Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36053 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#26941 Jun 22, 2014
lides wrote:
Keep in mind, only 2 were disciples of Jesus (John and Matthew), Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was a disciple of St. Paul. So, the latter two were not direct witnesses to the events ...
Mark and Luke were disciples of Jesus and co-workers with Peter and Paul, respectively.
All apostles are disciples, but not all disciples are apostles, neither are they all eye-witnesses.

"... blessed are they that have not seen, but have believed" (John 20:29).
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
ad hominem fallacy followed by more circular reasoning.
Try again
Word salad response. And don't bother trying again as it's just the same recycled nonsense.
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Snyper has passed away to join the angels.
RIP
I suppose that a "fallen angel" is still technically an angel, but I wouldn't care to keep company with them.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#26942 Jun 22, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
Mark and Luke were disciples of Jesus and co-workers with Peter and Paul, respectively.
All apostles are disciples, but not all disciples are apostles, neither are they all eye-witnesses.
"... blessed are they that have not seen, but have believed" (John 20:29).
Sorry, kiddo, your understanding of the work is skewed, which may explain your skewed opinion.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26943 Jun 22, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Mark and Luke were disciples of Jesus and co-workers with Peter and Paul, respectively.
All apostles are disciples, but not all disciples are apostles, neither are they all eye-witnesses.
"... blessed are they that have not seen, but have believed" (John 20:29).
<quoted text>
Word salad response. And don't bother trying again as it's just the same recycled nonsense.
<quoted text>
I suppose that a "fallen angel" is still technically an angel, but I wouldn't care to keep company with them.
You may want to check out the following website before continuing with this discussion.

According to Catholic tradition, the four Gospels were written by four individuals called the four Evangelists. Many scholars today, however, argue that the original authors were "anonymous," and that the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were only later connected with these four books. Which opinion is correct? Better yet, what difference does it make? This workshop will explain why it is important for all Christian teachers and students to know how, when, for whom, and by whom the Gospels were written.

Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):
1.Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2.Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
3.Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4.Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Evangelis...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26944 Jun 22, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose that a "fallen angel" is still technically an angel, but I wouldn't care to keep company with them.
Matthew 7

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#26945 Jun 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, your understanding of the work is skewed ...
By the light of scripture, my understanding is that your work is skewed, so don't feel obligated to share it with me.
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Catholic tradition ...
According to Catholic tradition?
Is there still a Saint Christopher medal dangling from your car's rear view mirror?
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew 7
Matthew 25:41

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#26946 Jun 22, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
By the light of scripture, my understanding is that your work is skewed, so don't feel obligated to share it with me.
Awww, parroting, how cute. Any way you slice it, the books were written down long after their namesakes had shuffled off this mortal coil, and you are incorrect about their namesakes being first person witnesses. Only two of the four were disciples of Jesus. None of which should present a problem to a person of faith. Of course, your problem is less one of faith and more one of ignorance of the material you have elected to put your faith in.
Joe DeCaro wrote:
According to Catholic tradition?
Is there still a Saint Christopher medal dangling from your car's rear view mirror?
No. I grew up Catholic.
Joe DeCaro wrote:
Matthew 25:41
Matthew 7
Cali Girl 2014xt

Sylmar, CA

#26947 Jun 22, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>The Puritans had a saying,

"We are not ready to live until we are ready to die."

What angels are you talking about?
You wouldn't know about Angels,
only GOOD people do....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26948 Jun 22, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
By the light of scripture, my understanding is that your work is skewed, so don't feel obligated to share it with me.
<quoted text>
According to Catholic tradition?
Is there still a Saint Christopher medal dangling from your car's rear view mirror?
<quoted text>
Matthew 25:41
So now you judge me again? Thanks for your argumentum ad baculum post. You do realize, as such, your post is a fallacy lacking validity. It is not your place to cures me.

(In reference too)
Matthew 25:41

New International Version (NIV)

41 “Then he will say to those on his left,‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26949 Jun 22, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
By the light of scripture, my understanding is that your work is skewed, so don't feel obligated to share it with me.
<quoted text>
According to Catholic tradition?
Is there still a Saint Christopher medal dangling from your car's rear view mirror?
<quoted text>
Matthew 25:41
The Catholics wrote the book. Everything else is simply a poor imitation.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26950 Jun 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww, parroting, how cute. Any way you slice it, the books were written down long after their namesakes had shuffled off this mortal coil, and you are incorrect about their namesakes being first person witnesses. Only two of the four were disciples of Jesus. None of which should present a problem to a person of faith. Of course, your problem is less one of faith and more one of ignorance of the material you have elected to put your faith in.
<quoted text>
No. I grew up Catholic.
<quoted text>
Matthew 7
Indeed. I found this interesting.
Four-Fold Role of the Evangelists as Authors (what they contributed, even if "God is the Author" of all scripture):
Compare this list with the principles mentioned in the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1964 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, par. IX.
1.Selectors - from among the many things Jesus said and did, they chose which stories they wanted to include and which to omit.
2.Arrangers - they organized the materials in a particular sequence, not necessarily chronologically but often in thematic blocks.
3.Shapers - they adapted and edited the individual stories from their sources so as to emphasize the themes they wanted to stress.
4.Proclaimers - they were not objective historians, but preached the "good news" about Jesus in ways appropriate to their audiences.

