Sin of the Sodomites

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timidity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Buffalo and Angelus,

The original questions in this thread are:

"When we read the euphemism “sin of the Sodomites”, does that refer strctly to homosexual acts, or does it also refer to similar acts that a man and woman might engage in? The extra credit question is "how do we know?"Thanks, and let’s keep the language vague, please."

Timidity asks a vital question, “How do we know?” How do we know that the first homosexual act was or was not performed by two heterosexuals? I think it is totally possible.

I think a male used a female for perverse sexual gratification and she allowed it, for her own perverse reasons. It then carried on to be an act between two males.

Men and women grew apart because of dominance/domination issues and we have what we have today, confusion in sexual orientation.

I guess we will need to agree that we disagree it might have been our first parents that performed that first homosexual act. That’s okay. We don’t need to keep trying to convince each other. None of us where there. Only God, Adam and Eve. It’s a theory I have, that helps me understand why men and women treat each other so horribly, at times. It gives me hope for a brighter future, when all divisions between the sexes are healed. I think this is a place healing needs to occur and I think it’s been there from the start.

Be in peace,
Elizabeth
 
40.png
elizabeth4truth:
Dear Buffalo and Angelus,

The original questions in this thread are:

"When we read the euphemism “sin of the Sodomites”, does that refer strctly to homosexual acts, or does it also refer to similar acts that a man and woman might engage in? The extra credit question is "how do we know?"Thanks, and let’s keep the language vague, please."

Timidity asks a vital question, “How do we know?” How do we know that the first homosexual act was or was not performed by two heterosexuals? I think it is totally possible.

I think a male used a female for perverse sexual gratification and she allowed it, for her own perverse reasons. It then carried on to be an act between two males.

Men and women grew apart because of dominance/domination issues and we have what we have today, confusion in sexual orientation.

I guess we will need to agree that we disagree it might have been our first parents that performed that first homosexual act. That’s okay. We don’t need to keep trying to convince each other. None of us where there. Only God, Adam and Eve. It’s a theory I have, that helps me understand why men and women treat each other so horribly, at times. It gives me hope for a brighter future, when all divisions between the sexes are healed. I think this is a place healing needs to occur and I think it’s been there from the start.

Be in peace,
Elizabeth
Click to expand...
The problem is that by espousing this theory you are not being consistent with Catholic teaching,. These theories are tantamount to “private” interpretation.

For all divisions between the sexes to be “healed” we would no longer have the very distinction that God made them different and complementary for a reason.

I think you should look into human dignity and that every one is made in the image and likeness of God.
Theology of the Body is a great place to go. I believe this may help you more than your theory.
 
40.png
buffalo:
The problem is that by espousing this theory you are not being consistent with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Buffalo,

Is there teaching, in our Catholic faith, regarding the origin of homosexual acts? Knowing this may be of help.

Elizabeth
 
40.png
buffalo:
For all divisions between the sexes to be “healed” we would no longer have the very distinction that God made them different and complementary for a reason.
Click to expand...
Buffalo,

I can’t agree. Before the fall there were no divisions between the sexes. God created them male and female in His divine image. That makes them complementary, complete and healed when they are together. Original Sin changed that. Jesus began the healing process, to bridge the gap between mankind and God and between man and woman.

Elizabeth
 
40.png
elizabeth4truth:
Buffalo,

I can’t agree. Before the fall there were no divisions between the sexes. God created them male and female in His divine image. That makes them complementary, complete and healed when they are together. Original Sin changed that. Jesus began the healing process, to bridge the gap between mankind and God and between man and woman.

Elizabeth
Click to expand...
Why do you say women and men treat each other badly. Is it confined only between men and women?
 
40.png
buffalo:
What divisions between men and women are you referring to?
Click to expand...
The desires and attempts to dominate and use one another for selfish gain. They could be classified under “entitlement issues” that point to ones desire for self-preference rather than God preference.
 
