This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 11 years, 4 months ago.
June 17, 2006 at 2:12 am #1295
I was on myspace.com and the topic was homosexuality. And I said….[b:18mnsztp]I’ll go a step further and ask what does NATURE say about homosexuality. In order for the human species to survive, a male and female union are necessary for reproduction. If this is not the case, this goes against the very nature of our species. And then I posted a refernece to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html [/b:18mnsztp]
And then this guy comes back with this….
[i:18mnsztp]You better start sudying the bible alittle better if you think what you wrote is what the bible says. Such as Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality it had to do with the Sodomites treating vistors with inhospitality, nothing in there about homosexuals, come on Jesus even talked about Sodom and Gomorrah and only talks about there distruction as a result of there inhospitality and ill will towards their neighbors and themselves.
Lev. is about the Holiness Code which was laws that were set by the Jewish leaders for the Jews. These 600 plus laws known as the Holiness Code was for religious purity and they did not want members of the Jewish faith taking part in pagan rituals. In Lev.18:21-22 & 20:13, the context concerns conduct in relation to neighbouring peoples and Jewish distinctiveness, as the community sought to re-establish itself among post-exilic struggles for identity. These textual references to same-sex acts have no bearing upon modern understandings of sexuality.
Romans 1:24-27, is a great insight to what he/Paul was talking about in Cor. these passages mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. You have to remember to that the time that he/Paul was writting this the Roman men were the dominant not only over women, but over younger males as well, whom the held as pupils. So really any none of these passages would even remotely apply to that of todays homosexuality. Instead most of the passage speak on gang and/or forced rape. To have the text refer to homosexual persons, one has to argue that homosexuality is a “deviation” from the normative “heterosexual” orientation or what is perceived as “natural”. Thus homosexuality is “normalised” in reference to “heterosexuality” and is labelled “unnatural”. Arguments that homosexuality is “against nature” are very problematic. Apart from being based on a misunderstanding of Paul’s argument in Romans 1, they risk the naturalistic fallacy in trying to argue a moral precept from an empirical state (arguing from is to ought). They impose a normative standard that recognises only one “natural” sexual orientation and denies the experience of homosexual persons who regard their sexual orientation as “natural” to themselves. To counter this, a secondary argument is often adopted with the view that homosexuality is a “chosen” state, an act of choice and not of “nature”. In this there is often a link to arguments based on Genesis 1:27-31 that assume a totally heterosexual Creation. Thus arguments that homosexuality is “against nature” apply a restrictive viewpoint, that of heterosexism, in which heterosexual experience not only dominates but is imposed as the delimiting case. Such interpretation stands contrary to the experience of homosexual persons and modern understandings of human sexuality.
I Cor 6:9, Paul actual used the word malakos, is used as a plural noun, malakoi, Malakos literally means ‘soft’ as when referring to inanimate objects such as clothes (see Lk. 7:25)., in the passage which you are speaking of. But here Matthew uses the word to designate soft or effeminate persons (see Matt. 11: and a related word, malakia, to mean ‘sickness’, or ‘weakeness’ (Matt.4:23; 9:35; 10:1). Early English translations rendered malakoi to denote a generalised, degenerate class of persons. Thus Wyclif (1380) renders malakoi as lechouris ayens kynde; Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535) and Cranmer (1539) give the rendering weaklinges; the Geneva Bible (1557) has wantons and both the Douai-Rheims (1582) and the King James Version (1611) render malakoi as ‘effeminate’. Later translations changed the rendering to catamites (JB, 1966) and ‘male prostitutes’ (NIV, 1973; and NRSV, 1989) to give a specific sexual connotation. There is no historical evidence for why this shift happened and is not supported by any that know the history of the word. Epictetus(a Greek Stoic philosopher, c.55c.135) use the word malakos to refer to ‘soft-headed’ persons, whom he regards to as dull to absorb true philosophy. Other ancient writers use the word to refer to people that are weak in a certain area of their being. Matthew 11:8, also, where malakoi and malaka designate effeminate, “soft” persons, as found in king’s houses(this could be talking about the role of queens). The roles of queens deemed not as important and much more luxurious/care free postion. So from a look at the history of the word Malakos which later was translated into effeminate, the meaning can not be what the bible protrays it as, due to the fac that it is a completely different meaning than that of the true meaning of the word.
So Servant of Christ you seem to be a poor servant at best you don’t even know what the bible says. Have you even studied Hebrew or Greek?[/i:18mnsztp]
Yes, my name is Servant of Christ at myspace and I get bashed for my name and defending the Catholic faith and the Catholic references that I use for assistance also get bashed. So my question is, do you think this person is making any valid points with his response?June 17, 2006 at 4:38 am #6561
First of all, he is not answering your points. He just copied and pasted an article from a pro-homosexuality website (you can easily find that out by copying a random line in the response and Googling it).
Second, most if not all of the material is revisionistic and illogical/irrelevant BS.
I typically refuse to interact with people who cannot address me without copying and pasting their words from somewhere else.June 17, 2006 at 1:39 pm #6562
That’s exactly what I thought too. I just wanted to get someone elses honest opinion and I can only get it here. My thoughts the same on him copy and pasting form a pro-homosexuality website. Kind makes me wonder if he is even striaght if he is defending homosexuality. Good idea on copying a line and then googling it, that’s what I’ll do and I’ll reply to him on the forum about it so everyone will see he did this and then I won’t respond to him anymore.
By the way, about a week ago I was running through the topics on this website and I came to “jesus on the cross” and I clicked on it. I had a post on their that I copy and pasted but I noticed that I forgot to state my source and provide the link. So I went back to the website to do so but I noticed it was copyrighted and I had to get permission so I didn’t even bother. So I decided to take it off. If anybody noticed, this is why. Sorry about that. ” title=”Sad” />
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.