your opinions on gays

[Elric]

Because their “scholarly” research is suspect. That’s why I mentioned eisegesis (i.e. personal interpretation).

How is their research suspect?

Is it really any less “suspect” than religious scollars?

How so?

There understanding of Scripture and the oral tradition taught to them by the prophets and apostles. If you can find something pro-homosexuality from ancient Judeo-Christian texts, then please provide some info.

When did I suggest that there was something “pro-homosexual”?

That goes well beyond of what I was suggesting.

Here is some info from Catholic Answers regarding the Church Fathers’ statements on homosexuality: catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

That doesnt really help with the issue.

Well, it is a Catholic forum, and Catholics are part of humanity/Christianity… Sorry if I misunderstood. I’m glad you agree that the Catholic Church has consistently been right about slavery…and homosexuality.

Wow you go from defensive to… well rude. It seems that you are not that genuine about this issue.

Well that is your choice, I honestly thought that there was nothing wrong with asking questions and that we should do that with everything and not take things at face value. I guess that must be just me.

 

[rlg94086]

How is their research suspect?

Is it really any less “suspect” than religious scollars?

How so?

Because eisegesis is more subjective than exegesis.

When did I suggest that there was something “pro-homosexual”?

That goes well beyond of what I was suggesting.

I didn’t claim that you suggested it (you are mighty touchy this evening). I brought it up because that is the only way that I would accept any of the faulty reasoning of above-mentioned “scholars.” If there is nothing condoning homosexuality, and Church and Jewish tradition teach that homosexual acts are an abomination, then it is pretty difficult to back up the claims that gay activists are making that Scripture is not speaking against homosexuality.

That doesnt really help with the issue.

Okay. I’m sorry you feel that way.

Wow you go from defensive to… well rude. It seems that you are not that genuine about this issue.

Who is being defensive? You are misreading me if you took my last post as “rude.” I said I was sorry I misunderstood, and I meant that. I assumed falsely that you were lumping Catholics in with humanity/Christianity vis-a-vis slavery. I added the last statement as a light jab (i.e. if you weren’t lumping the Catholic Church in as being wrong on slavery, than I assume you must agree that she is right on slavery). I will remember not to poke fun in that way if you are going to overreact and take every comment I make as rude.

I assure you, I am being very genuine on this issue. I’ve given a lot of thought and read a lot on the subject.

Well that is your choice, I honestly thought that there was nothing wrong with asking questions and that we should do that with everything and not take things at face value. I guess that must be just me.

I don’t take things at face value. I prayerfully study Scripture and Church teaching. I’m sorry if you are so easily offended by someone who doesn’t agree with your assessments. It really doesn’t bother me that you believe the way you do…lots of people are wrong. (oops…there I go being rude again. )

 

[Elric]

Because eisegesis is more subjective than exegesis.

Well what is the difference between the two then?

I didn’t claim that you suggested it (you are mighty touchy this evening).

It was an observation rather than being “mighty touchy this evening”, but you did insinuate that I suggested that by asking what you did.

I brought it up because that is the only way that I would accept any of the faulty reasoning of above-mentioned “scholars.”

So showing that the verse was misquoted or mistranslated or even misrepresented wouldnt be enough for you then. There would have to be a verse actually stating that (when you know very well that there isnt) anal sex is fine.

Im sorry, but I cant follow that logic. could you help me understand?

If there is nothing condoning homosexuality, and Church and Jewish tradition teach that homosexual acts are an abomination, then it is pretty difficult to back up the claims that gay activists are making that Scripture is not speaking against homosexuality.

Why?

This just doesnt make sense.

Okay. I’m sorry you feel that way.

Well its not really your fault.

Who is being defensive? You are misreading me if you took my last post as “rude.” I said I was sorry I misunderstood, and I meant that. I assumed falsely that you were lumping Catholics in with humanity/Christianity vis-a-vis slavery. I added the last statement as a light jab (i.e. if you weren’t lumping the Catholic Church in as being wrong on slavery, than I assume you must agree that she is right on slavery). I will remember not to poke fun in that way if you are going to overreact and take every comment I make as rude.

You see this sort of banter doesnt really help things and just shows that you are not interested in this particular topic. there isnt a need to add these silly remarks (" will remember not to poke fun in that way if you are going to overreact and take every comment I make as rude") because they just serve to distract from the issue being discussed.

I assure you, I am being very genuine on this issue. I’ve given a lot of thought and read a lot on the subject.

Honestly, I dont believe that you have.

I don’t take things at face value.

I cant believe that after reading your statement on how to convince you.

