Topic: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?

[Heorhij]

I heard exactly the opposite from some gays that I know. One man who is in a very committed, monogamous relationship with a man told me that for him, it's exactly like for a member of any committed monogamous heterosexual couple.

Your bringing this up is a bit hypocritical, considering your general point that we as heterosexuals cannot know what it is to be homosexual/in a homosexual relationship.  Same criticism applies here.

We cannot know, but at least we can hear from them, listen. Everything that I heard (directly or indirectly) from the Orthodox clergy does not go even that far.

[Heorhij]

Arguments from beauty, aesthetics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cci9-G1PrxE&feature=related

And so many of these single-sex female couples in the world of arts, literature... Lesya Ukrayinka and Ol'ha Kobylyans'ka - two amazing writers, playwrights, poets in the 1880's- 1900's Ukraine (Kobylyans'ka in what was back then the "Austian" part of my homeland and Lesya Ukrayinka (real name Larisa Petrivna Kosach) in what was back then the "Russian" part)...

[Heorhij]

It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 

The thing is, we betray Christian revelation for the sake of the popular culture every single day and hour and minute of our lives. We use credit cards. That's partaking in usury. Usury is forbidden by Scripture. There is no way around it.

Our clergy thus betrays Christian revelation all the time. And the same clergy tells us, look, the Church in Her infinite wisdom decided that gay sex is bad.

I am not saying that the Church is not wise. I am not, actually, saying that She should reconsider our views on usury - but I cannot say I don't hope She will (absolutely unrealistic as it is). I hate usury and I hate myself for partaking in it.

But, similarly, I hate myself for yielding to the view that whatever the Church says right now is the ultimate truth. I know I should not yield to this view, with all my respect and adoration due to the Church. The thing is, I, too, am the Church. And I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage. Usury was held unanimously as a sinful practice for quite some time by the Church (I'd say, rightly), but now no one even recalls it. Homosexual marriage is held as impossible and sinful for quite some time, to (in my humle opinion, UNrightly), - so maybe in time it will not be something that people will even recall, just like no one recalls right now how fircely the Church opposed usury?   

[Alveus Lacuna]

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse does on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

[Heorhij]

And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

But she did have the possibility at one time with him.  It can't be said the other way.

I don't even know why I or anyone else is bothering.  You have shown that you're not going to change your position, and others that they are not going to change theirs.

No, if a woman lacks her womb and a man wants to marry her, the Church will not forbid that. Right?

I don't know either, Father, why you are "bothering." I hope it is because you are a good young man and something good is telling you that the issue is a lot more complicated that what you are used to think (or not think) it is.

[Heorhij]

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it. There are gay couples who live as couples for decades and are in perfect health, just like heterosexual couples.

[ms.hoorah]

Alveus,
Here is an article written by a physician about the health problems caused by gay sex.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex-written by John Diggs, M.D. (an Internal Medicine Physician) 
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

[DavidH]

It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 

The thing is, we betray Christian revelation for the sake of the popular culture every single day and hour and minute of our lives. We use credit cards. That's partaking in usury. Usury is forbidden by Scripture. There is no way around it.

Our clergy thus betrays Christian revelation all the time. And the same clergy tells us, look, the Church in Her infinite wisdom decided that gay sex is bad.

I am not saying that the Church is not wise. I am not, actually, saying that She should reconsider our views on usury - but I cannot say I don't hope She will (absolutely unrealistic as it is). I hate usury and I hate myself for partaking in it.

But, similarly, I hate myself for yielding to the view that whatever the Church says right now is the ultimate truth. I know I should not yield to this view, with all my respect and adoration due to the Church. The thing is, I, too, am the Church. And I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage. Usury was held unanimously as a sinful practice for quite some time by the Church (I'd say, rightly), but now no one even recalls it. Homosexual marriage is held as impossible and sinful for quite some time, to (in my humle opinion, UNrightly), - so maybe in time it will not be something that people will even recall, just like no one recalls right now how fircely the Church opposed usury?   

