The Purpose of Marriage

[inocente]

inocente

**How very convenient for heteros to freely engage in exactly the same sodomist acts while only the tiny minority of homosexuals are condemned. **

I Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Paul does not distinguish here between heterosexual and homosexual sodomites. It is clear that all sodomy is condemned. Do you agree?

We were discussing Romans 1. It was you who introduced it. Let’s finish with Romans 1 first before we jump around. You’ve not yet made your case that my analysis is wrong when Romans 1-2:16 is read as a whole in context.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**We were discussing Romans 1. It was you who introduced it. Let’s finish with Romans 1 first before we jump around. You’ve not yet made your case that my analysis is wrong when Romans 1-2:16 is read as a whole in context. **

We were talking about Paul’s views on sodomy. Anything Paul said is relevant to our discussion.

But since the question arose whether you oppose that view of Paul’s, here is another view in Jude. Do you oppose that view against sodomy?

Jude: 5-7
"Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Then of course there is always Genesis 19 to fall back on.

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

Paul was certainly not alone in condemning sodomy.

do you believe that Genesis, Jude, and Paul are all right or wrong?

 

[1AugustSon7]

Thanks for your response, however your theory doesn’t quite work.

One problem is that Paul says “For although they knew God”. But atheists do not know God,

This is not the position of the Scriptures:

Ps. 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Sound familiar? Notice that it is the whole human race and not just Jews or believers (“upon the children of men”). Sounds a lot like the argument and charge that Saint Paul is making in his letter to the Romans. Moreover, Saint Paul’s position was also made clear, basing himself no doubt in part on Wis 13:5, when to the Christian Romans he writes:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

The Scriptures consistently argue that God can be know from and through His works or through Creation.

pagans do not know God, in fact the only people who could be said to know God were Jews and Christians. These Jews and Christians must have renounced their faith, possibly blaspheming against the Spirit, since they “neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” and they “became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles”.

This is ridiculous inocente. Saint Paul is not talking about Jews or Christians in Romans 1; he is talking to them. I am not surprised that in order to dismiss or excuse the most abominable perversions and vices it requires an equally perverted interpretation of the Scriptures.

None of that applies to atheists or pagans, they never knew or glorified God to start with and so from Paul’s point of view didn’t become foolish but always were.

Another problem is that Paul says because these people “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles”, “therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires”.

So they first of all became idolaters and then it was God, not them, who gave them over to sinful desires. Then “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts” - again God does it, not them.

Are you seriously trying to blame God for sexual perversions? You scarcely need to appeal to God to see how these vices follow logically from forsaking God and the just order of Creation and justice itself or from forsaking conscience and reason. It hardly requires immediate divine intervention for an error to bear its logical fruits.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The purpose of marriage is to join a man and a woman together. If that were not its sole purpose, if joining a man and a man together or a woman and a woman together were its purpose, our Lord would certainly have endorsed such an idea of marriage and conferred upon it the sacramental integrity that marriage has always contained. But that would have been to confer sacramental integrity on an essentially sodomite relationship. It’s simply inconceivable that Christ would have done so.

In the history of the world (at least up until the present) only sex-crazed Roman emperors have opened up the idea of marriage as a mating of any two people other than a man and a woman.

Now that insanity has swept through Western Civilization. Why?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Okay, when I read your text I read it with the following qualifier in mind.

The purpose of [sacramental] marriage is to join a man and a woman together…]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Any Christian who reads same-sex marriage into the Scriptures should consider advice from the Prince of the Apostles:

“as also in all his (St. Paul’s) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” [2 Pet 3:15-16]

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation; for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” [2 Pet 1:20-21]

That is, we are not “free and competent” on our own to interpret Scripture, lest that lead to our own destruction.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking
**
The purpose of [sacramental] marriage is to join a man and a woman together…**

Every culture I know of, from deep in the jungles of Africa to Rome, has regarded marriage as a sacred relationship.

Love is always sacred (sacramental). There is nothing sacred about sodomy. It is unnatural and destructive of our well being, both physical and spiritual.

