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

[hope]

I imagine it is because the Catholic Church Says that she remained a virgin. It is a dogma that is refuted to show that the Catholic Church is wrong that is why it matters.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

“I’ve never had a piece of sushi pass my lips”… unless I’d resolved never to eat raw fish.

And?

It’s the same example as yours – saying “I’ve never done that before” doesn’t imply “how could you say that this thing will happen?”… unless I’ve resolved to never have it happen.

No one is prevented from believing Mary and Joseph changed their plans when Christ came along.

Well… no one who’s not a Catholic, I guess. Since 553AD, though, it’s been an official Catholic doctrine.

But that’s beside the point, which is you can’t use Mary’s question to prove she took a vow prior to Gabriel’s visit.

I’m not going to address the “took a vow” part, since I think you’re presuming something akin to the Catholic idea of the order of virgins. However, I will stand firm on the assertion that Mary’s question does imply that she had no intention of ever having relations. The question she asks makes no sense absolutely, otherwise!

I’m sure any woman who is virgin and has yet to enter her bethrothed’s home would ask that question.

Poppycock.

Go up to any engaged Catholic woman and say “wow… ya’ll are gonna have some pretty babies!”, and I guarantee she’s not going to answer, “why, how in the world could that happen?!?”

That response is precisely the reason that the question asks what we say it asks!

Except in this case the woman was only betrothed. So not so stupid now is it?

No, it still is. A betrothed woman would still understand the “birds and the bees”, and would still have a certain set of expectations of her future married life. So, when a person makes a claim about her future, she wouldn’t respond “say what?!? Nah… not happening.”

This is the part that creeps out non-Catholics. Truly, what difference does it make? Why the fixation on virginity? Such a private matter between a couple. Why the obsession with it?

For one thing, it speaks to the fact that she bore no further children. Given that some assert that the “brothers and sisters of the Lord” implies “uterine siblings of Jesus”, that’s a pretty big deal.

It also explains why, from the cross, Jesus gave Mary into the care of an unrelated man (John), which would otherwise be an unconscionable act.

So… yeah. Sufficient reason for wanting to understand the situation, and it has nothing to do with an unhealthy obsession with sex or the presumption that it’s dirty. That’s kinda an unfair charge against Catholics of the modern era, wouldn’t you say?

 

[JMMJ]

So… yeah. Sufficient reason for wanting to understand the situation, and it has nothing to do with an unhealthy obsession with sex or the presumption that it’s dirty. That’s kinda an unfair charge against Catholics of the modern era, wouldn’t you say?

I am just telling you how it is perceived by a lot of people. Doesn’t it bother you that the Church came up with this fantastic story 500+ years after the fact? Seems a little strange, and yes, obsessive about the concept of virginity. I always wonder what will happen when the next story gets told as doctrine.

 

[JimG]

Martin Luther also held to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was only after Protestantism began to splinter that some abandoned the doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

I am just telling you how it is perceived by a lot of people.

Some people “perceive” that Trump won the election. Does that mean that it’s true, or even that it’s a healthy belief to foster? Nope.

Doesn’t it bother you that the Church came up with this fantastic story 500+ years after the fact?

Doesn’t it bother you that this wasn’t something that was invented “500+ years after the fact”, but that’s what you’re willing to believe and assert in public? Scary.

Seems a little strange, and yes, obsessive about the concept of virginity.

Here’s your clue-by-four: the culture of the past tens of millennia was “obsessive about the culture of virginity”. This isn’t a Catholic thing; this is a “human society” thing. Why are you so willing to lay it at the feet of the Church? Do you have a hang up on the Church… are you obsessive about that hang-up?

 

[JMMJ]

Here’s your clue-by-four: the culture of the past tens of millennia was “obsessive about the culture of virginity”. This isn’t a Catholic thing; this is a “human society” thing

But why does it get perpetuated, I guess is my question.

 

[Gorgias]

But why does it get perpetuated, I guess is my question.

You tell me… you’re the one arguing for the perception, right?

To be honest, though, I think it stems from the notion that preconceived notions take on a life of their own, especially when they enter into the status of “conventional wisdom” (you know… the things that “everyone knows are true”, but don’t really have backing once you research them?).

So… everyone knows that “Catholics are hung up on sex”. They can’t point to reasons (or, as in this case, they point to misunderstandings and use their misunderstanding as their argument).

 

[JMMJ]

Well it seems plausible that it is a story with a foundation based on sexual hang ups. No doubt there were plenty of those to go around in earlier times. I am not claiming someone woke up in 500 ad with their story, like a theme paper. It took several hundred years to evolve and build. I am not arguing for a perception. I am just saying it is understandable for this to be a reasonable thought. Just look at the people in this thread debating what did and/or didn’t happen. It may seem normal to Catholics, but to those of us who don’t believe in this part, it seems a stretch to say it matters much in the big scheme of things. And, yes, it does seem obsessive about human, female sexuality.

 

[hope]

Doesn’t it bother you that the Church came up with this fantastic story 500+ years after the fact?

I don’t know where you get 550+ years. The first we have recorded is the Protoevangelium of James written around 150. You don’t find literature that refutes it until after the Protestant reformation which would point to the fact that it was being taught before that date.

 

[JMMJ]

I said 500 years. Which is correct, give or take 100. As I said in my previous post, it was a work in progress for many hundreds of years. It didn’t just happen overnight.

 

[hope]

I said 500 years. Which is correct, give or take 100. As I said in my previous post, it was a work in progress for many hundreds of years. It didn’t just happen overnight.

Doesn’t it bother you that the Church came up with this fantastic story 500+ years after the fact?