I prayerfully study Scripture and Church teaching. I’m sorry if you are so easily offended by someone who doesn’t agree with your assessments. It really doesn’t bother me that you believe the way you do…lots of people are wrong. (oops…there I go being rude again. )

All you are doing is showing how small minded you can be with these sort of comments. I am really sorry that you refuse to understand that some things are not the way that you first thought and that you feel so defensive when someone raises questions.

It might be an idea for us not to coninue this debacle of a debate with each other, since it seems to be an uncomfortable topic for you.

 

[agangbern]

Gay people dont get a choice in what gender they are attracted to, much like an Autistic person doesnt get a choice in having Autism (unless of course you are suggesting that they do?).

So a gay is like an autistic person. What does society do with autistic persons?

Now how exactly being attracted to your own gender or suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder equates to being “irresponsible of oneself”, I really dont know. That is something that you are going to have to explain.

Well, if your concept of gay is like that, responsibility may not be something to speak of anymore. Just like insanity. Insane individuals are not accountable for their actions.

The asertion of no freedom, well they dont have “freedom” in what gender they are attracted to. They were not given a choice, its like saying that you are free to choose who your parents are. So you would be right (although not in the way that you meant).

Nice comparison. Like saying, “Born a gay.” The problem is, is it true that an individual is gay by birth?

Willpower however isnt an issue in regards to what gender you are attracted to. So that is entirly irrelevent to the discussion and is simply a red herring.

Yes, will power is irrelevant specially when homosexuality is likened to a state of insanity. But the question is: Is it like it?

Less of a person, no that was never suggested by me at all. Being attracted to your own gender does not prevent you from contributing to society in any way, outside influences (mainly other people) prevents that and attempt to make homosexuals feel as thought they are less of a person.

Yes! I never want to believe that homosexuals are less of a person. Contribution to society is not an issue when talking about the value and dignity of a person. Whether or not the person has contribution to society or not, he is valuable as a person.

Lesser than God’s original design for man, well I didnt suggest that either. In fact the response to this is quite similar to the one above, but would also include debate over what Gods percieved original design for man was.

Yes, debate as to God’s original design for man may happen. But this is not a problem among Catholics. For Catholics don’t debate with what the Church unequivocally teaches.

They are simply bringing themselves further down, No that would be other people doing that who dont understand (many through choice) homosexuality. Its much easier to believe that a person has a choice in something when you dont like what that something is, it gives another reason not to like it and involves less thinking, than it is to believe that there is no choice, it makes it harder to dislike the person with that something when they cant help what they have.

“They can’t help what they have.” If this is so, then it is really a pitiful situation. The question is: Is it scientifically true that “they can’t help what they have?” The burden of proof rests upon him who affirms that. Personal opinion alone does not hold water.

 

[Elric]

So a gay is like an autistic person. What does society do with autistic persons?

I really dont understand how you got that from what I wrote, but anyway.

What does society do with auistic people?

Well that varies depending on which part of society you are refering to. Some are open minded about the condition, try to understand it and sperad awareness about it (like the primary school that my son goes to). Others like to riddicule and torment people with the condition and not understand the condition and there are others who portray people with the condition in a negative light and provoke reactions from them.

Much like homosexuality really.

Well, if your concept of gay is like that, responsibility may not be something to speak of anymore. Just like insanity. Insane individuals are not accountable for their actions.

It appears that you know little about insanity or mental illness.

Your statement isnt entirly accurate as there are varying levels of insanity (in fact a popular belief is that everyone is insane to some point, which is one reason why we have humor). But no I dont believe that homosexuality is a form of insanity. Besides, you didnt answer the question.

Nice comparison. Like saying, “Born a gay.” The problem is, is it true that an individual is gay by birth?

According to some theories they are gay from birth (Nearly every testimony that I have seen from homosexuals saying when they first knew that they were gay are “I have always known” or something similar).

Like with Autism (which we dont actually know the cause of or when it sets in), I dont know if it is from birth, conception, during gestation or extremly early in a childs life (ie: the first 2-3 years), but it is a possibility.

Yes, will power is irrelevant specially when homosexuality is likened to a state of insanity. But the question is: Is it like it?

It is not a form of insanity, apparently the only phycological group in the world that believes that is narth. Which doesnt really say a whole lot.

Being attracted to your own gender has nothing at all to do with willpower, choosing not to have sex with someone of the same sex however can involve willpower (same as adultery would). But that is a different thing altogether.

Yes! I never want to believe that homosexuals are less of a person.

Some of the things that you have written would suggest the opposite.

