What does the bible actually say about being gay?

[XemaSab]

[Rex]

1. NOTHING!

Absolutely NOTHING about it.

NEXT, here is a LIST of all the things JESUS said about being gay;








.

[malthaussen]

16. That is a terrible argument.

The rules of the New Covenant state that where JC is silent, the Old Covenant still applies. Hence if JC said zip about being gay, then Torah still applies, and Torah is pretty unequivocal about it:

Lev. 20.13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death ; their blood shall be upon them."
(KJV)

So, the argument that JC is silent on gays proves exactly the opposite of what you want to prove. I always flinch when I see it.

Now, there are a couple of quibbles you can try. I think the most fruitful one is to extrapolate John 8 (JC and the adulteress) to apply to other laws insofar as punishment is concerned. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," can be reasonably argued as negating "they shall surely be put to death." However, it doesn't relieve the woman (or gay person) from the burden of sin, indeed John 8 concludes with JC telling the woman "Go forth and sin no more," thus acknowledging that her conduct was sinful. Ergo, by rigorous application of logic, if you try to extrapolate John 8 in this way you can free gays from the burden of public execution, but not from the burden of sin (which is, however, between them and their god).

Other arguments are weaker, trying to extrapolate "love one another" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" do not really apply to the Law, nor were they given in any context moderating or modifying the Law. Basically, based on the text itself, anyone who grants the authority of Torah (which includes Jews, Christians, and followers of Islam, collectively known as Peoples of the Book) cannot demonstrate that homosexuality is other than a sin. This is one reason why most arguments are by indirection, or by pointing out that other parts of the Law are not honored either (e.g., the wearing of clothes of more than one fabric), but such arguments do not address the Law itself, merely how it is practiced in an imperfect world.

I frankly cannot see how a follower of the Book can claim to follow the Book while ignoring those parts of the Law they find inconvenient or unfair, but the human mind is capable of amazing feats of compartmentalization, like the guy who had Lev. 20:13 tattooed on his arm (Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattoos). Seems only atheists are willing to say that Torah should be thrown out altogether, but then atheists don't believe in either Covenant, Old or New.

So, to answer the OP's question: Torah states clearly that homosexuality is a sin, to be punished capitally. The New Testament says (arguably) that homosexuality is a sin, but that civil society has no authority to punish it. (There are a bunch of glosses outside Scripture that expand on this, but the OP asked about the Bible)

-- Mal

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. What did Jesus have to say about shellfish?

Nothing? Uh oh...sounds like lots of people are in trouble now.

[malthaussen]

22. Yup. And let's not even talk about a whole host of other regulations.

This is one reason why a lot of rational people have a hard time taking the religions of the Book seriously.

-- Mal

[Yo_Mama]

72. Paul - he is where the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws for Gentiles comes in.

There was a big argument about this, and eventually a debate, and Peter and James are reported to have sided with Paul on the matter:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NIV

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

So this is how it came about that most of the Jewish dietary laws were considered not binding on Gentile converts, although they remained in effect among the Jewish believers. The remaining prohibitions were blood, eating the meat of animals that were improperly slaughtered, and partaking of offerings to false gods (which were after distributed to the participants).

[seattledo]

85. Good point. You see xtians eating shrimp all the time.

They have no respect for their own rules.

[ohheckyeah]

28. You are so wrong...

Jesus fulfilled the law which is why he said "it is finished." When a contract is fulfilled, there is no reason to keep trying to fulfill the contract. That isn't the same as tearing the contract up and ignoring it....it has been completed and fulfilled.

Paul said "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are profitable."

[BarackTheVote]

38. Thanks for that Paul quote--

I knew he'd said several times that the law was fulfilled, but I didn't have the impetuous to look it up LOL

[ohheckyeah]

43. You're welcome.

1 Corinthians 10:23

[XemaSab]

49. What about 1 Corinthians 6?

[ohheckyeah]

57. Sorry - I didn't explain it, did I?

That's where you can find Paul's quote that I quoted.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. Haven't you deliberately pruned that quote to reverse its meaning?

Isn't the full line "I come *not* to abolish the law, but to fullfil it" - with the strong implication that much of it still applies?