You said 500 years it took the Church to come up with this fantastic story. It isn’t a story but fact… You are indicting that it is made up by calling it a “story”. Which you are incorrect. The first mention of Mary being a virgin is in scripture. Jesus being her only son is borne our by Scripture. It didn’t take 500 years. The teaching was from the beginning. What is fantastic is that there are those who have no faith and judge everything on today’s society. They can’t believe that there are those who dedicated themselves to God. 500 years is incorrect.

 

[JMMJ]

Suit yourself. Believe as you will. Plenty of room for multitudes of ideas.

Peace.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Why the fixation on virginity? Such a private matter between a couple. Why the obsession with it?

Nobody cares about what any of the other couples in the Bible did, so it isn’t really how you make it out to be.

 

[Gorgias]

Well it seems plausible that it is a story with a foundation based on sexual hang ups.

Only because our culture has an excessive sensitivity to all matters sexual. This notion is less a reflection on them than it is on us!

No doubt there were plenty of those to go around in earlier times.

You can’t make an assertion on the basis of “well, it seems like it would have been that way”, can you? C’mon now…

I am just saying it is understandable for this to be a reasonable thought.

Even in the face of arguments that show that it came about by virtue of a completely different way?

It may seem normal to Catholics, but to those of us who don’t believe in this part, it seems a stretch to say it matters much in the big scheme of things.

Only when you refuse to consider why it “matters much in the big scheme of things”, and in that context of ignorance, make up your own explanation!

And, yes, it does seem obsessive about human, female sexuality.

And only the Church has that dynamic? Society didn’t / doesn’t?

Suit yourself. Believe as you will. Plenty of room for multitudes of ideas.

Except that only yours is right, especially when it’s based on “maybe’s” and conjectures? C’mon…

(One last thought: you’re saying “500 years”, I suspect, because of the council. If you think that councils just made stuff up, then you’re mistaken. Councils take up topics based on what people have already been talking about and upon a perceived need to formalize existing articles of faith. The fact that a council in the 500’s formalized the teaching doesn’t imply that the teaching didn’t already exist in other, informal contexts.)

 

[MasterXploder7]

My guy, Gorgias, is a straight savage on these forums. Haha!

To be fair though, whenever there is a change in the sexual norms or practices of a person or group then there is likely to be a reaction. I am mostly referring to your really old comment that “society is making an issue of sexuality” (not a direct quote). There is a group in society that is attempting to make a change in the sexual norms by which the society is acustomed which causes a reaction. Society is just the population-at-large and is not the whole group making the push (since christians are also part of society). The reactions within society are just part of the balance of power - since anything that messes with the state of the societal equilibrium will cause a power vacuum and there are plenty of groups that will jump on any opportunity to get more power.

I am not particularly supporting or attacking their efforts in this description I hope. This is just the perspective of a political scientist using his degrees for once. Though this description is hopefully neutered of bias. But I digress from here.

 

[JimG]

Well, yes, there will always be pushback. But sometimes, surprisingly little.
First, normalization of divorce and serial marriage, then of contraception, then of fornication and sodomy and same sex unions, and pornography. Then of transgenderism. More to come. Give it enough time and TV exposure and everyone thinks it’s all just normal. More to come.

 

[Gorgias]

My guy, Gorgias, is a straight savage on these forums. Haha!

You should see me when I’m riled up…

I am mostly referring to your really old comment that “society is making an issue of sexuality” ( not a direct quote ).

Humans – taken individually and taken as a group/society/culture – have always “made an issue of sex”. Always. Even today. (We seem to be much more obsessed with it these days, since the “dawning of the age of Aquarius”, so to speak.). The obsession in the present culture tends to center toward that notion that “anything you want to do, sexually, is OK, merely by virtue of the fact that you want to do it.” (There are exceptions, of course. These tend to gravitate around actions that are seen as criminal – actions with minors, or those that are forced on unwilling participants, etc, etc. However, that’s not a case of the acts themselves, but rather, merely on the circumstances of the act.)

And, what’s really at play here is that there is cultural condemnation awaiting for any who suggest that “anything goes” isn’t an appropriate standard. As a result, when society looks back in history, it condemns those in the past for violating the standards of present culture. (Anachronism, anyone?)

I am not particularly supporting or attacking their efforts in this description I hope. This is just the perspective of a political scientist using his degrees for once.

LOL! I find myself using my undergraduate degree (directly and explicitly, at least) less and less as time marches on!

But, I see what you’re saying. Society – taken as a whole – sets up conventions. Woe to those who cross cultural convention…!

 

[MasterXploder7]

But, I see what you’re saying. Society – taken as a whole – sets up conventions. Woe to those who cross cultural convention…!

I wrote this nice long essay - then I realized I was writing an essay and decided to just make this much shorter comment instead.

I believe the vast majority of people desire a relationship, not outright hedonism.

I also believe that looking at past societal norms with disdain isn’t a terrible thing because it can help keep it fresh in our minds (unless some kid on call of duty 360-no-scopes you and starts screaming all kinds of slurs that would make most people shutter or laugh).

Ultimately, though, Society sets up an equilibrium of some kind - as you said, a Social Convention - and it changes. But just like any Balance of Power: anything (I mean literally anything) that threatens to change that Equilibrium or Social Convention is attacked because no one wants to lose their power (or status). This happens in every aspect of life: business, culture, society, religion, you name it. Once some kind of Equilibrium is established, the powers that be fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

The quintessential example is the soft drink industry and how Coke-Cola and Pepsi basically have something of a competitive Oligopoly on the market with very few other drink producers getting through.

There. Anyone who reads this post will have earned about 1/4th of a degree in Poly Sci (at least in terms of its principals) and had a free lesson in Economics (my other degree).