Homosexuality and the Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

We’re talking about what Jesus actually said, remember? You said that he condemned sex between people of the same gender. He didn’t. He only talked about divorce between men and women.[/quote]

No. This is what I said…

[quote]Actually, Christ reinforced that sex is only between men and women in holy matrimony…

/end debate[/quote]

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

God made the sexes. They come together as male and female. Marriage is sanctioned by God (“God has Joined together”). This was/is his plan from the beginning.

Homosexual marriages are not sanctioned by God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Besides being an abominable unnatural act, homosexual acts do not take place within sacramental marriage. Nor can they ever.[/quote]

I know what you said, dude. Jesus didn’t say a thing about sex in that passage; he was only talking about marriage, and specifically in the context of when it is ok to divorce.

102

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

All movement appears to be towards greater inclusiveness towards
homosexuality and homosexuals. This is reinforced by the more
accepting stance of today’s youth. We are unaware of any religious
groups becoming less inclusive. [/quote]

This may be confounded with the death of Religion in the Western World.

Given that history’s three greatest mass murderers (Mao, Stalin, and Hitler) ran regimes that were either agnostic or staunchly opposed to the Church(es), I worry.

It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.[/quote]

Never fear, the three greatest mass murderers criminalized and exterminated gays. Godless as they were, they must have had some common sense.

103

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

No, you didn’t. It’s a question specifically about divorce, which obviously only entailed men and women since gays didn’t marry back then. And in any case, it says absolutely nothing about sex in the passage.
[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about Christianity, remember? Marriage is sanctioned by God. God created man and women to leave their mother and fathers and be with those of the opposite sex. And really, now I have to defend the anti-fornication and adultery teachings of Christianity? I thought you were at least aware enough of the bible and Christianity, so I could at least skip having to back up those topics.

  1. Pre-marital sex is a sin in Christianity. Don’t start acting dumb on this one.
  2. Men were not sanctioned to marry men (as you yourself said). Christ not only didn’t challenge this, he reinforced that marriage was between men and women, as planned from the beginning by God.
  3. Homosexuality, is not only an unnatural act, but can only be an act of fornication.

[/quote]

We’re talking about what Jesus actually said, remember? You said that he condemned sex between people of the same gender. He didn’t. He only talked about divorce between men and women.[/quote]

As a Catholic, Sloth believes that Jesus is the Church. What the Church teaches, Jesus as well teaches. To make an arbitrary division between what Jesus said and what the Apostles (including their successors) say goes against what Jesus himself said, “who receives you, receives me. Who rejects you, rejects me.”[/quote]

Sorry dude, Paul was a recovering Pharisee, Peter vehemently disagreed with him on some of his teachings, and he was notorious for being difficult to understand. It’s hardly surprising that Jesus chose Peter to be the rock, rather than him.

104

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]

Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11: 13-16

[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]

Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?[/quote]

Mark 12: 18-27

105

[quote]forlife wrote:

I know what you said, dude. Jesus didn’t say a thing about sex in that passage; he was only talking about marriage, and specifically in the context of when it is ok to divorce.[/quote]

The point of my quoting of the passage is to highlight that marriage is only sanctioned between a man and woman. Next, I assumed you understand biblical and traditional teaching about sex outside of marriage. Apparently, you’re unaware.

106

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I know what you said, dude. Jesus didn’t say a thing about sex in that passage; he was only talking about marriage, and specifically in the context of when it is ok to divorce.[/quote]

The point of my quoting of the passage is to highlight that marriage is only sanctioned between a man and woman. Next, I assumed you understand biblical and traditional teaching about sex outside of marriage. Apparently, you’re unaware.[/quote]

There’s plenty of biblical precedent for sanctioned sex outside of marriage, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Which again is beside the point, since we were specifically discussing what Jesus actually said.

107

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]

Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11: 13-16

[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]

Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?[/quote]

Mark 12: 18-27
[/quote]

Old covenant law. Only 10 commandments, by the way.

108

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]

Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11: 13-16

[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]

Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?[/quote]

Mark 12: 18-27
[/quote]

Old covenant law. Only 10 commandments, by the way.[/quote]

Since it’s the 10 commandments that count, rather than old covenant law or anything someone like Paul might say, I guess homosexuality is good to go then.

109

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I know what you said, dude. Jesus didn’t say a thing about sex in that passage; he was only talking about marriage, and specifically in the context of when it is ok to divorce.[/quote]

The point of my quoting of the passage is to highlight that marriage is only sanctioned between a man and woman. Next, I assumed you understand biblical and traditional teaching about sex outside of marriage. Apparently, you’re unaware.[/quote]

There’s plenty of biblical precedent for sanctioned sex outside of marriage, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Which again is beside the point, since we were specifically discussing what Jesus actually said.[/quote]

And what he said is that from the beginning God planned that men would marry women. That God joins them together (sanctions sacramental marriage) Further, are you also now challenging the Christian teachings (biblical and traditional) about fornication? Really? So now your ‘preferred’ interpretation sounds like, oh so conveniently, a gay night club.

