first sentence you state “almost certainly” and “living on the assumption”, that suggest that the possibility is still there (no matter how small you think it is). Homosexuals dont have that, for them there is no possibility at all.

There is a big difference between your situation and a homosexuals.

I mean that I don’t honestly believe it is an option for me - academically there’s a chance but it’s about the same chance that I have of winning Wimbledon - none for any practical purpose.

And people have been known, after years of identifying as homosexual, to occasionally fall in love with, and marry, people of the opposite gender - so don’t say it can’t happen, or is never a choice or option, for them either.

 

[Eden]

Still waiting for the earth-shattering commentary in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible in Jude 7 that will dispel old myths about homosexuality, Scriptures and the Church…



Clement of Alexandria

“In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like” (The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193).

“The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment” (ibid., 8).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. **319]).

Both of these commentaries date earlier than the setting of the Biblical Canon at the Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. They also date much earlier than the 1966 Jerusalem Bible commentary that we have not seen yet.

 

[revelations]

Still waiting for the earth-shattering commentary in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible in Jude 7 that will dispel old myths about homosexuality, Scriptures and the Church…

Mmmm yes, me too. If anyone could post those up that would be ideal

 

[truagape]

Who cares if they pre-date scripture or not. The references given clearly show the teaching of the church in the early years of its infancy. I’m not talking to you about scripture, I’m talking about the statements and teachings of church leaders 2000 years ago.

No matter which way you spin it or ignore the fact, sodomy (the act of coitus between two men, modern day definition) was a sin then, and it’s a sin today.

If you think I’m disputing whether or not the references you provided either do or don’t support the church’s teaching on homosexuality, then you have proven to be one who is easily misguided. I do not in any way dispute the long guilty history of the church’s unscriptual teachings regarding the topic of homosexuality. In fact it’s that history that provides the backdrop in highlighting the contrasts between “scripture and homosexuality” and “church teaching and homosexuality”. And throughout our discussions, you will have no choice but to recognize the glaring distinctions that contrast the two. You will then see how the church’s historic influential role is far from innoncent in creating the undercurrent that many “Christians” ride today, including yourself, regarding the topic of “homoexuality and christianity”.

 

[truagape]

Still waiting for the earth-shattering commentary in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible in Jude 7 that will dispel old myths about homosexuality, Scriptures and the Church…



Clement of Alexandria

“In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like” (The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193).

“The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment” (ibid., 8).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. **319

]).

Both of these commentaries date earlier than the setting of the Biblical Canon at the Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. They also date much earlier than the 1966 Jerusalem Bible commentary that we have not seen yet.

I refuse to believe that you are as naive as this post suggests. You state that “these commentaries date earlier than the setting of the Biblical Cannon at the Councils of Hippo…” as if such a fact was being disputed. It isn’t. What your statement is incapable of doing is denying the fact that the “Biblical Cannon” consists of divine manuscripts that do infact PRE-DATE the commentaries you listed. So please do not waste your time, or mine, trying to employ your statements to perform something it can’t, only to hope your words will be too camelflouged to be detected within a context in which it dosen’t belong!

 

[brendankiwi]

You amaze me if you think this matters. What matters is that the couples are open to the transmission of life… the intention. There is a posssibility of conception.