Contribution to society is not an issue when talking about the value and dignity of a person. Whether or not the person has contribution to society or not, he is valuable as a person.

Actually it is an issue. But I was only responding to your asertions that I thought homosexuals were less of a person, basicly I dont believe that at all.

Yes, debate as to God’s original design for man may happen. But this is not a problem among Catholics. For Catholics don’t debate with what the Church unequivocally teaches.

Well they should.

“They can’t help what they have.” If this is so, then it is really a pitiful situation. The question is: Is it scientifically true that “they can’t help what they have?” The burden of proof rests upon him who affirms that. Personal opinion alone does not hold water.

Then I suggest that you have another look through this thread.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

What is really incredible is that the thread hasn’t been shut down yet. This topic is an easy one to get shut down.

As long as people stay charitable and somewhat on-topic, I’ll let most any thread go. Oh, and the content must not be inappropriate for our youngest members – age 13.

Unfortunately, threads are not permitted to exceed 1000 posts. If/when this thread does, it will be closed.

God Bless,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[rlg94086]

Elric:

Quote: Robert
I brought it up because that is the only way that I would accept any of the faulty reasoning of above-mentioned “scholars.”

So showing that the verse was misquoted or mistranslated or even misrepresented wouldnt be enough for you then. There would have to be a verse actually stating that (when you know very well that there isnt) anal sex is fine.

Im sorry, but I cant follow that logic. could you help me understand?

Quote: Robert
If there is nothing condoning homosexuality, and Church and Jewish tradition teach that homosexual acts are an abomination, then it is pretty difficult to back up the claims that gay activists are making that Scripture is not speaking against homosexuality.
Why?

This just doesnt make sense.

The reason a “mistranslated” or “misquoted” text wouldn’t be sufficient, is twofold. First, the original words typically have more than one meaning, so it really doesn’t prove anything. What I have seen claimed (including in one of your posts) is that “it could mean…” Second, Jesus and the apostles were teaching/writing from a particular paradigm - that of 1st Century Jews. If Jesus was teaching something contrary to what the Jews believed, He generally spelled it out or told a parable to get his point across.

As you correctly state, there is no teaching by Jesus or the apostles that reverses what was already understood about homosexual acts - that they are a sin/abomination.

The difference between eisegesis and exegesis is the way in which you approach the text. If you are gay priest who asked to be defrocked because you disagree with the Church on homosexuality (to use one author as an example), you’re particular viewpoints of Scripture regarding homosexuality is going to be a little skewed.

 

[martin_hca]

Actually that is very much open to debate. The holy scripture is most certainly not clear on the topic of homosexuality at all.

…at all?

That is factually incorrect and originates from pro-homosexual apologetics as opposed to objective analysis.

Also fairly decent empirical evidence of your intrinsic bias.

 

[Elric]

…at all?

That is factually incorrect and originates from pro-homosexual apologetics as opposed to objective analysis.

Factually incorrect?

Some of it does indeed originate from pro-homosexual apologetics, its quite true that some gay organisations have their own translators and will try to translate things to their way of thinking. I wont argue that.

But there are others who are neither pro or anti homosexaul that are finding these mistranslations and ambiguities.

Also fairly decent empirical evidence of your intrinsic bias.

Firstly what does “empirical” mean?

secondly, what bias?

 

[Elric]

The reason a “mistranslated” or “misquoted” text wouldn’t be sufficient, is twofold. First, the original words typically have more than one meaning, so it really doesn’t prove anything.

This is actually one of the points that I brought up, some of the the original words do have more than one meaning so the translator works on assumption (which could also include their own bias). Using a different meaning of the ambigous word would completly change the intent of the passage and also adds the possibility that the translator got it wrong.

It doesnt prove anything, but it isnt meant to other than we dont actually know what was meant. That is the point.

As I stated Im not trying to suggest that the bible condones homosexuality just that we dont know what is meant.

What I have seen claimed (including in one of your posts) is that “it could mean…”

There is a very good reason for me stating “it could mean”, that is that I dont know what was meant and really the only person who does know would be the original writer. When you have a word that means several different things (and all the meanings are relevent to the passage and the time it was written about), I can only state that “it could mean” because I dont know.

Second, Jesus and the apostles were teaching/writing from a particular paradigm - that of 1st Century Jews. If Jesus was teaching something contrary to what the Jews believed, He generally spelled it out or told a parable to get his point across.

Thats true, and he also reaffirmed a couple of things as well.

As you correctly state, there is no teaching by Jesus or the apostles that reverses what was already understood about homosexual acts - that they are a sin/abomination.