[blogslut]

29. I don't think Leviticus is clear at all

Lev. 20.13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death ; their blood shall be upon them."

Mankind? What does that mean? When followed by "as he lieth with a woman", the word "mankind" strikes me a supremely nebulous.

[lostincalifornia]

32. It is clear. Don't make excuses for it. If you have contact with a women on her period that is a

sin. If you work on the sabbath, that is a sin, etc. etc. etc.

There are all kinds of "laws" in the bible that would be considered ridiculous today.

[blogslut]

39. I do not agree that it is clear.

"Mankind" is an odd and fuzzy word in relation to the passage. My guess is somewhere along the way, when the book's numerous editors/social engineers got around to that passage, they misinterpreted the original language in order to fit their agenda. Whatever they didn't like, they re-wrote or left out completely.

Word of god my fat fanny.

[malthaussen]

58. And let's not even talk about what they did to Ecclesiastes:)

I have a friend who actually studied Greek and Hebrew so he could do his own translation. He was quite amused at the discrepancies.

-- Mal

[lostincalifornia]

75. That translation is from the King James version, not the Revised Standard version which is

considered the more accurate translation:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

From the Hebrew translation it is the following:

"Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence"

The version that uses mankind is the King James, which isn't directly translated from the Hebrew, it is translated from the Greek

The Old Testament was NOT fuzzy about it at all. Everything was separated in Leviticus 18, and they did not put this into a separate category to mean a generic "mankind".

[truedelphi]

76. However, and I had this drummed into my brain for 12 years in

Catechism classes, the entire point of Jesus coming into the world was to end the tyranny of the Old Testament. To replace the "Law" of the God of jealousy and revenge with the new Law of the Son of God and his preachings on Love.

Otherwise we Christians should have never bothered opposing the Romans, and getting martyred by hungry lions in the Coliseum, should we? .

And someone who would agree with what my Catechism lessons had taught me is Lewis Black, who tells the truth about this religious stuff in this hilarious comedic rant:

[lostincalifornia]

82. It is hilarious. I also think that using the bible as the source of all wisdom is not rational

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2013, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

[CreekDog]

105. Actually, using the Bible as the source of all wisdom is completely irrational

I don't even think most Biblical scholars think that is wise.

not at all.

[lostincalifornia]

107. I meant "NOT RATIONAL". geez, screwed up in my post. I just changed it

[CreekDog]

108. yes, that makes lot more sense!

[lostincalifornia]

109. Thanks. I need to be more careful before I hit the post button

[LiberalElite]

98. That's right -

I went to RC school and was taught that the Old Testament was Old Hat.

[MH1]

104. "the book's numerous editors/social engineers" - bingo.

"The Bible" as it comes to us in the US at this time, is not at all the whole or original of what was written and deemed at the time of writing "The Word of God". That's why fundamentalist's insistence on taking the Bible literally has always seemed ridiculous to me. You can believe that there is a power in the universe that we don't understand; you can believe that there was a man named Christ who preached some things that make A LOT of sense if the community of humanity is to ever live in peace; you can believe that he was crucified and perhaps did in some sense "rise from the dead" - at least in the sense that his spirit was believed to guide the Apostles; you can believe that makes him sacred or "holy" - and if you believe all that you probably at least make some effort to follow what you think he was trying to preach, in the way you live your life. THAT is Christianity, as I was brought up. This idea that every person who affected the way "The Bible" ended up coming to us in translated form, was somehow channeling God - wait, how is it that there are SO many different versions of the Bible, and many of them are very different on key things? It's just someone trying to use the Bible (their preferred version of course) as legitimacy for their bigoted views and a cudgel to maintain their moral superiority, rather than be open to what works to create a peaceful society.

(whew got me on a tear there. hopefully that makes sense. )

[malthaussen]

33. Other translations fix that.

I cite the KJV out of nostalgia.

-- Mal

[blogslut]

40. Well, of course they do.

Don't get me started on the bajillion "translations" of that book.

[malthaussen]

42. You don't have to...

... I know the arguments, uh, chapter and verse.

-- Mal

[lostincalifornia]

30. The question was simple, and you answered it clearly. That does not mean people should agree it,

but it answers the question

There are a lot of things in the bible which would be considered a capital crime that have no place in a civilized society

[Rex]

35. The Bible is the NT or so I thought why do you confuse the two?

nt.

