Homosexuality -- where is it?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Where in the New Testament is a piece on homosexuality--I can't find it. I am not looking for Leviticus in the Old Testament because it sort of defeats my cause when it talks about it being ok to buy slaves from another country and buying back relatives. It has to be in the New Testament, but where? Ellen
-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), June 19, 2001Answers
See if Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10 or 1 Tim 1:10 help. By the way there is nothing wrong with buying the release of a captive held as a slave.
-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 19, 2001.hi Bro. Rich- you are so pithy. What does SFO stand for anyway? I probably ought to know this already....Jane
-- jane (janeulrich80@hotmail.com), June 19, 2001.Br. Rich's answer was of course very good, and, as Jane said, very pithy. I had a post I was working on regarding this subject, a while back, and I figured it might help to post it here.Jesus taught heterosexuality: "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female ... and the two shall become one?" (Mt 19:4-5; Mk 10:6-7)
St. Paul, writing Scripture, calls homosexuality a grave sin:
"Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor *homosexuals*, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
The Bible also teaches that if you don't know something's wrong, and you do it, you are less accountable, and so we have hope for the salvation of anyone, including those who commit homosexual acts. To be damned, they have to fully know it is wrong, and do it with full consent, and not repent.
St. Paul condemns homosexuality again in his letter to the Romans, and includes lesbianism:
"God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27)
St. Paul again teaches against homosexuality, "'...understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, **sodomites**, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine' (1 Tm 1: 9-10)." Professor Romano Penna, in his article "Christian Anthropology and Homosexuality," writes about this verse, "The Greek word in question, arsenokoitai, which the RSV translates differently each time (respectively 'homosexuals' and 'sodomites'), is in fact a neologism that literally means 'males who sleep together'." [End quotation]
Regarding slavery in the OT, it was a temporrary (6-year) servant status entered into in order to pay off a debt, where the servant had many legal safeguards, and, at the end of the term, had to be sent off by the "master" with bounteous posessions. It had nothing in common with enslavement of Africans.
-- Chris B -- June 19, 2001.I just ran across a point of interest I thought I'd add to this thread, given the discussion here. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 123. "Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). "
-- Chris B (chrisB48@hotmail.com), June 20, 2001.Chris, you quoted,The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).
If it would interest you, I think this would make an interesting thread in itself, as to some extent, Christ's teaching does (for me) invalidate OT teaching. For example, in Mark 10:
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'[1] 7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[2] 8 and the two will become one flesh.'[3] So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
I guess what I'm getting at is that while we may "respect" the OT, would you say that there is EVER a case that an OT teaching would supercede that of Christ's teaching? I don't believe so, and so would say that while we haven't *technically* rendered the OT invalid, it must take a definitely inferior role to the NT. How would this be different than Marcionism (if in any case the NT speaks it assumes priority over the OT)?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 21, 2001.Frank raises a good question, Id be interested in Mr Bs response as the OT is something many people struggle with, not only in terms of contridicting the NT but the clash with modern science.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 28, 2002.The thread in response to Frank's question ishere.
-- Chris B -- July 28, 2002.
-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.com), December 01, 2003
John is ''restoring threads'' like this hoping to saturate the forum and chasing away folks like this poor benighted woman. Instead, he'll have her replying to each and every one of his restorations. He's proliferating her useless tripe! --Good going, John!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.
CCC 123. "Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). "That's a pretty week confession! We say:
We believe that the entire Bible is Christ-centered. In the Old Testament God repeatedly promised a divine deliverer from sin, death, and hell. The New Testament proclaims that the promised deliverer has come in the person of Jesus of Mazareth. Jesus himself says of the Old Testament, "These are the Scripures that testify about me." (John 5:39)
-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.
"A week [sic] confession?"Read it again. It says exactly the same thing you yourself just professed - that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. Which is why the Catholic Church, which defined the Bible in the first place, would never take the liberty of later removing parts of it. Of course we would have no reason to, since nothing in scripture conflicts with any of our beliefs.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2003.
No it doesnt! Yours doesnt say that the entire Bible is Christ Centered. It says that it is the true word of God but doesn't say it is holy and INERRANT! Of course because you don't believe these things! It is familliar jargan from "Liberal Christianity". Churches such as ELCA the PCUA the UCC and other denominations that say the Bible was "inspired" by God. Sounds good until you realize what they AREN'T saying! You aren't saying that it is holy and inerrant! (that is without errors). The entire Bible is CHRIST- CENTERED! From the very beginning in Genesis 3 God had a plan of salvation for man and promises to send a deliverer from sin. In Genesis 3 he promises that the decendant of Eve would crush the serpent's head!
