scripture and homosexuality

[rusty20]

please annotate, and give an explanation of what is annotated.

Perhaps you missed my point. I recognize that you, among others, are way too stubborn to see the truth. Jesus could appear in front of you and say homosexual activity is a sin, and you would find some way to skew his words into allowing such acts. I have nothing to provide in this discussion which I have not read in other peoples’ responses. You simply are stone-hearted and will not budge on your ridiculous belief.

Don’t bother asking me to argue biblical points, as you seem to be blind to scriptural passages. seriously, how clear do you want it? Do you want the Bible to have 11 commandments?

#11: Hey guys, no having sex with each other, only with the ladies…

This is already covered in other commandments (adultery) and in scriptural passages others have detailed.

If you cannot see this from other posters’ clear and concise arguments, I will not be able to convince you. It’s people like you who are the problem in today’s society… You want to justify anything and everything, and you live by no moral code.

BTW: any good moral relativism threads here?

 

[feetxxxl]

Perhaps you missed my point. I recognize that you, among others, are way too stubborn to see the truth. Jesus could appear in front of you and say homosexual activity is a sin, and you would find some way to skew his words into allowing such acts. I have nothing to provide in this discussion which I have not read in other peoples’ responses. You simply are stone-hearted and will not budge on your ridiculous belief.

Don’t bother asking me to argue biblical points, as you seem to be blind to scriptural passages. seriously, how clear do you want it? Do you want the Bible to have 11 commandments?

#11: Hey guys, no having sex with each other, only with the ladies…

This is already covered in other commandments (adultery) and in scriptural passages others have detailed.

If you cannot see this from other posters’ clear and concise arguments, I will not be able to convince you. It’s people like you who are the problem in today’s society… You want to justify anything and everything, and you live by no moral code.

BTW: any good moral relativism threads here?

this dialogue was never meant to convince who was right and who was wrong. in truth salvation isnt about getting it right but about faith in the one who lives inside the believer.

the dialogue was to show and test each other’s reasoning behind one’s understanding, and to explain whatever testing was done in challenging certain understandings.

anything that is in writing requires interpretation, assisted by the holy spirit to see the spiritual embodiment behind the words.

 

[truagape]

Now if God’s commands, including the command against homosexual sex, still are applicable, as Christ says they surely are, then you are in fact in serious danger of damning your own soul if you disobey them, by engaging in homosexual sex among the other sins, and dragging anyone else who you influence to disobey them into damnation with you.

The words above in large font are a result of language that has been tossed around, drug about, and mutilated all throughout history. It’s conviently packaged to carry undertones and ideologies, that Scripture, from which it’s supposedly based, never does. Such phrases seem to flow from the lips of “christians”, seemingly without even a hint of analysis.

 

[Bwsherman]

Howdy!! I was just wondering if you ever got your hands on that Jerusalem Bible.

I actually went to view one at the Catholic university I work for, but the library was closed when I went there. I did forget to ask my Aunt as well. Not ignoring whatever it has to say…just have not had the oppurtunity to see it. I will make comments when I do.

 

[truagape]

I actually went to view one at the Catholic university I work for, but the library was closed when I went there. I did forget to ask my Aunt as well. Not ignoring whatever it has to say…just have not had the oppurtunity to see it. I will make comments when I do.

Which University do you work for?

 

[Bwsherman]

Which University do you work for?

Not sure I feel comfortable telling you that because I would be easily found on our website. Why do you ask?..sorry I posted this and it felt a bit rude to me. I will say this much:

I work for one of the top ten most conservative Catholic colleges in America according to the annual Newman Report. That at least lets you know something.

 

[LilyM]

The words above in large font are a result of language that has been tossed around, drug about, and mutilated all throughout history. It’s conviently packaged to carry undertones and ideologies, that Scripture, from which it’s supposedly based, never does. Such phrases seem to flow from the lips of “christians”, seemingly without even a hint of analysis.

And of course you and your cronies know better how to interpret scripture than the Catholic Church which darn well WROTE the New Testament, which set the canon of scripture that you use, which was promised ‘all truth’ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit by Christ (which promise was extended to the Church as 'pillar and bulwark of truth - and not to you and your cronies).

My analysis comes from the Church, which has been studying every blessed word of scripture intensively every hour of every day of the last 1,900 years since it was written. Even the suggestion that you could possibly know anything about it by comparison is totally laughable and presumptuous in the extreme

 

[Eden]

Have you all noticed how there is no substance to truagape’s and feetxxl’s comments, just baseless criticism that our Church is misinterpreting and contorting Biblical passages, coupled with the assertion that our beliefs are somehow anti-Christian and unloving? And let’s not forget the vague references to commentary in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (as yet to be supplied) that will supposedly shatter the “myths” about homosexuality, Scripture and the Church?