[malthaussen]

50. Rex: The Christian Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

(and also some "apocrypha" if one follows certain Protestant denominations)

The Old Testament, which is the Hebrew scripture, includes Torah and the 12 prophets. The New Testament comprises the four Canonical gospels, Acts, and a bunch of letters (mostly of Saul of Tarsus), and John's Apocalypse.

Torah is the underlying law of Judaism, Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant), and Islam. JC served to interpret (and arguably modify, but that's a doctrinal issue) the Law into a new Law, or Covenant. Mohammed serves the same function in Islam. For Christians, JC is the Last Prophet, his word is final. For Islam, that honor goes to Mohammed. The Jews are still waiting for the Last Prophet, and do not acknowledge the authority of JC or Mohammed.


-- Mal

[Rex]

52. So what does the NT say about gays?

I think that was the OPs question.

[malthaussen]

54. The OP asked what the Bible says. The OT is part of the Bible.

I'm not sure what your objection is.

-- Mal

[Rex]

55. No objection, just trying to make it clear.

nt.

[SharonAnn]

100. Yes, I guess I'm pretty much a "red letter" Christian. The stuff that Jesus said.

I tell people that I follow "to the letter" everything that Jesus said about contraception and abortion. That is, He said "nothing" about them.

[WonderGrunion]

47. Doesn't Levitican Law only apply to the tribe of David?

[malthaussen]

53. Can't say I've ever seen that argument.

A quick Google brings up this article from GARM: http://carm.org/christians-bound-by-law

Which concludes that Christians are bound by the laws of Leviticus. I know not if GARM is to be accounted any authority in the subject.

-- Mal

[WonderGrunion]

87. CARM seems to contradict themselves with their interpretation.

From their text ...

The book of Leviticus is perhaps the least read and most misunderstood book in the entire Old Testament. From a New Covenant perspective, this God-breathed revelation, with all of its detailed dietary, sacrificial and sacerdotal Laws, is perceived to be wholly irrelevant by many evangelical Christians.

At the same time, however, it is considered by most Orthodox Jews and some professing Christians, in both this generation and generations past, to be an indispensable element in prescribing true godly conduct for God’s chosen people.

I know that Christians like to think of themselves as "God's chosen people", but most interpretations limit that to the tribe of David. Otherwise the Fundie Armageddonists could have inhabited Israel themselves and not insist it be a well defended Jewish homeland. You know ... for the second coming.

Note to any potential jury ... this is not Woo I believe in ... just what I heard on MSNBC about the ones hoping for Armageddon in their lifetime.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. The tribe of Levi, Levites were the priest class. David's era was hundreds of years after the

time of Moses and the 5 books. King David was of the Tribe of Judah.

[MerryBlooms]

62. Could you please quote the source for-

"The rules of the New Covenant state that where JC is silent, the Old Covenant still applies."

Is that in the Bible? If so, could you point me to book/chapter/verse, and what Bible you're reading? Thanks!

[malthaussen]

97. Not in the Bible, MerryBlooms

That's an interpretive question. See discussions downthread and elsewhere about the meaning of "fulfilling" the law.

-- Mal

[MerryBlooms]

99. Ok, thanks.

[justiceischeap]

64. However, the problem with using Leviticus for your argument

is that isn't it meant to be Rabbinical law or am I getting my books mixed up? If I'm correct, then this only applies to Rabbis. Then if you want to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis, the "homosexuality" brought up in this parable is actually a statement against how not to treat defeated Army's. During that time, when one Army would defeat another, they'd often rape the "losing" soldiers to show their might.

The real problem with any of the homosexuality in the Bible is that at the time, there was no literal word for homosexual so we basically have to accept the translation by who knows what people with an agenda. The only book that has a fighting chance is Roman's. That said, Paul was a hateful little man. But again, it really comes down to interpretation...literally. The Greek word "arsenokoitai" is still baffling modern scholars to its original meaning, which is the word often translated into "homosexuality" in modern day Bibles. Some scholars think it refers to male on male pederasty. So until Jesus or God or someone else comes down from the Mount and tells me what their intentions were, I'm not going to use the Bible as an authority on much of anything.