A lot of critics of the Church would have you and I believe she has changed this teaching concerning usury in order to sow moral confusion on other issues but the essence of the teaching has remained the same even if historical coinditions have changed. Before the rise of capital economies in the 16th and 17th centuries, usury was virtually always an exorbitant rate of interest charged on loans that enslaved the borrower. With the rise of capital economies, you could lend your money to someone who in turn could make money and thus you charged interest. Renting out the money effectively. We still need to watch out for "usurious" or unfair rates of interest but in modern economies money works differently. It's an easy charge to answer and there are plenty of sources available to study the Christian answer more in depth.
Homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, adultery etc. are still perversions and lusts according to Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and all the saints. Opposing that sort of consensus takes one's views outside of the Church because it is not just what the Church is saying right now but what She has been saying since the beginning.   

[ialmisry]

Arguments from beauty, aesthetics...

....yes, the arteest community where everything vile (e.g. Mapplethorpe) congregates and becomes fashionable.

You have heard that appearances can be deceiving, no?

[PeterTheAleut]

The thing is, I, too, am the Church.

I think you may be stretching this idea a bit too far, though.  The faithful do constitute the Church, thus making our Spirit-filled discernment relevant, but there is such thing as consensus.  If your point of view goes against the consensus belief regarding what our Apostolic Tradition teaches, then I would call your point of view into question.

[ialmisry]

It seems like this would be a simple issue for an Orthodox Christian:
Holy Scripture is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Holy Tradition is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
The Church is not ambiguous about the morality of sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Agreeing with these teachings makes one a faithful disciple of Christ, the Church, Scripture and Tradition; disagreement places one's opinions outside of Christ the Church, Scripture and Tradition.

I understand when someone outside of the Christianity does not agree with the sources of teaching authority within the Faith but it is strange when Christians allow emotion to form their opinions to the point they no longer accept or understand even the ABC's of Christian moral teaching on sexuality.

As believers we are to renew our minds by allowing our opinions to be formed by the Christian revelation rather than by popular culture and feelings, are we not?



 

The thing is, we betray Christian revelation for the sake of the popular culture every single day and hour and minute of our lives. We use credit cards. That's partaking in usury. Usury is forbidden by Scripture. There is no way around it.

Our clergy thus betrays Christian revelation all the time. And the same clergy tells us, look, the Church in Her infinite wisdom decided that gay sex is bad.

I am not saying that the Church is not wise. I am not, actually, saying that She should reconsider our views on usury - but I cannot say I don't hope She will (absolutely unrealistic as it is). I hate usury and I hate myself for partaking in it.

But, similarly, I hate myself for yielding to the view that whatever the Church says right now is the ultimate truth. I know I should not yield to this view, with all my respect and adoration due to the Church. The thing is, I, too, am the Church. And I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage. Usury was held unanimously as a sinful practice for quite some time by the Church (I'd say, rightly), but now no one even recalls it. Homosexual marriage is held as impossible and sinful for quite some time, to (in my humle opinion, UNrightly), - so maybe in time it will not be something that people will even recall, just like no one recalls right now how fircely the Church opposed usury?   

A lot of critics of the Church would have you and I believe she has changed this teaching concerning usury in order to sow moral confusion on other issues but the essence of the teaching has remained the same even if historical coinditions have changed. Before the rise of capital economies in the 16th and 17th centuries, usury was virtually always an exorbitant rate of interest charged on loans that enslaved the borrower. With the rise of capital economies, you could lend your money to someone who in turn could make money and thus you charged interest. Renting out the money effectively. We still need to watch out for "usurious" or unfair rates of interest but in modern economies money works differently. It's an easy charge to answer and there are plenty of sources available to study the Christian answer more in depth.
Homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, adultery etc. are still perversions and lusts according to Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and all the saints. Opposing that sort of consensus takes one's views outside of the Church because it is not just what the Church is saying right now but what She has been saying since the beginning.   

Just to chime in a little bit about the difference with capitalism: another is the very idea of money.  During the Middle Ages money had not gotten away from the idea of inherent value of coinage, i.e. a coin derives its value from the metal in it.  Coins were still weighed.  Only around the time of the shift of coinage to face value, which the rise of capitalism made possible, can we begin to speak of interest, rather than usury.  Roman Palestine, in many ways, was NOT a cash economy.  As you said, Christian analysis of the differences are widely available.