40.png
elizabeth4truth:
The desires and attempts to dominate and use one another for selfish gain. They could be classified under “entitlement issues” that point to ones desire for self-preference rather than God preference.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to sexual acts or in general?
 
40.png
buffalo:
Are you referring to sexual acts or in general?
Click to expand...
I guess I’m referreing to all acts, sexual and not, that allow for the destruction of the harmony God intented, between man and woman, made in His image and likeness.
 
That would be called concupiscence and is a result of origianl sin. It is a constant fight as you can see by the Catechism.

**377 **The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

**405 **Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
 
40.png
buffalo:
That would be called concupiscence and is a result of origianl sin. It is a constant fight as you can see by the Catechism.

**377 **The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

**405 **Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
Click to expand...
Buffalo,

I really appreciate you attempts to help me understand this reasoning but I still don’t get it. Sorry I’m so dense. I read and re-read what is written here and see it is still possible that the “act” committed by Adam and Eve could have been sexual in nature.

Are you telling me that Adam and Eve’s sin had to be something that no other human beings could do; that it could be done only by them? If so, how do we know this for sure? Also, do you know where Catholic teaching presumes to know if homosexual acts began with two males or is it possible they began with two hetrosexuals?

Elizabeth
 
40.png
elizabeth4truth:
Buffalo,

I really appreciate you attempts to help me understand this reasoning but I still don’t get it. Sorry I’m so dense. I read and re-read what is written here and see it is still possible that the “act” committed by Adam and Eve could have been sexual in nature.

Are you telling me that Adam and Eve’s sin had to be something that no other human beings could do; that it could be done only by them? If so, how do we know this for sure? Also, do you know where Catholic teaching presumes to know if homosexual acts began with two males or is it possible they began with two hetrosexuals?

Elizabeth
Click to expand...
This is hard to put in words but I’ll try. By trying to be like God (a pure spirit) is moving to a higher existence. That is what Adam and Eve wanted. This pure spirituality is way beyond sins of the flesh.

They did not have the inclination toward evil or disordered acts until after the fall, when God informed them of the consequences.
 
40.png
buffalo:
This is hard to put in words but I’ll try. By trying to be like God (a pure spirit) is moving to a higher existence. That is what Adam and Eve wanted. This pure spirituality is way beyond sins of the flesh.

They did not have the inclination toward evil or disordered acts until after the fall, when God informed them of the consequences.
Click to expand...
Sorry Buffalo,

I just don’t get it. Guess my limitation is I’m trying to imagine the physical thing they did, like eating a piece of fruit, which seems so silly that it can’t be literally true.

I can’t fathom trying to be a pure spirit. It doesn’t seem something possible for any of us to accomplish because our spirit comes from God and returns to God. I keep going back to our physical world because that’s all we’ve got. I’m trying to sort out what Adam and Eve did, physically, that God told them not to do.

It seems the mental and spiritual were manifested in the physical. The desire to have full knowledge of good and evil had to be manifested in a physical act or it would have remained a thought and would have had no consequence.

Elizabeth
 
Island Oak:
So we’re OK with using “fruit” in the figurative and allegorical sense when it serves our purposes for condemning homosexuality…but we’re gonna hold tight to the “facts” of Adam & Eve rolling around naked and innocent as the only 2 humans on earth in a Garden of Eden, the talking snake, the tree in the middle… !!! :whistle:
Click to expand...
But why to be ashamed (because of nudity) after sin? they were still the only 2 people in the world and lived as husband and wife.
 
Please stop hikacking this thread. This thread is about the phrase “sin of the Sodomites”, not about the nature of original sin. If you want to discuss that, please start your own thread.
 
40.png
fix:
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
Click to expand...
Does the Church consider this verse a valid moral law on its own? The article you quote goes on to say

"To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures."

If Lev. 18:22 condemning Homosexuality still stands as authoritative moral teaching in the Catholic Church–what about just a few verses earlier “You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation (Lev. 18:19).” If the former is seen as eternal moral law, isn’t the latter? I’m not trying to play Devil’s Advocate; I’m genuinely curious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top