Well, their agenda can be summarized in the gay propagandist instruction manual *After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s:

*“Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propaganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned”… “Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof… the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not” (p. 152-153)

:hypno:

Unfortunately for truagape’s and feetxxxl’s purposes, we are all conscious of it. And to your continued propaganda I say, :yawn: .

amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

 

[Eden]

And to put the Jude 7 argument to rest, I offer just one of many commentaries against the homosexual interpretation of “strange flesh” as a desire to have intercourse with angels:

apologeticspress.org/articles/2596

“(T)he men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior.”

“One final point likewise discounts the claim that the men of Sodom were lusting after angel flesh. The men of Sodom did not know that the two individuals visiting Lot were angels. They had the appearance of “men” (Genesis 18:2,16,22; 19:1,5,8,10,12,16), whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3).The men of Sodom could not have been guilty of desiring to have sexual relations with angels, since they could not have known the men were angels. Even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females.”

“An honest and objective appraisal of Jude 7 provides no support for the homosexual cause. The Bible consistently treats homosexual behavior as sinful.”

 

[Elric]

I know a homosexual who taught our RCIA class. He lives a chaste life, and in fact is married and has a wife. He follows the word of God, and loves God above all else.

Here is the testimony of another ex-homosexual:
davidmacd.com/web_pages/gay_testimony.htm

I read your link, it was quite interesting.

He certainly had some problems and I am glad that he was able to overcome them, I think that homosexuality was an issue for him because I dont think that he actually was homosexual in the first place.

It sounds like he was trying to “fit in” his enviroment.

 

[feetxxxl]

And to put the Jude 7 argument to rest, I offer just one of many commentaries against the homosexual interpretation of “strange flesh” as a desire to have intercourse with angels:

apologeticspress.org/articles/2596

“(T)he men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior.”

“One final point likewise discounts the claim that the men of Sodom were lusting after angel flesh. The men of Sodom did not know that the two individuals visiting Lot were angels. They had the appearance of “men” (Genesis 18:2,16,22; 19:1,5,8,10,12,16), whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3).The men of Sodom could not have been guilty of desiring to have sexual relations with angels, since they could not have known the men were angels. Even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females.”

“An honest and objective appraisal of Jude 7 provides no support for the homosexual cause. The Bible consistently treats homosexual behavior as sinful.”

what i dont understand is how someone could read the passages of genesis, and not see gang rape. as someone who has miniistered in maximum security prisons, and has heard the stories from the inmates of these kinds of violations, and has witnessed the degradation of those violations. to me its obvious that any society that condoned the gang rape of strangers, would be covered with an incredible unsettling dark spirit.

 

[D_M]

I think the problem with this argument often comes from the fact that people fail to recognize what it is which actually makes homosexuality sinful.

We know that the greatest commandments are to love God and neighbour, and that the whole of the law and the prophets rests upon these two commandments.

Homosexual practice is considered to be sinful because it is against love of neighbour.

Now who understands why it is that this practice is against love of neighbour?

My understanding of why we consider it sinful is this:

Sodomy, masturbation, adultery, or simply the seeking of personal sexual pleasure is not wrong because of the nature of the orgasm experienced, but it is wrong because the person who pursues it is committing a deeply selfish act in their own pursuit for what make’s them happy.

Its wrong to be attracted to the same sex, any more than it is wrong to be attracted to the opposite sex. What makes it wrong is that ther person is when people pursue their own sexual desires for their own pleasure, and this applies equally to hetero or homosexual acts, although with the latter there simply never is a possibility of a true marriage that could sanctify its practice and make it conducted for a purpose other than purely personal pleasure.

Love cannot exist in selfishness, and therefore doing these things causes charity to grow cold. People pursue their own personal pleasure for themselves and seek nothing for their neighbour; the orgasm is more important than other human beings… one may very well think of this as psychopathic.

 

[feetxxxl]

additionally referring to jude

it makes no sense to relate levitical law to the destruction of sodom being about the same sex prohibition. did not jacob marry 2 sisters

Leviticus 18:18
" 'Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

the essence of covenant relationship to law is that the prohibitions of a particular covenant go into affect after the installment of the covenant.