[minasoliman]

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Heorhij,

To be honest, I don't know how you "know" there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.  Outside the context of Christianity, I don't know whether homosexuality is right or wrong.

You also mention MONOGAMOUS.  How do you know that polygamy is wrong?  Because again, I don't know. 

But what I do know is that Christianity has a certain moral code, and I believe changes or confusion in the moral code sounds somewhat dangerous, at least to the faith, to my faith.  I've told a Catholic nun before who also held to the idea that homosexuality is morally correct (to which I proceeded to tell her you contradict your own Pope), if that was true, if homosexuality can be found without any inconsistencies or holes in one's argument that homosexuality is morally correct, to be honest, I would either cease to be a Christian or I would remain a Christian if it was found in history that there were inconsistencies or false premises underlying a certain moral conduct.

God bless.

[ialmisry]

And a man and his womb-lacking wife can never have it with each other to have children, either.

But she did have the possibility at one time with him.  It can't be said the other way.

I don't even know why I or anyone else is bothering.  You have shown that you're not going to change your position, and others that they are not going to change theirs.

No, if a woman lacks her womb and a man wants to marry her, the Church will not forbid that. Right?

Your point?  That because a man lacks a womb another man can "marry" him?

Were God to fully redeem the couple in this life, the woman would have a womb.  The pathic "spouse" would not.  But then again, if God fully redeemed them in this life, the same sex attraction wouldn't be there and it would be a moot point.  The attraction of husband and wife would remain in our heterosexual couple.

I don't know either, Father, why you are "bothering." I hope it is because you are a good young man and something good is telling you that the issue is a lot more complicated that what you are used to think (or not think) it is.

No, on the issue of same sex marriage, it is quite simple indeed.  Even my 6 year old son sponstaneous saw that: when he saw the rush to SF city hall on the news in 2004, he asked me what they were doing.  I said "getting married."  He replied, "they can't get married: they're two boys."

[ialmisry]

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

There is none. Male gay couples know how to avoid it.

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and yet its practioners have to know how to avoid the damages of practising it.  How very odd.

[DavidH]

Thank you, ialmistry, for the additional info on usury. It helped me to clarify my thinking a little more, too.
I am also glad that Heorhij brought up the point about theosis. Theosis is why the Church is so unyielding in its moral code. It can only effectively be sought by those who are daily repenting of their sins. If someone is practicing a lifestyle which has been revealed as sinful but calls it a virtue then that process is short-circuited and all that is left is prelest. As Christians we pray for them and try to speak the truth in love without judging harshly because it is art of the Great Commission to call all to repentance (including ourselves). As the Proverbs say, "An open rebuke is better than hidden love."

[minasoliman]

No, on the issue of same sex marriage, it is quite simple indeed.  Even my 6 year old son sponstaneous saw that: when he saw the rush to SF city hall on the news in 2004, he asked me what they were doing.  I said "getting married."  He replied, "they can't get married: they're two boys."

Isa, to be honest though, would your son have known that without teaching him gender differences or without influencing his mind when he grows up and sees only heterosexual relationships, especially that of his parents?  I would wonder what the first impression of children raised by homosexual couples would be.

[minasoliman]

Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.

Any Bible scholars like to comment on these rebuttals?

[ialmisry]

Arguments from beauty, aesthetics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cci9-G1PrxE&feature=related

And so many of these single-sex female couples in the world of arts, literature... Lesya Ukrayinka and Ol'ha Kobylyans'ka - two amazing writers, playwrights, poets in the 1880's- 1900's Ukraine (Kobylyans'ka in what was back then the "Austian" part of my homeland

Correction: Kobylyanska was born and died in Bucovina, my ex-wife's homeland of Romania.  It did have a large Slavic population, but they were overwhelmingly Ruthenians/Rusyn.  It wasn't Ukrainian until Khrushchev.

[ialmisry]

Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.

Any Bible scholars like to comment on these rebuttals?

I wasn't, but since you asked.