110

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]

Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11: 13-16

[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]

Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?[/quote]

Mark 12: 18-27
[/quote]

Old covenant law. Only 10 commandments, by the way.[/quote]

Since it’s the 10 commandments that count, rather than old covenant law or anything someone like Paul might say, I guess homosexuality is good to go then.[/quote]

Yep, you’re trolling.

111

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I know what you said, dude. Jesus didn’t say a thing about sex in that passage; he was only talking about marriage, and specifically in the context of when it is ok to divorce.[/quote]

The point of my quoting of the passage is to highlight that marriage is only sanctioned between a man and woman. Next, I assumed you understand biblical and traditional teaching about sex outside of marriage. Apparently, you’re unaware.[/quote]

There’s plenty of biblical precedent for sanctioned sex outside of marriage, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Which again is beside the point, since we were specifically discussing what Jesus actually said.[/quote]

And what he said is that from the beginning God planned that men would marry women. That God joins them together (sanctions sacramental marriage) Further, are you also now challenging the Christian teachings (biblical and traditional) about fornication? Really? So now your ‘preferred’ interpretation sounds like, oh so conveniently, a gay night club. [/quote]

Which, for the nth time, says nothing about sex.

I’m not challenging anything, just quoting your own bible back to you. Or was it actually not ok for biblical prophets to have sex outside of marriage? I guess Jesus changed his mind?

112

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]

Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11: 13-16

[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]

Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?[/quote]

Mark 12: 18-27
[/quote]

Old covenant law. Only 10 commandments, by the way.[/quote]

Since it’s the 10 commandments that count, rather than old covenant law or anything someone like Paul might say, I guess homosexuality is good to go then.[/quote]

Yep, you’re trolling.[/quote]

Nope, just holding a mirror to your logic.

113

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I know what you said, dude. Jesus didn’t say a thing about sex in that passage; he was only talking about marriage, and specifically in the context of when it is ok to divorce.[/quote]

The point of my quoting of the passage is to highlight that marriage is only sanctioned between a man and woman. Next, I assumed you understand biblical and traditional teaching about sex outside of marriage. Apparently, you’re unaware.[/quote]

There’s plenty of biblical precedent for sanctioned sex outside of marriage, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Which again is beside the point, since we were specifically discussing what Jesus actually said.[/quote]

And what he said is that from the beginning God planned that men would marry women. That God joins them together (sanctions sacramental marriage) Further, are you also now challenging the Christian teachings (biblical and traditional) about fornication? Really? So now your ‘preferred’ interpretation sounds like, oh so conveniently, a gay night club. [/quote]

Which, for the nth time, says nothing about sex.

I’m not challenging anything, just quoting your own bible back to you. Or was it actually not ok for biblical prophets to have sex outside of marriage? I guess Jesus changed his mind?[/quote]

Time to come clean, forlife. You’re not here to debate what Christianity authentically teaches. You’re here to simply to sling feces. In fact, the last two statements show a complete and total ignorance of Christianity; from the apostles, to the church fathers, and on up. You seem to have zero knowledge about old and new covenants. About Christ’s role in fulfilling the law. About mosaic law, about the gospels, about the acts and epistles, the gentiles, etc. The void of your knowledge is so mind-numbingly vast, that this thread has forced you into implying that Christ is a-ok with homosexuals cruising the park for some casual sex. Yes, you have. See, your latest posts implies that sex outside of marriage is now, all of a sudden, without any further revelation, good to go, also.

114

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]

Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11: 13-16

[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]

Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?[/quote]

Mark 12: 18-27
[/quote]

Old covenant law. Only 10 commandments, by the way.[/quote]

Since it’s the 10 commandments that count, rather than old covenant law or anything someone like Paul might say, I guess homosexuality is good to go then.[/quote]

Yep, you’re trolling.[/quote]

Nope, just holding a mirror to your logic.
[/quote]

No forlife, you’ve made a fool of yourself. I would wager most atheists and agnostics, who’ve studied the bible and christian thought, would agree with me. That Christianity is authentically anti-homosexuality, anti fornication, etc. Honest atheists and agnostics simply reject Christianity, not try to pretend it’s disco night at the gay club.

115

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I know what you said, dude. Jesus didn’t say a thing about sex in that passage; he was only talking about marriage, and specifically in the context of when it is ok to divorce.[/quote]

The point of my quoting of the passage is to highlight that marriage is only sanctioned between a man and woman. Next, I assumed you understand biblical and traditional teaching about sex outside of marriage. Apparently, you’re unaware.[/quote]

There’s plenty of biblical precedent for sanctioned sex outside of marriage, as I’m sure you’re aware.

