FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Homosexuality biblical?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I'm taking a multiculturalism class right now that is beginning its Gay/Lesbian 2-week series. The class has given us a number of documents trying to prove that homosexuality is alright. One of these documents tries to prove that the Bible allows it. It is called "What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality" written by Unitarian Rev. Dr. F. Jay Deacon.

First before I ask some questions I think it would be good to know about what he thinks about how the Bible should be used. In the beginning part, he says: "It is unfortunate that a society that considers itself tolerant of all religious beliefs should attempt to base its civil legislation on the Bible or on any other arbitrarily selected holy book of scriptures."

It sure sounds like he does not want the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

I have already figured out how to refute Mr. Deacon on that Sodom & Gomorrah were fire-bombed for inhospitality and Deacon's assertion that Leviticus (containing death penalty pescriptions on homosexuality) should not be followed just because of civil laws of not eating shellfish, etc. Now I'm wondering if anyone knows how to refute Deacon's other assertions.

Quote:Romans 1:26-32
[H]e (Paul) viewed all sexuality with fear and disapproval, urging those who could to abstain. But today's psychological, sociological, and scientific know and sexual activity. ledge indicates that it is unnatural for a gay man or lesbian to defy his/her own 'nature' and personality structure by attempting heterosexual relationships and sexual activity.
One could also argue that much of Paul's writings on social issues has little bearing on modern society. No one today would argue for the restoration of slavery in the United States based on Paul, although he very clearly condones slavery. Paul also commands women to be silent and not to teach men.

I really think that it's a stretch to say that Paul was against sexuality. So was he against the continuation of the human race? I think that is a bit absurd to say that Paul was that dumb. And I think that Deacon is putting way too much faith in atheistic pyschology/science. I think that I know why Deacon's interpretation of Paul's writing on slavery is wrong, but how do I explain that should women not teach men? What is the correct interpretation for this?

Quote:1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:5-10
Problems of mistranslation arise in these epistles, one by Saint Paul and the other by an unknown author. The word homosexuals is not justified by the Greek text, which reads malakoi and arsenokoitai. Scholars do not know what these words mean (they have something to do with prostitution), so some translations have arbitrarily inserted the word homosexual.
...No one- repeat, no one- should actually take the whole Bible literally. If that were the case, they would not allow women to speak in church or ever teach men, demanding instead that women wear veils (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 11:5-16); we would demand the death penalty for lending money with interest (Ezekiel 18:5-18, Deuteronomy 23:19-20). Should bankers be ordained? Should they be protected by civil rights statutes? Should they live?

Well maybe Mr. Deacon needs to look to the source which transmitted the Bible, Holy Mother Church. As you can see, it seems that Deacon is just ranting and using noncontextual interpretation to justify his views. C'mon why is he talking about an Old Testament law. That law is void along with the rest of the Old Testament laws. Anyways does anyone know anything about those Greek words?

Quote:The Gospels
...Jesus is hardly a 'role model' for heterosexual family life. Jesus' lifestyle represented a dramatic break with the way almost all people, especially religious people, were expected to live. Instead of marrying, he associated intimately with twelve men. One loved him so much he was called 'The Beloved Disciple,' or ' The disciple who Jesus loved.'


How do I counter that Jesus and the Twelve were homos? Thanks in advance. Pax Christi~CV




Personally, I would simply approach the modern misconception that obtaining an orgasm is required in order to maintain a healthy life.  It is basically this misconception that leads people to believe that it is normal and appropriate for one to seek orgasm through whatever strange means are required for that individual.  When actually, if it requires something like same-sex partners, fetishes etc.  The best thing to do is abstain from sex completely and work on your spiritual health (not join the priesthood because a priest needs to be strong in this regard, not weak)

The other problem with this misconception is that many people think that a priest's celibacy somehow causes homosexuality.  Nothing could be further from the truth as whenever one stops indulging in the sexual response, one becomes stronger in resisting it's pull.  If anyone questions this, you should be straightforward (the class obviously seems straightforward enough).  Ask that person if they regularly exercise their sexual faculties, either through self or other, and challenge them to stop for one or two months.  They can discover for themselves that if they do this, they become less interested in sex, and gain more control over their lust.

I know that's not really any kind of scriptural back-up.  But I don't think that would work for these people.  You can't use bible quotes to back up assertions for non-believers.  You have to use things like common sense arguments to prove that the Bible is correct.

Quote:How do I counter that Jesus and the Twelve were homos?