 

[feetxxxl]

“What makes it wrong is that ther person is when people pursue their own sexual desires for their own pleasure, and this applies equally to hetero or homosexual acts, although with the latter there simply never is a possibility of a true marriage that could sanctify its practice and make it conducted for a purpose other than purely personal pleasure.’”

is that how you look at heterosexual marriage, each person pursueing their own sexual desires?

" although with the latter there simply never is a possibility of a true marriage that could sanctify its practice and make it conducted for a purpose other than purely personal pleasure."

if you believe this is true, then you really dont believe a person can love another as he loves himself…which is the calling of all marital relationships.

the difference with marriage…" forsaking all others"

in what way does form , the presence of different genitals as opposed to the same genitals have to do with ;loving another as oneself.

do you think what is without, influences what is within.

do you think the difference or the sameness of genitals limits the
devotion and commitment expressed and affirmed in the act of sexual intimacy?

are quadripalegics limited in the devotion or commitmaent in their limitation of expressing sexual intimacy with a marital pardner who is whole?

 

[Eden]

what i dont understand is how someone could read the passages of genesis, and not see gang rape. as someone who has miniistered in maximum security prisons, and has heard the stories from the inmates of these kinds of violations, and has witnessed the degradation of those violations. to me its obvious that any society that condoned the gang rape of strangers, would be covered with an incredible unsettling dark spirit.

The angels were sent to investigate the sins that were already occurring there. To say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was attempted gang rape of the angels is just another lie.

“(T)he men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. That is precisely why the angels were sent to Sodom—to survey the moral landscape (Genesis 18:21) and urge Lot and his family to flee the city (Genesis 18:23; 19:12-13,15-16). The men of Sodom were pronounced by God as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” back at the time Lot made the decision to move to Sodom (Genesis 13:13). Lenski called attention to the Aorist participles used in Jude 7 (i.e., “having given themselves over” and “going after”) as further proof of this fact: “An appeal to Gen. 19:4, etc., will not answer this question, for this occurred * when the cup of fornications was already full, when Jude’s two aorist participles had already become facts, on the day before God’s doom descended” (1966, p. 624).”

apologeticspress.org/articles/2596*

 

[marymol]

Apologies !
Have not read through all the posts ; hence this might be repitition !

   Was just reading from Book of Malachi where God is voicing His displeausre about the offering of defective lambs for the temple sacrifice .

Since attitudes and values of the heart is where wholesomeness or defection is , this might be so esp. for those in The Church - a holy priesthood , where men and esp. priests are there to make present the best of Fatherhood , as our Lord has shown !

 

[feetxxxl]

The angels were sent to investigate the sins that were already occurring there. To say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was attempted gang rape of the angels is just another lie.

“(T)he men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. That is precisely why the angels were sent to Sodom—to survey the moral landscape (Genesis 18:21) and urge Lot and his family to flee the city (Genesis 18:23; 19:12-13,15-16). The men of Sodom were pronounced by God as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” back at the time Lot made the decision to move to Sodom (Genesis 13:13). Lenski called attention to the Aorist participles used in Jude 7 (i.e., “having given themselves over” and “going after”) as further proof of this fact: “An appeal to Gen. 19:4, etc., will not answer this question, for this occurred * when the cup of fornications was already full, when Jude’s two aorist participles had already become facts, on the day before God’s doom descended” (1966, p. 624).”

apologeticspress.org/articles/2596*

heterosexuality…the bonding of 2 people of the opposite sex out of mutual love , respect, attraction, for a shared committed life. homosexuality the same.

rape …the violation of another thru forced penetration that is not about sex but about power, self hatred , and self loathing.

judges19 23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they RAPED her and ABUSED her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

SURELY, this is not heterosexuality, or has anything to do with sexuality.

 

[D_M]

“What makes it wrong is that ther person is when people pursue their own sexual desires for their own pleasure, and this applies equally to hetero or homosexual acts, although with the latter there simply never is a possibility of a true marriage that could sanctify its practice and make it conducted for a purpose other than purely personal pleasure.’”

is that how you look at heterosexual marriage, each person pursueing their own sexual desires?

" although with the latter there simply never is a possibility of a true marriage that could sanctify its practice and make it conducted for a purpose other than purely personal pleasure."

if you believe this is true, then you really dont believe a person can love another as he loves himself…which is the calling of all marital relationships.

the difference with marriage…" forsaking all others"

in what way does form , the presence of different genitals as opposed to the same genitals have to do with ;loving another as oneself.

do you think what is without, influences what is within.

do you think the difference or the sameness of genitals limits the
devotion and commitment expressed and affirmed in the act of sexual intimacy?

are quadripalegics limited in the devotion or commitmaent in their limitation of expressing sexual intimacy with a marital pardner who is whole?