The universal horror of it is well documented. Two famous instances of that horror.

From The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799; John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:
Quote:
Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. [Emphasis in the original]
memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/…+@lit(gw110081)

A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments by Thomas Jefferson
1778Papers 2:492–504

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For anybody interested, there is a two hour documentary on St. Peter this evening on EWTN.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Every culture I know of, from deep in the jungles of Africa to Rome, has regarded marriage as a sacred relationship.

Love is always sacred (sacramental).

It’s nice when love is a part of a marriage. Though it’s not a requirement. Even in the modern world there are examples of this (I previously mentioned a room mate and an arranged marriage). It’s presence also doesn’t make a marriage meet the requirements of a sacramental marriage*.

• • “sacrament” as in the context of CCC 1210

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It’s presence also doesn’t make a marriage meet the requirements of a sacramental marriage.*

I think you have not brushed up on Catholic theology.

I said love was sacramental, not a sacrament. I was using the word as an adjective, not as a noun. Sacraments bring us closer to God. So does love.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think you have not brushed up on Catholic theology.

It’s a work in progress.

I said love was sacramental, not a sacrament. I was using the word as an adjective, not as a noun. Sacraments bring us closer to God. So does love.

Okay, that’s fine. I don’t intend to challenge that or what you have to say about sacramental marriage. Only that not all marriages are sacramental.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking
**
Okay, that’s fine. I don’t intend to challenge that or what you have to say about sacramental marriage. Only that not all marriages are sacramental. **

I don’t dispute that. Some marriages are hell.

But love surely is sacramental.

 

[mek42]

**We were discussing Romans 1. It was you who introduced it. Let’s finish with Romans 1 first before we jump around. You’ve not yet made your case that my analysis is wrong when Romans 1-2:16 is read as a whole in context. **

We were talking about Paul’s views on sodomy. Anything Paul said is relevant to our discussion.

But since the question arose whether you oppose that view of Paul’s, here is another view in Jude. Do you oppose that view against sodomy?

Jude: 5-7
"Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same Manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Then of course there is always Genesis 19 to fall back on.

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

Paul was certainly not alone in condemning sodomy.

do you believe that Genesis, Jude, and Paul are all right or wrong?

The sin of Sodom was rape. Maybe sodomy should be taken to be rape throughout the Bible.

 

[inocente]

**We were talking about Paul’s views on sodomy. Anything Paul said is relevant to our discussion.

But since the question arose whether you oppose that view of Paul’s, here is another view in Jude. Do you oppose that view against sodomy?

Jude: 5-7
"Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Then of course there is always Genesis 19 to fall back on.

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

Paul was certainly not alone in condemning sodomy.

do you believe that Genesis, Jude, and Paul are all right or wrong?**
Not surprised you didn’t quote the next verse, where Lot says “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.”

Then later, after he offered his virgin daughters for gang rape, the daughters get Lot drunk and have incest with him.

And these are the family values you hold out as a paragon of virtue?

You also omitted Lev 20:13 ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

When you guys start asking for the death penalty, as the bible demands, you can lecture others on what the bible says, otherwise you’re just picking the bits you like and ignoring all the other bits you don’t.

 

[inocente]

This is not the position of the Scriptures:

Ps. 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Sound familiar? Notice that it is the whole human race and not just Jews or believers (“upon the children of men”). Sounds a lot like the argument and charge that Saint Paul is making in his letter to the Romans. Moreover, Saint Paul’s position was also made clear, basing himself no doubt in part on Wis 13:5, when to the Christian Romans he writes:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

The Scriptures consistently argue that God can be know from and through His works or through Creation.

But what has that to do with Paul saying "“For although they knew God”?

This is ridiculous inocente. Saint Paul is not talking about Jews or Christians in Romans 1; he is talking to them. I am not surprised that in order to dismiss or excuse the most abominable perversions and vices it requires an equally perverted interpretation of the Scriptures.

Of course Paul is writing to his church. Doesn’t change one jot of he wrote though.