By punching whoever said it in the face.[Image: boxers.gif]

Seriously though how do they prove that they were homo's. They can't so you don't have anything to refute in the first place.  The love between the disciples and Jesus was brotherly love of course the fags can't understand that so they twist it to suit their own messed up mentality.

I got this from ScriptureCatholic.com

Gen. 1 & 2 - we see from the beginning that the complimentarity of the sexes reflects God's inner unity and His creative power and Fatherhood. God created man and woman to become one flesh which is consummated in the act of marital love.
Gen. 2:18 – throughout the creation story, God says “it is good” seven times. But when God pointed out that man was alone, God says “it is not good.” God then created woman. Man and woman therefore belong together by God’s design, according to His natural and supernatural law.
Gen. 2:24 – God created man and woman so that they could share communion. This communion is consummated in the marital act (which must be between a man and a woman). This communion is also a reflection of the eternal communion of the Blessed Trinity, who created man in His own image and likeness.
Gen. 19:24-28 - the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality perverts God’s covenant with humanity.
Lev. 18:22, 29 - God commands a man never to lie with a male as with a female, or he will be cut off. This refers to supernatural death which is eternal separation from God.
Lev. 20:13 - God says that if a man lies with another man, he shall be put to death. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, unhealthy, and mortally sinful.
Deut. 22:5 - cross-dressing is also considered an abomination before God.
Matt. 19:6 - after referring to God's divine plan for man and woman, Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh, which ultimately reflects God's union with humanity through the Church. Homosexual unions pervert this divine truth of God’s love for and union with the human race.
Rom. 1:26 - also, when a woman lies with another women, this is unnatural and a perversion. God wants His children to be pure and holy as He is holy.
Rom. 1:27 – Saint Paul calls the practice of homosexuality shameless, unnatural and a perversity. It is contrary to the natural law, as it eviscerates the life-giving aspect of human sexuality and reduces it to a selfish, pleasure-seeking end.
1 Cor. 6:9 - homosexuality is not part of God's plan for His kingdom. Homosexuals are called to chastity.
1 Tim. 1:10 - sodomites are called ungodly and sinners, unholy and profane, lawless and disobedient. They are called by God to chastity. It is important to note that homosexual attractions and inclinations, while dangerous, are not by themselves sinful per se. It is the acting out on homosexual attraction that is sinful. Those with homosexual desires can still live a life worthy of Christ by remaining chaste and pure as they abstain from acting out on their desires.


Quote:Charlemagne: Seriously though how do they prove that they were homo's.  They can't so you don't have anything to refute in the first place.
Well I just think that Mr. Deacon is mistaking certain situations of love as erotic love i.e. St. John put his head against Jesus' chest. There are different kinds of love. A man giving a man a hug does not necessarily mean that that man is a homosexual nor does a man that hangs out with other men mean that he is a homosexual.
CatholicViking Wrote:I'm taking a multiculturalism class right now that is beginning its Gay/Lesbian 2-week series.
I'm sorry.
 
Quote:The class has given us a number of documents trying to prove that homosexuality is alright. One of these documents tries to prove that the Bible allows it. It is called "What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality" written by Unitarian Rev. Dr. F. Jay Deacon.
 
Do you have a full copy of this article, in electronic format, that you could send to me?



Quote:Romans 1:26-32
[H]e (Paul) viewed all sexuality with fear and disapproval, urging those who could to abstain. But today's psychological, sociological, and scientific know and sexual activity. ledge indicates that it is unnatural for a gay man or lesbian to defy his/her own 'nature' and personality structure by attempting heterosexual relationships and sexual activity.
One could also argue that much of Paul's writings on social issues has little bearing on modern society. No one today would argue for the restoration of slavery in the United States based on Paul, although he very clearly condones slavery. Paul also commands women to be silent and not to teach men.

This is such a tired old argument; the cliche, "Paul was sexually repressed and/or gay."  Gag.
 
Was St. Paul anti-sex?  On the contrary, he demanded, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control." (1 Cor. 7:3-5)
 
Read that whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 7.  What you'll find there is that St. Paul (rightly) teaches that consecrated celibacy is preferred, not because sex is bad, but because "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord." (1 Cor. 7:32-25)
 
This same apostle wrote, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled." (Heb. 13:4)  But a liberal like Deacon will never admit that St. Paul wrote Hebrews.
 
And is Deacon really so stupid that he doesn't know that "slavery" in the Ancient Near East was not like the slavery experienced by the African-Americans in our country centuries ago?  Does he not realize that it was much more like hired employment?  He was not pro-slavery, he was anti-revoution.  He exhorted slaves to keep the peace and obey their masters - what's wrong with that?