Actually only male to male anal sex was mentioned (if you go by the meaning that was taken), there was no mention of lesbians or other male to male sexual acts.

The difference between eisegesis and exegesis is the way in which you approach the text. If you are gay priest who asked to be defrocked because you disagree with the Church on homosexuality (to use one author as an example), you’re particular viewpoints of Scripture regarding homosexuality is going to be a little skewed.

Well then both sides would be guilty of that when you look at the different translations of the bible (eg: King James, NIV ect.).

But not everyone who questions the translations is like your gay priest example, although there are plenty who are like that and are trying to serve their own self interest. This is one of the reasons why it is a concern.

 

[blessedtoo]

Actually only male to male anal sex was mentioned (if you go by the meaning that was taken), there was no mention of lesbians or other male to male sexual acts.

But not everyone who questions the translations is like your gay priest example, although there are plenty who are like that and are trying to serve their own self interest. This is one of the reasons why it is a concern.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
Romans 1:26

You continue to assert that Scripture is ambiguous on the issue of homosexuality and that translations leave room for questions yet you have provided zero proof for your claim. Most of us are familiar with the dissenting opinions and would welcome a chance to refute them. If you are basing your “opinions on gays” on these newly discovered interpretations that have been used to justify all kinds of homosexual behavior, perhaps you would be open-minded enough to consider the wisdom of ALL the world’s great religions on this subject. Perhaps another thread?

 

[rlg94086]

This is actually one of the points that I brought up, some of the the original words do have more than one meaning so the translator works on assumption (which could also include their own bias). Using a different meaning of the ambigous word would completly change the intent of the passage and also adds the possibility that the translator got it wrong.

It doesnt prove anything, but it isnt meant to other than we dont actually know what was meant. That is the point.

As I stated Im not trying to suggest that the bible condones homosexuality just that we dont know what is meant.

There is a very good reason for me stating “it could mean”, that is that I dont know what was meant and really the only person who does know would be the original writer. When you have a word that means several different things (and all the meanings are relevent to the passage and the time it was written about), I can only state that “it could mean” because I dont know.
…
Well then both sides would be guilty of that when you look at the different translations of the bible (eg: King James, NIV ect.).

The problem with your reasoning is that it assumes we dug up Scripture, unseen for thousands of years, and tried to determine what it says. That is not the case. Mosaic law was handed down through a priesthood, and were witnesses to Jesus’ teaching. There would be evidence of a different understanding of his teaching from Church fathers and other writings much earlier, if that were the case. So, that may work for Protestants, but it won’t work for Catholics.

Elric:

Actually only male to male anal sex was mentioned (if you go by the meaning that was taken), there was no mention of lesbians or other male to male sexual acts.

This may also elude to it:
Romans 1:

25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

Elric:

But not everyone who questions the translations is like your gay priest example, although there are plenty who are like that and are trying to serve their own self interest. This is one of the reasons why it is a concern.

No, but I think it is fair to say that everyone who has come up with these interpretations have done so recently and approached the Scripture with a modern, relativisitic mindset.

 

[martin_hca]

Factually incorrect?

Some of it does indeed originate from pro-homosexual apologetics, its quite true that some gay organisations have their own translators and will try to translate things to their way of thinking. I wont argue that.

But there are others who are neither pro or anti homosexaul that are finding these mistranslations and ambiguities.

Irrelevant to my observation that what you wrote, “The holy scripture is most certainly not clear on the topic of homosexuality at all.” if taken at face value, is factually incorrect.

If the statement was made intentionally it is deceitful and if done accidentally still reveals a combination of bias and illiteracy. A marked propensity to regurgitate and defend propaganda and opinion held primarily by pro-homosexual advocates denotes and illustrates overwhelming evidence of obvious bias.

Do you claim that you are unbiased?

Do you insist that there literally occurs “no clear” mention of homosexuality in scripture?

Would you care to list a single “neither pro or anti homosexual” others you refer to?

 

[rlg94086]

Elric,

It looks like servus has started a thread right up your alley:
Homosexuality and the Church/ Bible

Since this new thread is very specific to the questions you are posing, I recommend the line of argument be picked up there. It is just in time, because this thread is nearing its end (at 1000 posts, it will be closed).

 

[Elric]

You continue to assert that Scripture is ambiguous on the issue of homosexuality and that translations leave room for questions yet you have provided zero proof for your claim. Most of us are familiar with the dissenting opinions and would welcome a chance to refute them. If you are basing your “opinions on gays” on these newly discovered interpretations that have been used to justify all kinds of homosexual behavior, perhaps you would be open-minded enough to consider the wisdom of ALL the world’s great religions on this subject. Perhaps another thread?