-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.
Of course the Bible is inerrant. We know that by the infallible pronouncement of the Holy Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century. Unfortunately, your interpretations of the inerrant Bible are not infallible, which is why your tradition continues to divide and subdivide into more and more unauthorized denominations, over disagreements about scriptural interpretation. There is no faster road to heresy than an inerrant book in the hands of fallible interpreters. Which is why Christ founded One Holy Apostolic Universal Infallible Church - so that people could KNOW the truth, and not have to GUESS at the truth by privately interpreting a book of early Catholic writings.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2003.
I only read the first line of your post. "Of course the Bible is inerrant." Then why is there a thread on this board saying that God made the world through evolution, where the book of Genesis is reduced to a myth? Why is there a thread saying that the roles that God created for men and women were only intended for certain periods of time and have no authority over us today?I challenge you to find me even ONE quote from the Pope your catechism any bishop anything that says that the Bible is inerrant. The truth of the matter is that you use the liberal historical- critical method of biblical interpretation. We use the historical- gramatical method. Your (the same method used by heretics such as Marcus Botg et others from "The Jesus Seminar") says that the bible "contains" the Word of God but is not inerrant. Mine says that the Bible is inerrant and infallable.
-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmil.com), December 02, 2003.
sorry should have read the whole thing!1) WE DON'T interpret the Bible on our own. We allow the Bible to interpret itself.
From the WELS pamplet "This We Believe" http://www.wels.net/s3/uploaded/4421/eng.pdf
We believe and accept the Bible on its own terms, accepting as factual history whta the presents as history and recognizing as furtative speech what is evident as such. We believe that Scripturea must interpret Scripture, clear passages throwing light on those less easily understood. We believe that no authority-whether it is human reason, science, or scholoarship- may stand in judgment over Scripture. Sound scholarship with faithfully search out the true meaning os Scripture without presuming to pass judgment on it.
-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.
You're simply wrong. Is that clear? --When you decided to employ these methods of biblical study, you abandoned Christ's apostles. Only they are able to verify any passage from scripture without any possibility of error. They ordained their successors in the Catholic Church as our continuing and evelasting authority; whether for Bible interpreting or any other teaching of faith and morals. Christ Himself gave them that responsibility, and sent to them the Holy Spirit, Paraclete of the Church. For that reason, the Church speaks infallibly on every aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No other person or persons can!Your styles of biblical discernment are without value and actually lead you AWAY from all the truth. The Bible was never intended to respond with clarity because ''clear passages [throw]ing light on those less easily understood''.
The Church is our only definitive authority. Christ strictly charged her with that responsibility.
Christ never founded your church, and He never gave you ANY Bible. Your sects usurped it from the rightful Teacher.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.
"I challenge you to find me even ONE quote from the Pope your catechism any bishop anything that says that the Bible is inerrant."From the same Catechism (CCC) from which Jejune Jeanie quoted:
"#105-107 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more. The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."As the song goes (sort of), "I dream of Jeanie with the dark red face" ("red" with embarrasment at having challenged Catholics and having made to eat humble pie again, and as always).
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.
"John is 'restoring threads' like this hoping to saturate the forum and chasing away folks like this poor benighted woman. Instead, he'll have her replying to each and every one of his restorations. He's proliferating her useless tripe!"We definitely won't be calling you "Eu-genius," mindless little man.
Anyone with a lick o' sense would have noticed that "John" has tried to get the moderator to ban "this poor benighted woman." He certainly wouldn't be feeding her. But Eugene doesn't have a lick o' sense. He only seeks to exercise Nero-like control over the actions of every person at the forum (except himself, who is totally out of control).
Anyone with a lick o' sense would, by now, have read, understood, and accepted as reasonable, the only motivation for the restoration of threads: the fact that between 500 and 1100 threads were illicitly deleted, including many thousands of messages by a hundred or more different contributors -- among which are many hundreds of messages that will be helpful to lurkers/browsers/researchers in days to come, but ONLY IF THEY ARE RESTORED. This even includes a few good posts from someone who then deserved to be called "Eugenius," but who now deserves only to kiss my keister.
-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.Com), December 02, 2003.