Which again is beside the point, since we were specifically discussing what Jesus actually said.[/quote]

And what he said is that from the beginning God planned that men would marry women. That God joins them together (sanctions sacramental marriage) Further, are you also now challenging the Christian teachings (biblical and traditional) about fornication? Really? So now your ‘preferred’ interpretation sounds like, oh so conveniently, a gay night club. [/quote]

Which, for the nth time, says nothing about sex.

I’m not challenging anything, just quoting your own bible back to you. Or was it actually not ok for biblical prophets to have sex outside of marriage? I guess Jesus changed his mind?[/quote]

Time to come clean, forlife. You’re not here to debate what Christianity authentically teaches. You’re here to simply to sling feces. In fact, the last two statements show a complete and total ignorance of Christianity; from the apostles, to the church fathers, and on up. You seem to have zero knowledge about old and new covenants. About Christ’s role in fulfilling the law. About mosaic law, about the gospels, about the acts and epistles, the gentiles, etc. The void of your knowledge is so mind-numbingly vast, that this thread has forced you into implying that Christ is a-ok with homosexuals cruising the park for some casual sex. Yes, you have. See, your latest posts implies that sex outside of marriage is now, all of a sudden, without any further revelation, good to go, also.

[/quote]

I couldn’t care less what Christianity teaches, and never suggested otherwise. The point of this thread is to highlight the hypocrisy of cherry picking the biblical doctrines that suit you, while conveniently ignoring those that don’t. Particularly when you start slinging those cherries at me.

You never answered my question about women praying with their heads uncovered. Why is that?

The bible is filled with sanctioned examples of prophets having sex outside of marriage. Christians tout traditional marriage as an institution that has been around for 4k years, while conveniently ignoring the multitude of wives and concubines that “righteous” men had in the old testament.

Oh, but Jesus did away with all of that. Right??? As if he wasn’t smart enough to set up marriage correctly in the first place.

But if Jesus did away with all of that, he must also have done away with old testament injunctions agains gays, pork, mixed fibers, and shellfish. Right???

Nah, we like our bacon, our cotton blend clothes, and our lobster. So we’ll just pretend that was all part of the “old covenant”. But we still hate gays, so that still applies!

116

[quote]forlife wrote:

I couldn’t care less what Christianity teaches…[/quote]

You’re now on ignore. You sat here having a dishonest conversation, making claims you may or may not actually believe…no, actually not caring ‘less what Christianity teaches’…You trolled me. Congrats, but it’ll be the last time.

117

Folks, I try not resort to ignoring anyone but racists and troofers. But when someone pretends to imply that Christianity might actually condone gays picking each other up for one nights stands (see the sex outside of marriage stuff)…as if it was compatible with an intellectual and reasonable reading of scripture and basic christian understanding, well, that person is either completely ignorant or trolling. One does not have to profess the Christian faith to understand the above implications as being completely ludicrous. It’s a take it or leave it deal. The honest ones leave it. I can respect an honest atheist/agnostic. What I won’t put up with is someone trolling me.

“I couldn’t care less what Christianity teaches…”

Indeed. Now if only the original post said as much.

118

Stated,

“How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?”

To use an O.T.commandment, you have given the opening to use all of the O.T.'s commandments as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

119

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,

“How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?”

To use an O.T.commandment, you have given the opening to use all of the O.T.'s commandments as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.[/quote]

I’m fine with that, just like I’m fine with HoustonGuy’s position. At least you’re being consistent.

Which is the point of this thread. It’s not about the bible or Christianity per se, it’s about deriving internally consistent conclusions within that belief system. If the bible is god’s word as Christians claim, they should follow all of it, not just the parts that they like.

120

Stated,

“The biblical condemnation of divorce allows no exceptions…”

Matthew 9:19 “…Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication…”

Divorce is to be permitted when sexual immorality is involved. Christ states that the innocent party has a proper right to end the marriage by a divorce based on adultery.

I Corinthians 7:15 “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases…”

Paul’s treatment of marriage and desertion indicates that a marriage also may be dissolved by the desertion of an unbelieving spouse. He further indicates that remarriage by the believer in such cases is not sin. The faithful believer is no longer enslaved to his or her marriage vows and is free to remarry another believer (I Cor. 7:27-28).

Stated,

“…so the woman can avoid sin by staying in an abusive marriage…”

I Corinthians 7:10-11 “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”

Paul here is speaking of separation without legal divorce. He may be referring to situations where a marriage partner is acting in such a way as to endanger the physical or spiritual life of the wife and children. In such conditions, it may be best that one of the partners leave the home and neither partner remarry. It is inconceivable that Paul would advocate that a wife remain with a husband who repeatedly brought physical harm and abuse on her and the children.