[nomorenomore08]

67. Paul had an obvious bias against sex in general, saying it was better to remain celibate etc.

Not surprising he'd have a bit of a neurosis about "sodomy" as well.

[Lint Head]

66. OMG! What about bacon?

[workinclasszero]

96. I think you are right about the old and new testament

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..always gets forgotten by the gay haters.

The thing is, America is a democracy, not a theocracy. That was the last thing the founders of this country wanted! Contrary to so-called "Christian BS historians" claim.

Gays have civil rights just like everybody else. Unless we want mouth breathers like Phil the yuppie millionaire/good ole boy duck man and Sarah Palin burning people at the stake that dont agree with their version of God.

Theocracies been done before. It ALWAYS turned out bad. Real bad.

[kelliekat44]

101. And the Torah was written by exactly whom??? Same people who wrote the Talmud? And how can we

question the Koran and not every other written-by-man religious thesis claiming to be the word of God?

[grantcart]

106. There is so much that is incorrect about your post that it would take hours to go over it.

Your opening statement

The rules of the New Covenant state that where JC is silent, the Old Covenant still applies. Hence if JC said zip about being gay, then Torah still applies, and Torah is pretty unequivocal about it:

is simply without foundation.

Your Christology is faulty, you appear not to be operating out of any known Systemic Theology that would past muster but the most painful point is that you share the same eisegetical approach to Biblical study that the OP has.

I frankly cannot see how a follower of the Book can claim to follow the Book while ignoring those parts of the Law they find inconvenient or unfair, but the human mind is capable of amazing feats of compartmentalization, like the guy who had Lev. 20:13 tattooed on his arm (Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattoos). Seems only atheists are willing to say that Torah should be thrown out altogether, but then atheists don't believe in either Covenant, Old or New.

An exegetical study of the Bible would generate a much different result. The Bible was never written to generate a list of topics that you could then hunt and find a single verse and then go to check off some list on.

[Ms. Toad]

2. There are some passages which arguably condemn

particularly sexual activity between men. Most of those passages are either in a section of a whole host of prohibitions which hardly anyone pays any attention to (like wearing clothing made from two different kinds of fabric, not having sex while a woman is having her period, or not eating shellfish) - or in a section that is primarily about something else (e.g. the Sodom and Gommorah story - which is primarily about protecting those to whom you have extended hospitality).

I do agree that Jesus said absolutely zero about being gay.

[Rex]

4. That is in the New Testament?

The OP mentioned The Bible so just assumed the OP was talking about the NT.

[Blanket Statements]

7. Both Mark and Luke speak to Jesus fulfilling

Or holding with Mosaic Laws. The laws of Moses are Old Testament

[Rex]

8. My fault, I didn't know the Christan Bible included both the NT and the OT.

I thought it was NT only.

[Blanket Statements]

10. The Christian bible is more NT but the Old

Still applies

[Drahthaardogs]

45. No, the Old Testament is bigger with 46 books

Compared to 27 books in the New Testament. That is for the Catholic Bible, which has the apocrypha included in the books. Protestant bibles do not include it.

[Ms. Toad]

63. Why would you assume the Bible was limited to the new testament? n/t

[Blanket Statements]

3. The book of Leviticus has a couple of verses

That speak to it, along with all the other things that people aren't supposed to do.

Jesus, while not speaking to homosexuality or anything else in Leviticus dis reference the laws of Moses, which was Leviticus

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Matthew 19 has Jesus change the law of Moses on divorce, so he does speak

about things from Leviticus and he does not endorse what he mentions. He also worked on the Sabbath and hung out with those who were ritually unclean. According to the law o' Moses that is.

[Blanket Statements]

11. Eh, there's much debate about that

Depends on interpretation

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

[Bluenorthwest]

14. He says 'no divorce, Moses allowed it but it is wrong' so there is no debate to have

on that. Seems 'fulfill' can mean 'alter, correct, remove and edit' because of the fact that he upends the divorce laws. He quotes the law of Moses, then he changes it, repeatedly during the course of the Jesus stories. Just how it is.

[Blanket Statements]

15. The debate is whether the law was fulfilled

Or not.