Actually I dont base my “opinion on gays” from this, it would be a bit silly to do that when I dont actually know what the exact meaning is.

My opinion, which is basically indifference, has been that way long before I found out about this issue with scripture and is/was seperate to this.

 

[Alisa]

What you would share with them however, is not merely an opinion, it is Truth, and it must be proclaimed. We cannot hoard such a beautiful treasure to ourselves. If we truly love one another, we will share the Truth (not force it upon others though, as love also is about free will) in the most loving way we can. I really do ask you to pray over this, and if nothing else, just pray that they will seek to love God more and more perfectly every day.

I know that you know your family better than I do. Please do not be led to believe that I would presume I know what is the best way to share the Gospel with them. I am only so adamant on this issue because I know about it personally. I will not say anymore though. Peace be with you, and God bless!

 

[Alisa]

Oops, this may come out funny because I didn’t go through the proper sequence of posting!

I wanted to comment on “Truth”. What God has revealed as Truth to us doesn’t necessarily mean what He has revealed to others is not also a sort of Truth.

The way I see it is – if somebody asks me to explain what I consider to be the truth, I will gladly do so. I just don’t believe in thrusting what I consider true on others who feel differently than I --other than by setting a good example.

 

[urban-hermit]

Dear Alisa,

Thank you for your honest post - I see we are “neighbors” here in Seattle.

I am a 44-yr-old, predominantly homosexual man who started abiding by the Church’s moral teachings with regard to homosexuality about 6 years ago. So I understand what your family members go through in struggling with church and societal issues. It isn’t easy to feel that you “belong”. I wonder if that is because of church and society? or if perhaps it is because of the nature of homosexuality itself? Even in San Francisco and NYC, cities I have enjoyed living in, gays tend to segregate themselves in order to feel a sense of acceptance. You have to wonder why, right? It simply cannot be only attributed to “homophobia” (whatever that means).

You are Greek Orthodox, but I believe the moral teachings are the same as Catholicism with regard to homosexuality. Moral teachings exist to help us discern what is good .vs. bad, right .vs. wrong. Why does our Christian faith say homosexual practices are sinful? Is it just an arbitrary historical custom? Or is there something essential to homosexual activity which is contradictory to the well-being of the individual and of society?

I think the main problem in dealing with the answers to these questions at the practical level is that there is not that much to offer homosexuals in the way of alternatives, even after they accept that it is best to live chastely. My personal testimony is that it is well worth it, but it only appears so after you have lived chastely for a while and embraced it for the right reason: to be closer to God. What could be better than that, in the long run?

The only other thing I wanted to point out is that there are many non-religious homosexuals who end up celibate anyway. Like me, they find that homosexual activity simply is not a net enhancement for their lives, that it brings more suffering than pleasure, or may simply lose its appeal as time goes on. Most homosexuals encounter this if they live long enough. The problem is that many are destroyed by homosexual activity itself in some way, even in this temporal realm, either physically or emotionally, before they can come to that realization. These are some reasons you might want to consider exploring ways to support those you love while refraining from encouraging their homosexuality. God be with you!

 

[Elric]

Irrelevant to my observation that what you wrote, “The holy scripture is most certainly not clear on the topic of homosexuality at all.” if taken at face value, is factually incorrect.

No it isnt. If it was, then there wouldnt be claims of ambiguity.

If the statement was made intentionally it is deceitful and if done accidentally still reveals a combination of bias and illiteracy.

Excuse me?

You are going to have to explain those comments.

A marked propensity to regurgitate and defend propaganda and opinion held primarily by pro-homosexual advocates denotes and illustrates overwhelming evidence of obvious bias.

Really?

How so?

Do you claim that you are unbiased?

In regards to this particular issue, yes. Remember, I am not actually stating that homosexuality is ok according to the bible.

Do you insist that there literally occurs “no clear” mention of homosexuality in scripture?

There wasnt, because that term was created in the 19th century.

Would you care to list a single “neither pro or anti homosexual” others you refer to?

Rabbi Gershon Caudill.

 

[Alisa]

I wasn’t trying to say that torturing animals is the same as homosexual acts; however, they are both mortal sins. What about polygamy? That certainly is closer to homosexual acts. Would you tolerate polygamy?

If anything, RLG94086, the Greek Orthodox Church is even more strict and conservative about things like homosexuality. I guess you must have checked out my profile to see what kind of person would be “soft” on the “sins” of others.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Alisa