They say 'God wrote the Book' then follow with something which proves otherwise. This makes the Bible a self refuting tautology.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26951 Jun 22, 2014
For those of us who need more background.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26952 Jun 22, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. I found this interesting.
Four-Fold Role of the Evangelists as Authors (what they contributed, even if "God is the Author" of all scripture):
Compare this list with the principles mentioned in the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1964 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, par. IX.
1.Selectors - from among the many things Jesus said and did, they chose which stories they wanted to include and which to omit.
2.Arrangers - they organized the materials in a particular sequence, not necessarily chronologically but often in thematic blocks.
3.Shapers - they adapted and edited the individual stories from their sources so as to emphasize the themes they wanted to stress.
4.Proclaimers - they were not objective historians, but preached the "good news" about Jesus in ways appropriate to their audiences.
They say 'God wrote the Book' then follow with something which proves otherwise. This makes the Bible a self refuting tautology.
Too funny.

Two gays who are confused about marriage are now going to re-establish the canonicity of the Bible.

When does the book come out... of the closet???

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26953 Jun 22, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny.
Two gays who are confused about marriage are now going to re-establish the canonicity of the Bible.
When does the book come out... of the closet???
Smile.
Huge fallacy as usual.

Try again sometime.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#26954 Jun 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww, parroting, how cute ...
Awww, trolling, how predictable.
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The Catholics wrote the book. Everything else is simply a poor imitation.
Then you must agree that Catholics are correct in banning homosexuals from attending Roman seminaries.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26955 Jun 23, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
He was a great guy. Very scholarly. I miss both he and Golem.
Me too.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26956 Jun 23, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww, trolling, how predictable.
<quoted text>
Then you must agree that Catholics are correct in banning homosexuals from attending Roman seminaries.
Huge fallacy.

At least one-third of the Catholic clergy are gay. How do you account for that?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26957 Jun 23, 2014
Why is that post a fallacy?

Ad hominem statement.

Non-sequitorial lie.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26958 Jun 23, 2014
Proof of the previous poster's lies

But even with these three negative criteria, it would not necessarily follow that gay candidates would be denied admission to seminaries or be expelled once they are in. Seminary officials would still have the right and the responsibility to exercise their own "prudential judgment." There would be no rigid litmus test. The same Vatican official noted that the concept of homosexuality is ambiguous, and that there is no agreed-upon definition. An "absolute policy," therefore, would be impossible to formulate and to apply. He also emphasized that the document would not be concerned with sacramental theology. It would say nothing about the worthiness of homosexuals to function as priests. On the contrary, the Vatican is aware that there are a number of gay priests who live celibate lives and do fine pastoral work. Nor would the document have anything to do with priests (and bishops) who are already ordained. This recent turn of events will come as a bitter disappointment to Catholics on the far right who have been quick to blame gay priests for the sexual-abuse scandal in the church. They have lobbied for nothing less than the exclusion and expulsion of all gays from seminaries. The logic of their position is that the church should also search out and expel gays already functioning as priests. None of this is going to happen. At most, a few "dissident" seminary faculty members might be reassigned and some "activist" seminarians quietly encouraged to leave, but nothing more.

Benedict XVI will deserve full credit for this prudent stand-down.

- See more at:

http://www.catholiccourier.com/commentary/fat...

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#26959 Jun 23, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Huge fallacy.
At least one-third of the Catholic clergy are gay. How do you account for that?
I don't have to account for your wrong assumptions, but by my own calculations just in Bridgeport Diocese some years ago, about 3% were gay, which was about the national average of 3.5% gays in the US population.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#26960 Jun 23, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
But even with these three negative criteria, it would not necessarily follow that gay candidates would be denied admission to seminaries or be expelled once they are in ...
"Pope Benedict XVI has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document indicating that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as Catholic priests.

"The new document-- which was prepared by the Congregation for Catholic Education, in response to a request made by the late Pope John Paul II in 1994-- will be published soon. It will take the form of an "Instruction," signed by the prefect and secretary of the Congregation: Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski and Archbishop Michael Miller.

"The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.

"Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood.

"The Instruction does not represent a change in Church teaching or policy. Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America. The resulting crisis in the priesthood-- in which one prominent American commentator observed that the priesthood was coming to be seen as a 'gay' profession-- prompted Pope John Paul II to call for a new study on the question ..."

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/...

BTW, that study was by John Jay College.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Minister rejects 'wicked' anti-gay posters 37 min Mildred 3
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 41 min Frindly 8,660
News Catholic Church threatens to fire gay teachers ... 2 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 35
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) 11 hr Rabbeen Al Jihad 66
News Tunisian president 'boldly' takes on Islam to a... 12 hr Rabbeen Al Jihad 1
News Elvis Is Alive and Well In Las Vegas Mon Dead and Drugged 2
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... Mon South Knox Hombre 7
More from around the web