Did the crucifixion serve as the fulfillment or not.
On divorce, the story surrounded a woman who was abandoned by her husband and sought to remarry

‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt. 5:31-32)

[BarackTheVote]

18. What I was always taught and read

was that Jesus upheld the commandments but fulfilled the Law with His death and resurrection (no commandment against homosexuality). We live under a New Covenant, not the old. What Jesus said was that everything boiled down to do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Not allowing people to love who they love, denying love (which, I believe, is the manifestation of God in this world) to someone just because they love someone of the same sex, I do not feel is consistent with the ultimate commandment--the fulfilment of all commandments and the Law according to Christ.

[Blanket Statements]

19. Yep, it all comes down to interpretation of the fulfillment

[Drahthaardogs]

59. Yes, and this is why there is no divorce in the Catholic Church (Roman Rite)

A literal translation reads

" Having come, the Pharisees were asking HIM, testing HIM, "Is it permitted (in the Law) for a man to dismiss a woman (in divorce)?" But, having answered them, HE said, "What command did Moses give to you?" They said, "Moses allowed (one) to write a document to send (his marriage) aside and to dismiss (his wife)." JESUS said to them, "He wrote this command for you because of your hard heart. From the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female. 'Because of this, a man will leave behind his father and mother, [he will be joined to his woman], and the two will become one flesh.' So, they are no longer two but one flesh. So, that (union) which God yoked together, let not man separate." At home again, the disciples were asking HIM about this (teaching). HE said to them, "Whoever dismisses his woman and marries another commits adultery against (the first wife); and if she, having (divorced) her man might marry another, commits adultery."


This also pertains to an earlier thread I replied of yours where I stated there were Doctrinal reasons for the Pope's stance on gay marriage. A quick explanation is that two men or two women are physically incapable of "joining" as intended by their physiology, thus the marriage cannot, could not, be consummated in the eyes of the Church. This also carries over into the birth control argument. It is also why I noted, per the RCC, I am an adulteror incapable of salvation.

Now, one thing to remember about the Old Testament is that is was a covenant with the Jews (Israelites). The Old Laws, while beneficial, never were presented nor intended for the gentiles, and they were not bound by them, as today's Christians are not as well (unless you are/were a Jewish convert, then technically they do apply). Only the Israelites were bound by them.

Jesus spoke about Kosher laws noting

""Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)"


St. Paul clarifies further (and I find this fascinating that Paul realised there were definite health benefits to eating Kosher from a food safety standpoint)

[L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)

[Bluenorthwest]

90. So how does that 'doctrine' differ from Duck Dynasty Doctrine? Does it differ?

In terms of blaming the Biblical commands, that's rich as can be:
Jesus : "Call no man Father."
Pope: "Call Me Father, Holy Father in fact."

Jesus: "Never pray in public like hypocrites, do not recite rote prayers."
Pope: "Always pray for a crowd, say 'The hail Mary' repeatedly."

Jesus: "Sell all you own and give it to the poor to follow me."
Pope: "We are the largest holder of NYC real estate. I have a jet."

So apparently what Jesus said is easily discarded for the sake of ego and earthly agendas.
Apparently the Duck Doctrine and that of Pope Francis are identical in sourcing and in content. If you disagree, please clarify, compare and contrast the two sets of doctrine and the rantings of the Pope and the Duck Guy. Both are wildly opposed to equal rights for minorities they hate, angry at God for making humans the two men see as flawed, unlike their own perfected wealthy fat cat selves.
Sell all you own. Call no man father. Do not pray in public.

[Drahthaardogs]

94. Well...

Of course the first difference between the RCC and ANY Protestant religion is that of tradition. ALL Catholics (because you are aware that there are other Catholic Rites, not just Roman, right?) believe in both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. As such, Sacred Tradition in Catholicism is just as, if not important than, the written word. That is why you rarely see Catholics use a literal interpreation of the Bible. The Duck Dynasty guy obviously is a Protestant who believes strongly in sola scriptura. Yet, this is not a Catholic teaching.

As far as "the rantings of a pope" and all the rest. I really do not know how to put this nicely, so I am just going to put it out there. The more you write, the more obvious it comes to me that you do not have ANY real understanding of the RCC. I suspect you were Protestant, or if raised RCC, not very orthodox and certainly you do not understand the Catechism, the Magisterium, etc.