Quote:how do I explain that should women not teach men? What is the correct interpretation for this?

That's right - St. Paul taught that in the church, women were to keep silent and not have authority over men.  The entire Catholic Church stood behind him on this point until about 40 years ago, when they started letting female lectresses read Scripture in the Mass.

Quote:1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:5-10
Problems of mistranslation arise in these epistles, one by Saint Paul and the other by an unknown author. The word homosexuals is not justified by the Greek text, which reads malakoi and arsenokoitai. Scholars do not know what these words mean (they have something to do with prostitution), so some translations have arbitrarily inserted the word homosexual.

 
Yes, malakoi is used in 1 Cor. 6:9 - and it's primary meaning is "soft," but when used metaphorically it means "effeminate."
 
As for arsenokoitai, this is a no-brainer.  It's a compound Greek word; the first word is arrhen, and it means "a male"; the second word is koite, which you will recognize immediately when I tell you that it translates into Latin as coitus - put the puzzle together.  Man ... coitus ... St. Paul, in plain language, is speaking of men who have coitus with men.
 
Quote: ...No one- repeat, no one- should actually take the whole Bible literally. If that were the case, they would not allow women to speak in church or ever teach men, demanding instead that women wear veils (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 11:5-16); we would demand the death penalty for lending money with interest (Ezekiel 18:5-18, Deuteronomy 23:19-20). Should bankers be ordained? Should they be protected by civil rights statutes? Should they live?

Ooookay.  Fine.  Silence the women in church and make them wear veils - that's the way it's supposed to be.  As for lending money with interest, Deacon is here arguing from cultural preference to morality - he's used to living in a sinful, materialistic, consumeristic, capitalist society that has been brainwashed into thinking usury is normal and ok.  Because he lives in that kind of society, he rather narrow-mindedly cannot seem to think outside his own tiny box, to imagine a world wherein usury is wrong, and ought to be punished - perhaps not by death, but the principle remains.
 
He asks the questions rhetorically, as though it were absurd to think otherwise than that usury is normal; and that's where he betrays his myopia and intolerance.


Quote:The Gospels
...Jesus is hardly a 'role model' for heterosexual family life. Jesus' lifestyle represented a dramatic break with the way almost all people, especially religious people, were expected to live. Instead of marrying, he associated intimately with twelve men.

 
Gag.  Deacon is so tunnel-visioned it's almost sad.  He seems to have no idea whatsoever that the Jewish tradition gives witness to the fact that lots of people practiced celibacy in Old Testament times and in the time of Christ.  The rabbis held to the tradition that Moses lived as a celibate and never touched his wife again after he spoke with God on Mt. Sinai.  I think many in the Essene community were committed to celibacy as well - a bit of research on the Essenes might help you here.
 
Deacon is clueless.  He really can't imagine life outside his little 20th century world, can he?
 
 
Quote:Lumen: Do you have a full copy of this article, in electronic format, that you could send to me?
Yes I do. PM me about where to send the document.

Quote:Lumen: ...And is Deacon really so stupid that he doesn't know that "slavery" in the Ancient Near East was not like the slavery experienced by the African-Americans in our country centuries ago? Does he not realize that it was much more like hired employment? He was not pro-slavery, he was anti-revoution. He exhorted slaves to keep the peace and obey their masters - what's wrong with that?

Thanks for the tons of info proving that Paul was not anti-sex. True that it was a different form of slavery. I guess Deacon will have to toss out much of the Old Testament because it promotes slavery many times.

Quote:Lumen: That's right - St. Paul taught that in the church, women were to keep silent and not have authority over men.
And the Old Testament Church did not allow women to preach in church either.

Thanks again for helping. Perhaps now I might be brave enough to challenge the instructor on this article on Monday. I'm not sure if I will because any resistace to their ideologies might bar me from a teaching license. But if anyone else challenges the article, I'll gladly join in. It's amazing how the class is using such a poorly researched article.[Image: pipe.gif]
CatholicViking Wrote:
Quote:Lumen: Do you have a full copy of this article, in electronic format, that you could send to me?
Yes I do. PM me about where to send the document.
Send it to jacob dot michael at gmail dot com.

Quote:Perhaps now I might be brave enough to challenge the instructor on this article on Monday. I'm not sure if I will because any resistace to their ideologies might bar me from a teaching license.

 
Challenging a scholarly opinion is tricky business if you want to get your teaching license.  But there is a way to do it.
 