Are you seriously trying to blame God for sexual perversions? You scarcely need to appeal to God to see how these vices follow logically from forsaking God and the just order of Creation and justice itself or from forsaking conscience and reason. It hardly requires immediate divine intervention for an error to bear its logical fruits.

What, so when Paul says “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts” and “God gave them over to shameful lusts” and “God gave them over to a depraved mind”, he really means “God did not give them over” and “God did not give them over” and “God did not give them over”?

Then do you reckon God had nothing to do with anything and Paul should instead have written “blind forces gave them over” or “simple logic gave them over”? Why didn’t he say that then instead of saying God gave them over?

You must have accidentally forgotten the last part of my post: Paul says these people, every gay and lesbian according to you, “have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

Notice, past tense, it’s already happened, according to you every gay and lesbian have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

So how do you explain Paul saying that about the sixteen year old girl sitting next to you in Mass, or the middle aged business man sat in front of you?

How do you explain Paul not including child rapists, axe murderers, drug dealers, guys who walk into schools and randomly shoot everyone in sight? How come he doesn’t include anyone who is actually visibly and palpably evil, but only gays and lesbians, only the sixteen year old girl sitting next to you in Mass and the middle aged business man sat in front of you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mek

The sin of Sodom was rape. Maybe sodomy should be taken to be rape throughout the Bible.

Where do you see the word rape? Is that a word you are “free and competent” to make up to describe the account in Genesis? They asked Lot to bring the men to them. They told Lot they wanted to have sex with them. Does that sound like rape or does it sound like an invitation to party? Again, point to the word “rape” in that passage. Thank you.

**When you guys start asking for the death penalty, as the bible demands, you can lecture others on what the bible says, otherwise you’re just picking the bits you like and ignoring all the other bits you don’t. **

It seems you have already done that because you are “free and competent” to do so.

Lot having sex with his daughters was when he was inebriated. They had sex with him. Not my idea of family values by any means. Just the way it happened. I don’t think the Bible is inculcating father-daughter incest as a family value for the readers of the Bible. But of course, you think you are “free and competent” to read it any way you like.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

What, so when Paul says “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts” and “God gave them over to shameful lusts” and “God gave them over to a depraved mind”, he really means “God did not give them over” and “God did not give them over” and “God did not give them over”?

Excuse me, are you saying that Paul is saying God is evil?

Is this another one of your “free and competent” readings?

 

[inocente]

inocente

What, so when Paul says “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts” and “God gave them over to shameful lusts” and “God gave them over to a depraved mind”, he really means “God did not give them over” and “God did not give them over” and “God did not give them over”?

Excuse me, are you saying that Paul is saying God is evil?

Is this another one of your “free and competent” readings?

Excuse me, does Paul not say “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts” and “God gave them over to shameful lusts” and “God gave them over to a depraved mind”?

Is this another one of your “let’s not actually read what it says” readings?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Is this another one of your “let’s not actually read what it says” readings? **

So you are insisting that we have no free will and God is evil because He forces people to commit sodomy?

If you are not saying this, exactly what are you saying?

 

[inocente]

So you are insisting that we have no free will and God is evil because He forces people to commit sodomy?

If you are not saying this, exactly what are you saying?

My this is unnecessarily difficult. Rather than being derisory about Baptists for actually reading the bible and actually trying to understand what is meant, why not try it?

Read what Paul actually says. In you bible, does he say “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts” (verse 24) and “God gave them over to shameful lusts” (verse 26) and “God gave them over to a depraved mind” (verse 28)?

Unless St Paul is a raving bigot he’s not obviously not talking about the sixteen year old lesbian girl sat next to you in Mass or the middle aged gay business man sat in front of you. He is obviously not saying that those Catholics sitting in Mass “have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

If you want to argue that Paul is talking about that sixteen year old Catholic and the the middle aged Catholic then please make your case as to why he would say such things only about homosexuals alone and not about hetero sodomists, or rapists, axe murderers, drug dealers or anyone else who is actually palpably evil.