The way you grasp onto little pieces of text and use them to try to make a point also seems to indicate that your religious past is not of a Catholic upbringing. Now, while I agree with your premise, the RCC is way wrong on gays, women, divorcees, etc., you and I will NEVER agree on the "why they are wrong". Read what the Catechsm says about pre-martial sex...

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.


Pretty strong language isn't it? "Grave scandal" for a roll in the hay? Undignified...Seriously?

How about divorce?

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:


PERMANENT ADULTERY -- WOW! No salvation allowed! Very harsh indeed. No clause for a womanizer, abuser, etc. OUCH! Getting re-married ADDS to the problem per the Catechism.


Anyway, the reason we disagree is because you have lack a real understand of the Catechism and the teachings of the Church. Arguing with you is like trying to argue Quantum Physics with a guy who only knows Newtonian Physics. It is frustrating. You are correct but only as the Blind Men and the Elephant are correct. Sadly, you appear to lack the intellectual curiosity to find out what the Catholic Church believes so a real intelligent discussion could be had, i.e., one that might actually promote healthy discord that could, possibly, lead to change.

Instead you cling to half-truths or full-out misconceptions that are not even attributable to the Church as it stands today in 2013. This makes it very hard to deal with you because I am forced to debate beliefs that do not exist, or at least not exist as you see them.

[Kingofalldems]

26. I thought the fundies take every word in the Bible

as truth. How could there be debate?

[Blanket Statements]

34. Different denominations have different interpretations

[Kingofalldems]

46. Why do fundamentalists think Jesus gets involved in

football games? Doesn't say anything in the Bible about that either.

[Blanket Statements]

48. Because they have money riding on it

[Rex]

37. There are many versions of the Bible, strange ain't it?

All those different interpretations and only one God.

[Kingofalldems]

41. Yeah, I though what Jesus said about divorce

is crystal clear. Big topic in the Baltimore Catechism. Fundies of all people totally disregard that statement. Looks like they only believe parts of the bible. Funny.

[Rex]

44. It is all His Word, but you only have to follow the convenient parts.

Yeah pretty said ain't it.

[JanMichael]

5. ot or nt?

It doesn't really matter; in the NT it's mostly Paul's letters to the Romans.

Most of that stuff was written with the information they had then. The clues are the seafood, pigs, and lesbians: In other words, no it was NOT a good idea to eat shellfish from the coast (a two day journey, maybe more), it was not a great idea to have pigs in the desert--- they like to "root" and would destroy small plants, and play in the dirt--- lesbians were pretty much ignored because they were biologically "harmless."

Gay men? Not a good idea to hang with your male friends during the wars-- then take those "germs" home to your wife-- or omg? is there a nice way to say this? Be unable to get the wife pregnant because you have already used up so much of your "ammunition."

It made sense a couple of thousand years ago when men needed to make war and babies. It's just biology.

Doesn't mean that much anymore. If anything.

[11 Bravo]

6. I prefer to ask what Jesus Christ had to say about it.

You know, since the whole religion is named after Him. (And the answer, for those playing at home, is not a single word!

[malthaussen]

17. But unfortunately, as JC said nothing about it...

... don't we have to conclude he was in agreement with Torah on the subject? He had ample opportunity to speak on the issue if such had been his intention. Hell, AFAIK there isn't even anything in the Gnostic Gospels about it. Logically, it is a poor argument, IMO.

-- Mal

[Yo_Mama]

77. Well, he did say something about it.

For example:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015&version=NIV

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

He says that the Law of Moses will never pass away, but he also tells his followers that they have to do more than the law commands.

There's no question that Jesus was referring to the standard Jewish sexual conduct laws with sexual immorality. The modern perversion of the meaning is to assume that a man sleeping around with a woman is somehow less in violation of the law than a man sleeping with a man, which is not true under Jewish law.

[Warpy]

12. Most of the supposed "antigay" stuff from the OT

was actually proscribing male to male pederasty.

Paul hated all sex, but said one could engage in heterosexual sex within marriage and avoid going to hell for it. He said so very reluctantly.

[nomorenomore08]

68. "Male to male pederasty" being far more acceptable, in those times, than sex between adult men.

