.What the Bible Really Says on Homosexuality in 5 Quotes. A short article

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnStrachan said:
Isn’t is reasonable to presume that Mary “would” have sex? God did say in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. So why the aversion to Mary having sex with Joseph, enjoying it and bearing more children. Why should their marriage be any different than all the others? I think it stems from the RC churches preoccupation with sex as being impure, unclean and enjoyable.
Click to expand...
The reason that I have been taught is that she was going to remain celibate through some kind of vow - I am not exactly sure what that vow was. Her marriage to Joseph was also somewhat strange (to me) because he was apparently much older. As far as I am aware, Joseph married her despite whatever vow she took to remain a virgin.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is something that is talked about in the Church Fathers (I think).
 
@stpurl, I am sorry but you seem to be very upset at John’s views of Mary. The English translations of the Bible suggest that Mary did not remain a virgin by its use of calling people like James “the brother of Christ” which most people understand literally. When I read those passages years ago and personally interpreted them, I also came to the conclusion that Jesus had literal brothers by birth.

I know Catholics can be attacked for our beliefs on Mary, before I converted I used to attack Catholics for it too. I don’t hold it against them and I hope you wouldn’t either. We are all trying to find our way and we are all trying to trust in what we believe. I just don’t want you to come down hard on someone for that because you’re good at point out people’s arguments like you did with Freddy.
 
Last edited:
MasterXploder7 said:
If I may, @goout and @JohnStrachan, I have personally tried and tried to figure out how contraception is evil.
Click to expand...
When we say something is evil, we recognize that a moral evaluation takes place. And we start by recognizing the good that morality is pointing to. What is the essential good that sexual morality is pointing to?
The good of human existence and flourishing.
It is good in an essential way, for human beings to exist. We share in God’s “I Am” through existing. This is the starting point of morality: recognizing the good.

With that in mind, we see that human beings are made and formed toward this end. The human body “speaks” this goodness in the way we are made. Our bodies are sexually differentiated. That capacity has a meaning and a purpose. And that purpose is bound up with the whole person. The unity of two human beings in this way is an essential good.

Because this good is so essential, and simply “so good”, the misuse of it reflects the gravity of that good. Right? It’s one thing for me to steal your ice cream, it’s another for me to kill you.

I really don’t have time to go further. The sexual faculty deserves respect in it’s form and it’s purpose. Contraception goes against the order, the meaning, the purpose, of human sexuality.

And full disclosure here: I am a male with a vasectomy ok? I struggle with chastity in other ways also, most days of my life. Our failures and weaknesses don’t void our continuing responsibilities. By the grace of God we will do better.
 
Sorry. I thought I spelled your name correctly… I will fix it!
 
goout said:
When we say something is evil, we recognize that a moral evaluation takes place. And we start by recognizing the good that morality is pointing to. What is the essential good that sexual morality is pointing to?
The good of human existence and flourishing.
It is good in an essential way, for human beings to exist. We share in God’s “I Am” through existing. This is the starting point of morality: recognizing the good.
Click to expand...
This is understandable and straightforward. I am beginning to follow.
goout said:
With that in mind, we see that human beings are made and formed toward this end. The human body “speaks” this goodness in the way we are made. Our bodies are sexually differentiated. That capacity has a meaning and a purpose. And that purpose is bound up with the whole person. The unity of two human beings in this way is an essential good.
Click to expand...
There are some things I need to unpack here…
1)Human beings are made with human existence and flourishing in mind.
2)Like all animals, we are created with the organs to be able to do the do.
3)The organs themselves have a purpose - I would say they have multiple.
4)The purpose(s) of the organ is bound up in the whole person… okay beginning to lose me on this part because there are multiple purposes that can be extrapolated from the organ.
5)The unity of two human beings is an essential good? Marriage as unity? Yes, I can see that in the sacraments. But if the issue is doing the do then no, I can’t say that is an essential good.
goout said:
Because this good is so essential, and simply “so good”, the misuse of it reflects the gravity of that good. Right? It’s one thing for me to steal your ice cream, it’s another for me to kill you.
Click to expand...
You lost me here.
goout said:
I really don’t have time to go further. The sexual faculty deserves respect in it’s form and it’s purpose. Contraception goes against the order, the meaning, the purpose, of human sexuality.
Click to expand...
I am sorry.
 
MasterXploder7 said:
If I may, @goout and @JohnStrachan, I have personally tried and tried to figure out how contraception is evil. It is infuriating for me to find someone who talks about it and then shrouds what they have to say in rhetorical words only to have their actual logic fall short for me. I want to understand and when I don’t understand/agree it becomes a mountainous issue. This is almost a tirade but I hope it adds to the conversation even though it is in the first person. (I actually cut out like 4 paragraphs here if either of you are interested in what I had to say, I will post it since its in my clip board and whatever you all have to say may help)
Click to expand...
The argument that makes most sense to me is most medicial treatments have the goal of repairing something malfunctioning in the body. Contraception breaks a working system.
 