I'll take that little hissy fit as your formal confession of playing ''thread restorer''. If you had enough guts to post by the name your parents gave you, it might have obliged me to exercise more charity. But you haven't.I've drawn the obvious conclusion that: since nothing was availed you insisting some senders to our forum be summarily banned, you simply have an aim of burying their posts under the sheer weight of many long-forgotten and worn-out threads. You see that many people are going to contribute to them out of force of habit. Nobody asked you to ''restore'' anything, Keister. You did it for selfish interests.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.
With John being the Thread Restorer, doesn't he violate the forum rules of posting under two different names in the same thread?
-- ~ (justwondering@question.com), December 02, 2003.
JmjHello, Turkey #1 (also known as Eugene C. Chavez).
You wrote: "I'll take that little hissy fit as your formal confession of playing 'thread restorer.' If you had enough guts to post by the name your parents gave you, it might have obliged me to exercise more charity. But you haven't."
What I wrote was not a "hissy fit," but a most appropriate reprimand of a very naughty little boy -- you.
"Enough guts," you said? As I told you above, you don't have a "lick o' sense." If you had been paying attention to this forum for the last three weeks, instead of guzzling martinis (or whatever the heck else was distracting you), you would have known that I openly stated the following -- under my name, John Gecik:
1. That I wanted to restore the deleted threads.
2. That, after restoring one, I had decided not to restore any more unless the forum took a new direction -- with an end to the useless, unending debates on certain topics.Therefore, Grandpa McCoy, I expected EVERYONE, including you, to realize immediately that "The Thread Restorer" was yours truly! My use of "TTR/T@R.com" was not a deception, but something I openly chose to do to indicate permanently that a thread had been restored -- something that would not be readily seen if I signed my own name and e-mail address instead!
[Are you starting yet, sir, to see what a fool you have been in attacking me? How do you think I feel about having to waste all this time telling off a goofball like you? Yes, that's right. You have made me extremely angry, jerk-butt! You had better learn a lesson from this, and NEVER AGAIN attack me on this forum, because you cannot win. I will always rip your ridiculous attacks to shreds.]
"I've drawn the obvious conclusion that [blah-bull-blah]"
Knucklehead, such a thing could be "obvious" only to you, in the strange state of paranoia or hatred in which you find yourself. Every sane person here knew -- either from having read my open statement about restoring threads, a few weeks ago, or just by logical deduction -- that what I was doing was not only harmless, but helpful, and was not intended to have anything whatsoever to do with folks I formerly wanted banned.
Dunce, you don't even seem to realize that I started restoring multiple threads only 3 or 4 days ago -- which was a few days AFTER the moderator had forbidden any more useless debates on certain old topics. The point is that your asinine accusation is proved totally baseless -- i.e., your charge that I started restoring threads to disrupt those people. Besides the fact that those people had already been silenced on certain topics [which made me stop calling for their banning!], I have now twice explained to you how my restoring has not been intended to be disruptive (or "burying") to anyone! The threads go to the "unanswered" queue AND I DO NOT TOP THEM. But STILL you whine and fail to accept the facts. What a humongous, bawling infant you are!
You whined: "Nobody asked you to 'restore' anything, Keister. You did it for selfish interests."
Oh, what a tom-turkey you are, keister-kisser! Since when does anyone have to "ask" me to do anything? Oh, I get it. This is just another example of your being a control freak! If YOU had asked me to restore threads, THEN it would have been O.K.. You are one extremely sick maniac, stating that it is "for selfish reasons" that I have begun the process of sacrificing hundreds of hours of my free time! And you would make this charge even after I have explained to you the simple, logical, ACTUAL reasons for my restoration of improperly deleted threads. At this point, I have to wonder who is sicker -- the "mad deleter" or you.
Hello, Turkey #2 (also known as "justwondering").Don't you think that, before you accuse someone of violating a rule, you should find out what the rule actually says?
Read this, if you are able:
"Also, posting with two different handles on the same thread in order to make it look like several people agree with your point of view is deceitful and therefore unacceptable."So, your stupid charge fails in two ways:
1. As I explained to your fellow turkey, above, everyone was expected to know that I and "The Thread Restorer" are one and the same -- since I openly announced my intention to restore threads -- so there simply could have been no deception involved.
2. But even if #1 were not clear to certain forgetful or slow-minded people, there would be no violation of the rule I just quoted. My first post today (2nd) was a substantive response (as J. F. Gecik) to Jeanie, countering her attack on Catholicism. My second post (as Thread Restorer) was a correction of Gene Chavez's first baseless attack on me -- and this was totally unrelated to my response to Jeanie. Therefore, I did NOT break the rule, which forbids "posting with two different handles on the same thread in order to make it look like several people agree with [one's] point of view."So, Turkey #2, scroll up and read the sentence I wrote to Gene -- which contains the underlined words, "never again." I direct that sentence to you too.