A "receptive" male was thought to be lowering himself to the level of a woman.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Each of the Biblical authors who oppose gay people support slavery and offer advice

to slaves to be joyful in serving their masters, rules for selling humans, and other codifications of human bondage. Each of these authors also says that women are to be silent in public, they are to adhere to strict rules about clothing and are denied any clothing that might highlight beauty or any that is costly, they are to ask questions only of their husbands when alone at home and never are they to question any other person or speak to gatherings.
So anyone who is spouting off about Biblcal verses about gay people best be ready to defend slavery and the subjegation of women. It is that simple.

[nomorenomore08]

69. +1

The sad thing is, many fundy Christians have no issue with "subjugation of women" at all, and deep down, some of them even think slavery isn't/wasn't all that bad.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. And yet the world leaders of anti gay dogma are not 'fundy Christians' but men like Francis

who are praised here endlessly. Of course Francis is clear that women are unworthy in his eyes of being equal to his own personal glory. But folks overlook that, just as they rationalize his other bigotry and deeply set ignorance.

[Aristus]

20. Leviticus is pretty clear on the subject,

but the way I see it, you either follow all of the Mosaic laws to the letter, or none of them.

And it's important to remember that Mosaic law was formulated for a patriarchal society in a tribal culture living in a difficult region of the world, with a harsh climate, few natural resources, no water, and entirely surrounded by enemies. Under conditions like that, it made sense that every act of sex would (it was hoped) results in a pregnancy, and that every pregnancy would (it was hoped) result in a son who would grow up to fight for his people.

Conditions that really don't apply to Western society today.

[malthaussen]

23. And let's not even talk about... um... genocide.

IIRC, the Hebrews exterminated the Canaanites, Amonites, and Aramites (possibly more, it's been awhile). But hey, god told them it was okay.

-- Mal

[NuclearDem]

36. Exactly. The OT essentially implies that wasting sperm is tantamount to treason.

Onan killed, homosexual activity, etc.

It's also why homophobia and misogyny have been allowed to thrive for centuries, and why a lot of those same people who are so opposed to homosexuality and feminism often are vicious xenophobes and racists: the fear that the "others" will "outbreed" them.

[peabody]

60. Exactly!

I don't even know why people want their lives to be dictated by some book written thousands of years ago, by people we don't even know, and who are long dead so they can't answer any questions about it. It's irrational.

[Rstrstx]

74. I always think of this

[liberal_at_heart]

83. that's always been my view on it too.

[MrScorpio]

24. It really doesn't matter

Because the bigots will simply make up shit anyway to justify their bigotry.

[onethatcares]

25. so eggzachery, how

does rich Phil plan on getting in to Heaven?

Or is he gonna give away his cloak and everything he has?

Sheesh, the shit never stops rolling on and on and on.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. "David loved Jonathan more than women"

for starts?

[NuclearDem]

31. The closest thing it mentions about homosexuality is that oft-quoted Leviticus verse.

But in the context of the rest of the OT mythology and stories, it's related to reproduction and growing the nation. Onan wasted sperm and was killed for it, so "wasting sperm" through sex with another man is similarly punishable by death.

Nothing throughout the whole Bible (OT or NT) about loving relationships between members of the same gender. The OT has David and Jonathan, and the Romans quote was more to distinguish the Christians from the pederasty in Greco-Roman society.

[SidDithers]

51. Homosexuality in the Bible

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Sid

[ohheckyeah]

56. I think the example that most Christians

miss is that of Jesus and his disciples never trying to coerce anyone into believe and never tried to use the government to force their beliefs on others.

The OT is all about the love of law and the NT is all about the law of love. The two just can't coexist. The NT is all about mercy, love, and compassion and there are none of those things in the law.

Had the law worked, Jesus would never had needed to be the final sacrifice. Those who cling to the law invalidate everything Jesus did and stood for.