The trick is to tone down the polemics and turn up the agnosticism.  You don't just come right out and say "Deacon is a dumb-$#$!! who wouldn't know his butt from a hole in the ground," you say things like, "perhaps Deacon is being less than responsible in his deviation from the majority of scholary opinion, and is need of fraternal correction on a few points."
 
And it always helps if you can cite other academic scholars in your favor.  Then it's not you who's arguing against Deacon, it's this scholar, and that scholar, and that other one too.  You're just the neutral middle man, pitting opinions against opinions, and barely taking sides.
 
If you have time, I would strongly suggest you get a hold of the following articles, which you can quote in your defense:
 
David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9", Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (October/December, 1993), pp. 479-492
 
David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27", Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (July/September, 1993), pp. 327-340
 
Michael P. Ukleja, "The Bible and Homosexuality, pt 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament", Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (October/December, 1983), pp. 350-358
 
David F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984), pp. 124-53
 
David F. Wright, "Translating arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)," Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), pp. 396-398
 
Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to J Boswell's Exegesis of Rom 1", Journal of Religious Ethics 14/1 (Spring 1986), pp. 184-215
 
 
Lumen, the email has been sent.

Quote:Lumen: And it always helps if you can cite other academic scholars in your favor. Then it's not you who's arguing against Deacon, it's this scholar, and that scholar, and that other one too. You're just the neutral middle man, pitting opinions against opinions, and barely taking sides.

Good idea. Still I would have to be careful. If I was the teacher, I would not want a student discreditting my course materials. And I would probably be a bit irritated. Well I guess I'll see what happens on Monday at the happy hour of 7:30. Nobody will probably feel compelled to debate at that hour. Hopefully one of them will take a stand against all this nonsense. But I doubt it, since mostly everyone is afraid to speak out and there is a lesbian in the class. Also the Education Department here has a history of imposing Liberalism/Socialism, etc with an iron fist. So I guess I'll see what happens. Anyways thanks for all the help. It is greatly appreciated. Pray that I won't be shot for using sound reasoning.


Thanks ... I think.  :-)
 
What an insipid article.  He pulls out all the stops, doesn't he?  Even throws Jonathan and David in there as an example of a homosexual couple in the bible.  How passe.
 
Forget the fact that scholarship has shown quite convincingly that the language of love used between David and Jonathan has much in common with political treaty documents of their time - which would only make sense, since Jonathan was next in line for the throne, but knew that David was going to get the kingdom instead. 
 
This article is just full of ... ugh.  He even poisons the well right from the start by saying that people who read the bible as "a set of legalistic moralisms" are on par with those who "demanded the death of Jesus on the grounds that he took the legalisms of their common religious tradition too lightly."
 
There you go.  Disagreement with Deacon is tantamount to Deicide.
 
He can't tell the difference between a moral law in Leviticus, one which is based on Natural Law, and a dietary law?
 
And if he wants to know what the sin of Sodom really was, he really doesn't need to look any further than the dictionary.  There's a reason why "sodomy" is a synonym for homosexuality.
 
It's just sad, the way he flails away at every obstacle, without any rhyme or reason.  He deploys a rather wide variety of arguments against Leviticus, Genesis, Romans, 1 Corinthians, etc., but none of his arguments are consistent - he changes them to suit the situation.
 
His argument against Leviticus basically amounts to this: the book contains some laws which are obviously not applicable in today's society (dietary prohibitions), therefore none of the laws in Leviticus are applicable. 
 
His argument against Genesis is that thousands of years of scholarship is wrong about identifying Sodom's sin as sodomy.  Real convincing.
 
His argument against Romans is a bit trickier - he can't pull the stunt he pulls later with 1 Corinthians and say that the words are misinterpreted, because St. Paul very clearly and explicitly talks about the sexual sin of men exchanging natural relations with women for unnatural relations with men.  So what does he do?  Tries to discredit the witness.  "Well, we can't believe this, because we know that Paul was afraid of sex."  And if that doesn't hold water, then he uses the Leviticus argument again - St. Paul teaches some things that aren't applicable in modern society, so apparently none of his teaching is worth anything.
 
But this is just blatant:

Quote:Jesus, who had a great deal to say about the impossibility of the rich attaining salvation, had nothing to say about homosexuality.
 
Oh really?  Seems to me it was Jesus who laid down the fundamental and foundational argument against homosexuality:
 
Quote:And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt. 19:3-6)
 
But you know what Deacon would say?  He'd say that this section of Matthew is a later insertion by a redactor/editor and probably isn't an authentic saying of Christ.

These damned liberals are wily as hell.  (No, I'm not cursing; I'm speaking literally, in both cases).
Pages: 1 2