God bless you both.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.
Oooo-ieeee! His highness is going postal! Haha!
This latest one, loaded with Poopy-Pants expletives, is his coming out! Yes; everybody SHOULD HAVE known!Call me names, John. I can take it. I can take anything your highness can dish. You have all the virtue in this forum community, the others are keisters and turkeys and sinners. Go on, have the fits. They're fast becoming the Gecik calling-card, and nobody's been telling you where to go. You've done it to yourself:
''I'm leaving, for 3 months. It better shape up here--to MY satisfaction! --Or else!''
Or else I'm coming back to pour ten thousand old threads into the mix? I'm suffocating the whole forum; just to get MY (John's) way!--- ? ? ? Well, THAT was a short 3 months ! Go on; call me names for exposing your underhanded ways, and your mean-spirited shallowness. Call everybody a Nath-th-ty NAME, John-Boy!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.
no jeanie,we dont delete the truth here. what gets deleted are hateful messages of anti catholic filth dredge from the anger that satan places in you...
...by the way, anyone who gets anything deleted (aside from catholics and trads) claims that they have the truth. only thing is is that their truth contradicts yours, and yours contradicts someone elses...
how are we supposed to know what the true truth is then? whos interpretation do we trust? the Holy Spirit, working through the popes infallable dogmatic interpretation... i place my trust in God, not you jeanie, and if you try to supplant that trust for trust in you, then you are merely an agent of lucifer.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 02, 2003.
Hi, Eugene,just don't laugh so hard, I don't want you to have a heart attack.
Just enjoy the moment with JOHN G.
He just needs to loosen up.
Don't let him get to you.
your brother in Christ
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.
Frankly, Elpidio, John is more my brother in Christ. You are a lost soul while you stay outside the Catholic Church. John hasn't yet left the faith, as you have. He has a mid-life crisis, or a few bats in his bellfry; we can allow for that.Why would I let him get to me? I'm bullet-proof, 'Mano.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.
hee, hee, hee, I'm a turkey!!! Oh, my gosh, I can't stop laughing! John, you are really over the top! Glad to know that you aren't breaking the forum rules buddy, but you really take the cake with all your hostility and name callingMaybe you better back off on your expectations, like expecting everyone to just "know". Several people have asked, wondered etc. and you ignored all of it until you were finally pushed to admit it. If you doubt my statement, please see the "Why are you doing this" thread. Even after my fellow turkey, Gene, suggested it was you, you still no confirmation. If you had nothing to hide why not answer those questions upfront? Why just expect people to know when it's obvious that at least several did not?
For the record for those of us who missed it, please point us to where you announced your intentions to restore threads. That way everyone is on the same page.
As far as your threat "Never again" ooooooooooohhhhhhhh I'm so scared!
hee hee heee! Not an accusation buddy, but some food for thought: Most people react defensively and even hostily when confronted with the truth about something they've done or said. The closer it hits home, the more defensive and hostile they get.
-- ~ (justwondering@questions.com), December 03, 2003.
JmjGene, if you want to go toe-to-toe with me, you first have to go back to the brain factory for a cerebral supplement.
To change the metaphor ... You are playing with less than a full deck, pal.
I'll explain.1. "This latest one, loaded with Poopy-Pants expletives, is his coming out!"
My message contained ZERO "expletives." (People not playing with a full deck use words without knowing their meanings. Nowadays, people understand the word, "expletive," to mean an unprintable obscenity or curse. I used no such things.) I have no idea how your weak little mind came up with the words, "poopy pants." However, its better for your opponent to need a diaper change than a brain transplant (as you do).
2. "Go on, have the fits. They're fast becoming the Gecik calling-card ..."
Too bad you didn't stop to notice that the only thing that has lit my jets is totally asinine behavior and false charges by you -- once a couple of weeks ago ... and again now -- between which times you didn't hear from me, because you were on abnormally good behavior. So, what I am doing here is no generalized "calling-card," Mr. Turkey. It is custom-fitted for you. No one else merits such treatment but you.
3. "You've done it to yourself: 'I'm leaving, for 3 months. It better shape up here-- to MY satisfaction! --Or else!' ... Well, THAT was a short 3 months!"
Better drag your ancient carcass to the eye doctor or to a memory helper, pal. I never said, "I'm leaving for 3 months." What I said (two weeks ago) was that, if the forum did not change radically by the end of February (which was then about 3.5 months away), I would leave at that time.