There are heterosexual marriages in which the partners pursue sexuality simply for their own personal pleasure and take measures to prevenet procreation, although this is not how it is supposed to be, and therefore in that sense, my answer is no that is not how I view heterosexual marriage.

There are some points of yours here which I respect, in that you say that the difference of genitelia is not what is important in the expression of sexual intimacy.

What the catholic church teaches (and you probably disagree), though, is that homosexual relationships have no true sexual or loving complementarity to them (ie. they are always for pleasure), and therefore should never occur. Its not the genitelia which is so much the issue as it is the fact that sexual activity should not be pursued for one’s own selfish pleasure.

If I thought that homosexual relationships possessed a true marital love, than you would be correct in your accusation that I do not fully recognize the possibility of another person loving another as herself. Although I don’t think they do possess true marital, and therefore your accusation (and I really appreciate the fact you would use God’s morality and Jesus’ words as opposed to human precepts… good for you) is not quite true.

I disagree with you in your assertion that marriage is a calling to love another as himself. I of course don’t mean to say that marriage has no love in it; obviously it should be loving as all human relationships should be. But the purpose of marriage is meant for procreation, and not for sex. A married couple that pursue personal pleasure without procreation are not exactly committing adultery but they are exceeding the foundations of their marriage and they should not be doing this.

Remember the question on the resurrection the sadducees put forward?

Matthew 22:27-30 After them all, the woman died. In the resurrection, thereofre to which of th seven will she be wife? For they all had her." But Jesus answer them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

I point this out, because if marriage was meant for a purpose other than procreation, or if was (as you say) meant as a loving union than why does Our Lord tell us they are all ephemeral and dissolved once the resurrection comes and children are assumedly no longer produced? I mean if it was a simply a loving relationship, why should they not exist for eternity?

 

[Elric]

The angels were sent to investigate the sins that were already occurring there. To say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was attempted gang rape of the angels is just another lie.

Are you refering to just the story of Lot and the Angels, or to the whole story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

If its the whole lot, then there were many sins that they were guilty of. The main one involving lack of charity.

If its just Lot and the angels, then I hope you realise what you are suggesting with your lie statement. You are suggesting that the angels consented to the acts suggested.

Personally I dont think that there was any conscent, which would mean it was against their wishes and that is rape (or gang rape in this case).

But then agian I dont really think that it had anything to do with homosexuality, it was to humiliate and degrade them.

Back then if you wanted to humiliate and/or degrade a man, you would treat them like a woman and it was a common practice to put a man in a womans position by having intercourse with their anus. It was never about sex or sexuality, only degrading the recipiant by stripping them of their masculinity and putting them in the position of a woman.

Looking at the story and the lead up to it, it is quite probable that the men thought that the Angels were spies/sabaturs from their rivals. They were not exactly transparent about who they are or what their business is, so what better way to stick it up their rivals than by degrading and humiliating their spies before sending them back where they came from?

 

[feetxxxl]

since homosexuals bond in the same spirit as heterosexuals they are equal and should be afforded all the same rights and privileges.

is your inderstanding " you and i have different genitals and can procreate so we should marry."

no its " we are mutually attracted to each other, and mutually love, trust, and respect each other and want to share and support each other in the joys and trials of life. let us marry and with this devotion that we have for each other have a family.

the procreation thing is such a none issue because already this planet is over populated. even with the problems of drinking water , disease and pollution, can you imagine what problems china would be having if they hadnt instituted the one child policy.

but in terms of procreation look at all the people that god wiped out who were procreating very diligently.

no… god is interested in the heart. everything in both testaments points to that.

it amazes me that the catholic church still has one foot firmly planted in the old covenant.

hebrews says what is deemed old is obsolete and will soon pass away.

the prohibitions and regulations were to create a seperate people.

but in the new covenant of christ are seperateness is christ living in us.

Romans 8:9
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

who does christ live in ?

is it those because they follow regulation?

jesus said you will recognize them by their fruit… fruit of the spirit.

this can be ascertained thru fellowship, not by observance of regulation… by the fellowship of 1john1

as paul said we are now led by and serve of the spirit,

does the catholic church serve thru observance of regulation.(regulation of divorce , homosexuality, etc?

in these are there any discussions of witness of spirit, or fruit of the spirit(gal5)

loving ones neighbor as oneself is the basis for all relationships of believers… either to believers, or non-believers. that is why it is the summation of all the law.

it is in friend to friend, mother to daughter, ethnic to ethnic, husband to wife, wife to wife, neighbor to neighbor.