D
- Status
B
Brain
Guest
the funny thing is at the end, he tells us that WE are stretching the interpretation of the passage.
D
Digger71
Guest
Well, I do remember about 20 years ago, when one of my friends came out to me that I said “thou hsalt not…”, and he said “you can’t, the plumbing is different”
Read the other pages…they are really interesting.
A
Agricola
Guest
Hmm… yes… interesting…
Unfortunately not very well researched, and stretching what little grounds the conclusions are based on… but interesting.
The problem with this kind of approach to reading the Bible is that whoever wrote these little analyses started out looking for ways to prove that homosexuality is approved of in the Bible.
Oddly enough, the same website that is trying to use the Bible to prove that homosexuality is morally admissable tries to discredit it on a linked page. Normally discrediting your only source is not a good idea, but hey… neither is trying to convince people who have basic reasoning skills that something that goes against nature (“you can’t, the plumbing is different”) is not only admissable, but good.
I pray for the souls of those involved in the publication of the website the OP linked… as well as anyone who has the misfortune to have read it.
God bless,
Agricola
Unfortunately not very well researched, and stretching what little grounds the conclusions are based on… but interesting.
The problem with this kind of approach to reading the Bible is that whoever wrote these little analyses started out looking for ways to prove that homosexuality is approved of in the Bible.
Oddly enough, the same website that is trying to use the Bible to prove that homosexuality is morally admissable tries to discredit it on a linked page. Normally discrediting your only source is not a good idea, but hey… neither is trying to convince people who have basic reasoning skills that something that goes against nature (“you can’t, the plumbing is different”) is not only admissable, but good.
I pray for the souls of those involved in the publication of the website the OP linked… as well as anyone who has the misfortune to have read it.
God bless,
Agricola
B
BlindSheep
Guest
You know, homosexual behavior has been shown to be physically and psychologically unhealthy (yes, even in societies that accept it). A God that encourages people to indulge self-destructive impulses would not be a very loving God, would He?
S
steveandersen
Guest
well I never really thought about it that way but yes he does have a point if you’re one for semantics
what did the Council of Jerusalem say concerning Leviticus?
D
Digger71
Guest
Semantics is an interesting point. I think. I say this because I have to read a lot as part of my work. It has struck me on many occasions that a close reading of a text can radically change the meaning. Even a comma can alter the meaning of a sentence.
What interested me about this site was the attempt to be exact.
In fact, it seems to me the close and careful reading distinctly contradicts what people think it says, in a very legalistic sense. It also strikes me that no-one can actively claim that a strict legalistic reading is incorrect.
Can the homophobic interpretations match it? Or are they moslty based on arm-waving?
B
buffalo
Guest
No one in their right mind can sit back and say God designed procreation the homosexual way. Think about it, if God wanted it that way he would have made another entry way.
D
Digger71
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean, firstly:
“if God wanted it that way he would have made another entry way”
You know the mind of god without flaw?
secondly:
“if God wanted it that way he would have made another entry way”
Remind me of the other use use of the sexual organs…yes, excretion. So no real distinction there.
Thirdly:
“God designed procreation the homosexual way”
Who said he did?
Amusingly…
rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/JesusProGay01.html
B
buffalo
Guest
What I posted is obvious to most reasonable people.
D
Digger71
Guest
Not at all. What you wrote made no sense at all when actually read.
You also didnt answer the questions I asked.
Oh, Have a read of this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1167473&postcount=17
Do you think scripture requires close study?
E
estesbob
Guest
By Homophobic interpretations do you mean the consistent interpertation of this passage as a blunt condemnation of homosexual behavior over the last 2,500 years? Can you tell us what new information has become available that woud overturn the views on this passage expressed by every biblical scholar for the last 2,500 years? Can you reconcile this new ,improved interpreatation with Jewish culture at the time it was written?
D
Digger71
Guest
No I don’t. Because there hasnt been a consistent teaching for that period. That is a myth.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sources?
D
Digger71
Guest
At the very least I can point out that tobeah does not mean abominaton, that Jonothan and David where never condemned, that ‘sodomite’ is a mistranslation, that eunuchs are identfiably the gay peope in the bible as opposed to the quadesh, that the sin of soddom does not refer to homosexuality, and so on.
There is lots of evidence, and it goes back a long, long, way. And it isnt difficult to find. The question is…why havent people done it?
P
Pug
Guest
The thing I found especially odd about the article was the claim about whom has been put to death. It claims the man and some hypothetical woman are being put to death, not the man and the male with whom he had sex. That seems out of keeping with how the other folks are being put to death in the surrounding passages…like the man and the animal or the man and the daughter-in-law.
D
Digger71
Guest
First, lets get a reference from 2500 years ago, and then work forward from that. Might as well take this in turn.
B
buffalo
Guest
At what point do you claim the Catholic Church get it wrong? That is essentially the argument. And why?
D
Digger71
Guest
At what point do you claim our Church is 2500 years old?
Remember the original invocation was for 2500 years of consistent teaching.
E
estesbob
Guest
Nnsense. Both Judaism and the Catholic Church have been unwaverng in their teachings about the sinfullness of homosexual Behavior. The reason, BTW, that there was no condemnation of David and Jonathan is quite simple-they wererent invlolved in a homosexual relationship. This is another of those new improved interpretations that the homosexual lobby has tried to foist on us in the last 30 years or so. The kind of relationship that they had is the same kind I have with my brother. It sad that homosexuals , in their obsession with sex, cant understand that men can love each other deeply without wanting to have sex with each other.
I ask you again-what new evidence has come light that disprorves 2,500 year of teachings on these pasages?
- Status