Due to careless reading, you, Sen~or Simpleton, completely twisted my meaning to the opposite of what I said! Now I can see that, having had this incorrect idea in your otherwise hollow cranium for two weeks now, it has distorted all your comments against me for the last two or three days. You pathetic soul!
4. "Or else I'm coming back to pour ten thousand old threads into the mix? I'm suffocating the whole forum; just to get MY (John's) way!"
Oh, I see that this is the only way for you to maintain face (rather than break down in shame and repentance):
(a) -- to continue your brain-dead fantasy about why I am doing what I am doing, even after I have explained the real reasons about five times
(b) -- and to continue your asinine claim that restoring threads "suffocat[es] the whole forum."Just as no one could persuade Archie Bunker to give up a slew of ridiculous beliefs, so the same must be true of the dingbat that you are, Eugoon. Well, believe (or pretend to believe) what you wish. The only thing that matters is that I am going to continue to restore deleted threads -- every blessed day for weeks or months to come -- all the while not caring one little whit what you think of the process! [Which brings up the question, "Why are you so dimwitted as to think that you can influence me in any way -- when you have never succeeded in doing so for four years?" That's why I said earlier that you are not playing with a full deck. Someone with a full deck would have learned, at least three years ago, not to waste time trying to change me.]
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.
There will be nothing more for a "100%" Nobody like you, "justwondering." If your need for attention is so tearing you apart inside that you need to read something from me, just go back and keep reading, over and over, what I wrote to you before. Nothing more is needed, and nothing more will be given to you. You deserved far less than I took the trouble to grant to you already. Eugene has paid his dues and will get my attention and help, but you? Nothing.
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.
nope, doesn't matter to me whether you point us to where you announced your intentions. It was never for me (bad assumption on your part); it was for the record for the forum. Don't "expect" people to believe that you said it though just because you say you did. Obviously there were quite a few people who didn't ever see it. You are reacting like you are backed into a corner.Gee, I've been judged a "100% nobody" by the "highly esteemed" J.F. Gecik. Gulp, snif, snif, I think I'll go in the corner and cry. NOT! Gene was right about your "calling cards" although you do seem to "custom fit" them for each person, but no they are not reserved for him alone. Shall we start naming names of all the people you have attacked with your signature "calling cards"? Oh, but I forgot, they all deserved it didn't they. Good Catholic Christian behavior here. A great influence on us all.
I don't care, no skin off my nose Johnny (named like the little boy you are acting like). Your character is showing again.
-- ~ (justwondering@questions.com), December 03, 2003.
How could I take these for ''Poopy Pants expletives?Mindless little man, kiss my keister, Turkey #1, Knucklehead, instead of guzzling martinis, Grandpa McCoy, what a fool, a goofball like you?, jerk-butt! Dunce, your asinine, tom-turkey you are, keister-kisser! extremely sick maniac!
They are expletives as a Poopy Pants child uses, because he can't say the obscenities he would like to say. So, he covers that ground with ''sanitized'' sputtering. That way he won't have to confess anything nath-ty.
It's OK, John. I say forget it. It's a shame to see you implode over so little. For years now I've cautioned you about unleashing the paranoia whenever people can't agree with you. You have my sincere forgiveness; go on. We have no cause to be angry. --I sure haven't.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.
alright you two... read what i said in the "why are you doing this" thread and KNOCK IT OFF. I'd hate to think that being the youngest of us three that im also the most mature. i mean honestly, you guys are writing like gramatically correct five year olds talking about sharing a toy.i know youre both more mature than this, so whatever funk you both happen to be in, knock yourself out of it.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2003.
Too late, Paul H.. I just posted my final message of this kind on another thread. You will see it and understand why I just called it "final." After everything I wrote on that thread, there will be no need for me to say anything more (here or anywhere else).
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.
Hello, I choose to go by the nickname D'Bomb because I value my anonymity. Whoever informed you that the New Testament discusses homosexuality is misinformed. The New Testament does not discuss homosexuality, it discusses some homosexual acts performed as: idolatry, prostition, domination, violation, seduction or other homosexual acts performed against one's natural instincts, but it does not discuss homosexuality that is not against a persons natural instincts or that is done in a genuine, mutual and committed loving relationship.In fact it is only modern translations of the bible that even use the word homosexual. Homosexuality is wrong only when it is done for the wrong reasons. Jesus talked of divorce as being wrong, but he never said explicitly that marriage is good, does that mean we can assume marriage is evil? The same way if Jesus never explictly said two men or two women can love each other does that necessarily mean they can't? Jesus did let us know that we should love God, ourselves and one another, other than that he didn't put any strict limits or rules on who to love or how. Just some food for thought.