[Gothmog]

61. As a Jew, I tend to focus on the Old Testament

I am a member of a Reformed shul but have to deal with the Orthodox from time to time. Here is a good analysis of Jewish law (i.e. the Old Testament) rules on homosexuality http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Homosexuality

Sexual relations between men are clearly forbidden by the Torah. (Lev. 18:22). Such acts are condemned in the strongest possible terms, as abhorrent. The only other sexual sin that is described in such strong terms is the sin of remarrying a woman you had divorced after she had been married to another man. (See Deut. 24:4). The sin of sexual relations between men is punishable by death (Lev. 20:13), as are the sins of adultery and incest.

It is important to note, however, that it is homosexual acts that are forbidden, not homosexual orientation. Judaism focuses on a person's actions rather than a person's desires. A man's desire to have sex with another man is not a sin, so long as he does not act upon that desire. In fact, it could be said that a man who feels such desires but does not act upon them is worthy of more merit in that regard than a man who does not feel such desires at all, just as one who refrains from pork because it is forbidden deserves more merit than one who refrains from pork because he doesn't like the taste.

I have seen some modern Orthodox sources suggest that if homosexuality is truly something hardwired in the brain, as most gay activists suggest, then a man who acts upon that desire is not morally responsible for his actions, but I am not sure how wide-spread that opinion is. In any case, it is not quite as liberal a position as some would have you believe: essentially, it is equivalent to saying that a kleptomaniac would not be held morally responsible for stealing.

Interestingly, female same-sex relations are not forbidden by the Torah. There is very little discussion of female homosexuality in the Talmud. The few sources that mention lesbian relations say that they do not disqualify a woman from certain privileges of the priesthood, because it is "merely licentiousness." There is a surprising lack of discussion of such issues as whether lesbianism would be grounds for divorcing a woman without her consent or without ketubah. Rambam asserted that lesbian practices are forbidden because it was a "practice of Egypt" and because it constituted rebelliousness.

Reform congregations and to a large extent Conservative congregations are accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage. As noted above even the Orthodox are moving towards acceptance as it becomes clearer and clearer that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Here is a great thread on why an Orthodox Rabbi feels that gay marriage is okay http://www.democraticunderground.com/113733882

Again, since the main prohibitions on homosexuality are from my part of the bible, I thought that this post would be helpful

[Yo_Mama]

78. Yes, it is. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

65. It says it's wrong. Period.

And it's one of the many reasons I am not a Christian.

[bluestate10]

70. In Leviticus, there is mention of a prohibition against a man laying with a man,

and masturbation. But Jesus made no mention of homosexuality, so people that claim to be Christians have no standing hating Gay people.

[ismnotwasm]

71. Here you go

Some of this is broadly interpreted, understand.
My favorites story, is between David and Jonathan because I think David and Jonathan were lovers and It might be one of the greatest love stories of all time.

Quick example;

2 Samuel

David loved Jonathan more than women. (And he loved a lot of women!) 1:26


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. "The bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a bloodstained history, a wealth of obscenity, and

upwards of 10,000 lies." Mark Twain.

[Go Vols]

81. Yes,its all fiction.

[Yo_Mama]

79. Nothing about being gay

It does contain a host of prescriptions against certain sexual behaviors, both heterosexual and homosexual.

[Deep13]

80. Nothing, it would have been an anachronistic concept.

The idea that one could be gay rather than merely performing homosexual acts arose from the scientific classification revolution of the 19th c. Gay people existed back then, of course, but no one thought of it in those terms.

Parts of the OT suggest, but don't actually say, that homosexual acts between men is pretty horrible. Romans in the NT echos that. Also, at some people JC says all the old law is still in effect.

[Scootaloo]

84. A better question is, why should anyone care what the Bible says about being gay?

[Blue_In_AK]

86. Jesus never said anything about it.

Most of the allegedly anti-gay stuff (and anti-woman stuff) was said by Paul in the letters.

[cleanhippie]

89. Who cares? Anyone that uses the bible as the foundation for an argument is wrong.

We should be dismissing those that do.

[99Forever]

91. Who gives a shit what "the bible" says about anything?

Magic isn't real.

[undeterred]

95. God is totally obsessed with your sexual organs and he put the

republican party on this planet to regulate their use.

Double if you're female, Triple if you're gay.

I can't give you the exact quote, but its something like that.

[darkangel218]

103. Damn...

[darkangel218]

102. From what heard, the bible doesnt say anything about gay people

( I have never read it in its entirety though, just what I heard )