Elf01 said:
The argument that makes most sense to me is most medical treatments have the goal of repairing something malfunctioning in the body. Contraception breaks a working system.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. Unfortunately, I don’t particularly see how contraception is breaking anything (depending on the method - a ‘contraceptive’ that causes an abortion/miscarriage very early on is not something I would ever, ever think is okay unless it had some other medical use). I am not trying to belittle your point at all - this just doesn’t congeal with me personally. (EDIT:) I feel obliged to say, I do not want to convince anyone that contraception is okay - if I am wrong, I don’t want to drag others down with me.
 
Last edited:
MasterXploder7 said:
That’s interesting. Unfortunately, I don’t particularly see how contraception is breaking anything (depending on the method - a ‘contraceptive’ that causes an abortion/miscarriage very early on is not something I would ever, ever think is okay unless it had some other medical use).
Click to expand...
I can’t apply it to condoms, but with respect to the pill, a womans body is supposd to produce and release eggs.
 
Elf01 said:
I can’t apply it to condoms, but with respect to the pill, a womans body is supposd to produce and release eggs.
Click to expand...
I see where you were going now!
The pill can help people who have certain conditions or problems. The pill is sometimes also the most stable medicine for certain diseases( meaning it doesnt have horrible side effects if you take it for longer than 6 months).

I will keep my comments about the pill as a contraceptive to myself. I don’t want to say something that may persuade you to a different opinion. I need that to be clear because this is a topic that gets me really upset and I start arguing with myself in my head and I need to remember that this is not about convincing other people - it’s about reaching the truth. Maybe it’s weird I said all that, but maybe that happens when you feel like you can’t talk about it to people without being judged. I don’t know.
 
Some articles on contraception HERE.

But aside from those, I would just note that contraception separates childbearing from marital relations. It separates sex from marriage. Every Protestant denomination firmly opposed it until 1930. The Anglican Communion tried to provide a tiny loophole which will end up destroying Anglicanism. Conraception enabled the sexual revolution and all the evils that followed and which still continue to multiply and to destroy family and civilization.
 
JimG said:
Some articles on contraception HERE.

But aside from those, I would just note that contraception separates childbearing from marital relations. It separates sex from marriage.
Click to expand...
The first is correct. The second is not. Rather obviously I would think.
 
JohnStrachan said:
Third, it’s hard to compel people to play Catholic roulette
Click to expand...
If you’re saying this, then you don’t understand or buy into NFP.

The problem isn’t that NFP is “Catholic roulette”. It’s that people have bought into the notion that “sex on demand, any day of the month” is more respectful to the dignity of spouses than “periodic continence” is. Not to mention that NFP, properly used, is more effective at regulating conception than anything else out there.
JohnStrachan said:
Most people are smart enough to realize that if that were the case, every household would have ten kids
Click to expand...
Only if “open to life” is conflated with "don’t take responsibility for your reproductive decisions.
JohnStrachan said:
Fourth, it doesn’t help that most RC’s - yes even the faithful ones - believe the church just made this stuff up. There is no basis in scripture
Click to expand...
Two thoughts:
  • The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Scripture is the rule of faith and sole font of teaching.
  • If someone complains “that’s not in the Bible” or “that’s a man-made rule”, then the response isn’t “gee, I guess you’re right”, but rather, “you misunderstand how teaching is formed and promulgated in the Catholic Church”.
(In fact, it’s a Protestant, not Catholic, thought that all teaching is only found in the Bible.)
JohnStrachan said:
the church has a huge hang-up on sex and it’s all about control.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that it’s society that has the hang-up on sex, and it’s society that wants to control your ideas about reproduction!
🤔
 
Gorgias said:
When she responded to Gabriel with “Umm… how is that gonna happen to me!!!”…?
Click to expand...
I just had this discussion on another thread. Mary’s question is also due to the fact that her marriage to Joseph is in the bethrothal period. It doesn’t neccesitate a vow.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
Mary’s question is also due to the fact that her marriage to Joseph is in the bethrothal period. It doesn’t neccesitate a vow.
Click to expand...
No. Gabriel doesn’t say “you’re conceiving”, he says – in the future tense! – “you will conceive”. So, even if she’s thinking “I’m only betrothed” – which the narrative doesn’t suggest – nevertheless, the future aspect of the verb still asks us to ask “why did Mary think this couldn’t possibly happen in the future, following the betrothal?”
 
Gorgias said:
No. Gabriel doesn’t say “you’re conceiving”, he says – in the future tense! – “you will conceive”.
Click to expand...
Even though Christian tradition puts this as when Jesus is conceived. :roll_eyes:
Gorgias said:
So, even if she’s thinking “I’m only betrothed” – which the narrative doesn’t suggest
Click to expand...
So a woman asking how she can be pregnant even though she’s betrothed and yet to be with anyone implies a vow. Huge leap.
 
No it is not reasonable. Joseph is a righteous man. Would such a man touch a woman who has carried God? No He wouldn’t have been righteous. Mary is the God Bearer the New Eve the Ark who carried God within her womb. Who would dare touch her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top