Take care, D'Bomb.
-- D'Bomb (majstore@sympatico.ca), March 03, 2004.
D'Bomb, in Paul's Letters that-there are explicit references to homosexuality. There are three cases, and they are always treated with disapproval.In the First Letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle, among other things, gives a list of vices to be avoided: "Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (6:9-10). In a perspective that is only slightly different but quite similar we read in the First Letter to Timothy: "...understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tm 1: 9-10). The Greek word in question, arsenokoitai, which the RSV translates differently each time (respectively "homosexuals" and "sodomites"), is in fact a neologism that literally means "males who sleep together". It derives from the phraseology of the biblical Greek of the Septuagint where the Levitical text 20:13 is translated: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them". The linguistic and thematic reference to this passage, where no exceptions are allowed, makes it impossible to interpret the Pauline statement in the restricted sense of only male prostitution, or more specifically, of pederasty, as some would like. On the other hand, it should be noted that the extreme severity of the punishment envisaged by the Levitical legislation is not repeated by Paul, who has the greatest respect for life. He however reacts to homosexuality by pointing out its eschatological exclusion from the kingdom of God, precisely because the practice does not conform to the divine law, just like all the other infractions that he lists by way of example. A certain relativity of the Pauline assertion can be deduced from the fact that the Apostle's main intention in these passages is certainly not to impart a specific teaching on homosexuality, which would in any case be very indirect; it is however unquestionably listed in a catalogue of actions judged reprehensible. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, like the biblical passage previously quoted, he only considers male, not female, homosexuality. But, indeed, here he expresses himself in the manner of biblical tradition, as can be seen from the explicit reference to the law in the Letter to Timothy. In other places the casuistry is more complete.
Idolatry as a religious aberration
In fact, in the Letter to the Romans, with regard to the moral perversion of the pagans Paul writes: "God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27). This is one of the very rare texts in ancient times in which male homosexuality and female homosexuality are condemned together as practices against nature: two other cases can be found in Plato (Laws I, 636c) and in a Jewish- Hellenistic poetic composition of the first century attributed to a Pseudo-Phocilides (Sentences 191-192). But the Pauline passage has a certain originality, because of its context. The Apostle is in fact discussing the moral disorder resulting from the lack of knowledge of God in the pagan world, so that homosexuality together with a series of other vices (cf. Rom 1:29: "all manner of wickedness") is seen as the consequence of man's fatal "exchange" of the Creator with his creatures.
Some authors have tried to minimize the radical importance of this condemnation, claiming that Paul is thinking either of a depravation connected with idolatry, or of homosexuality that is contrary to the proper nature of heterosexuals, or again thinking that the expression "unnatural" is equivalent to "against the common patterns of social convention" or, lastly, that is not a true sin but merely one of the less pleasant aspects of pagan society. Interpretations of this kind are basically artificial, because they lose sight of the fact that the Apostle bases his argument on a view that is not cultural but rooted in creation; in fact the theme of the whole section of Romans 1:18-32 consists in the succession and mutual integration of three closely connected arguments: (1) the real possibility of a natural knowledge of God by all men (2) in fact clashes with the human perversion of idolatry that tragically reverses the roles of creature and Creator, and (3) therefore God consigns and almost abandons men to every sort of wickedness which inevitably follows. It may be interesting to observe that the penalty foreseen by Paul in these cases, in our text of the Letter to the Romans, is not the Jewish-eschatological type (as in the previous passage from the First Letter to the Corinthians), but the Stoic-immanent type. He in fact adopts here the classic ethical principle of Stoic philosophy that, if virtue rewards itself, vice is likewise its own punishment. Well, we can say that homosexuality is thus considered from the standpoint of self-corruption, so that it is at the same time the sign and consequence of a subversion of God's created order. However we should not exaggerate Paul's stand in the matter. In fact it is important to realize that the real criticism he develops in this context does not directly concern homosexuality, but rather idolatry as a religious aberration: it is this that he sees as the pagans' real problem, and homosexuality is only one indication together with many others.
From: Homosexuality and the New Testament by Romano Penna; Professor of New Testament studies; Pontifical Lateran University, Rome
Also see: Catholic Answers on this topic.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 03, 2004.