I don't recall anyone being stoned to death for eating rabbits.  The "anti-ritualist" issue were marked as pertaining to the Hebrews: if a gentile ate a rabbit, it wasn't a problem.  Things like incest, adultery, homosexuality etc. were immoral and not only so for the Hebrews, but for the gentiles as well.  Witnesss the interactions of the patriarchs with the gentile rulers over the formers' wives.  Onan's problem was that he took Tamar but refused to sleep with her to raise up children for his brother. Since she was married to him, she could not have another man to do his duty (witness what Judah says when it is found out that she is pregnant), hence he was thereby preventing children ever coming for his brother.  Typical example of pleasure divorced from responsibilty.

The Sodomites themselves identify Lot as an alien.  If hospitality was the issue, they would have dealt with Lot previously on the issue.  Since Lot was wealthy, as Genesis tells us, if wealth was the issue he would have offered that rather than his daughters. No, the story makes quite clear that the Sodomites take offense at being judged by Lot for their sexual choices.

The words in Hebrew, Aramaic (and for that matter Arabic), Greek etc. lump all sorts of variations of sexual immorality into one lump sum of sin.  I find nothing in St. Paul that approves of polygamy, concubines, or of course gay marriages: he is quite emphatically supporting monogamy, which he could more than contemplate (e.g. his urging to remain monogamous even after the death of the spouse).  St. Paul, a GREEK name btw, was born and grew in the gentile Greek town of Tarsus.  He was not a Hebrew hick from the stix of Palestine.  He was well aware of what went on in the Greek world.

[minasoliman]

Okay...

I'll address the scriptural rebuttals by what seems to be mostly from Anglican church theologians from the video I linked.

Lev. 20:13:  Many things were abominations, like eating shrimp, eating rabbits, wearing linen and wool together, or putting two seeds of different species in the same soil.  Abominations were things that were "anti-ritualistic" not innately immoral.  These were "holiness codes" trying to help people reach a certain level of spirituality.  Context is also key.  It was considered man's seed was all there is to require growth of life in procreation and women were just the incubators.  Therefore, it wasn't the act of homosexuality itself condemned, but the spilling of seed that results from such acts, just as Onan was condemned to death even within a heterosexual relationship so that he can avoid making her pregnant.

Genesis story of Sodom & Gomorrah:  Sodom made illegal the hospitality law of the Hebrews because they didn't want share their wealth of their community.  Lot being a faithful Hebrew became hospitable to the two angels, but because they broke the law, the Sodomite authorities demanded that these men come out and be punished and humiliated by gang-rape "Sodomy."  Gangraping in the form of sodomy was a form of humiliation (which is also wrong), not some sort of norm from the community, and that this was prevalent in other societies besides Sodom and Gomorrah.  It wasn't the "Sodomy" that was condemned, but the greed and inhospitality in those communities, just as one of a different race goes into an area of inhospitable bigots.

Romans 1:26:  When Paul says "natural and unnatural," he was talking about what is "customary and uncustomary" of the Jews.  When he saw such acts in the Greek world, he associated these acts with worshiping the wrong god.  So Paul could not contemplate the monogamous relationships that exists today, and since time changes (used to accept polygamy and somewhat concubines, then anti-polygamy, so now gay marriages).  In addition there were no Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words for the word "homosexuality" because such a concept was not even fathomed by people at the time.

These seem to be the main arguments by pro-gay Christians.  Assuming there's some truth in what they say about the OT verses, it seems to me that the NT verse seems to be a stretch, and they were on the verge of saying Paul was wrong.  So it seems that verse does condemn homosexuality.  But on a scholarly basis, how does one answer these?

God bless.

Any Bible scholars like to comment on these rebuttals?

I wasn't, but since you asked.

I don't recall anyone being stoned to death for eating rabbits.  The "anti-ritualist" issue were marked as pertaining to the Hebrews: if a gentile ate a rabbit, it wasn't a problem.  Things like incest, adultery, homosexuality etc. were immoral and not only so for the Hebrews, but for the gentiles as well.  Witnesss the interactions of the patriarchs with the gentile rulers over the formers' wives.  Onan's problem was that he took Tamar but refused to sleep with her to raise up children for his brother. Since she was married to him, she could not have another man to do his duty (witness what Judah says when it is found out that she is pregnant), hence he was thereby preventing children ever coming for his brother.  Typical example of pleasure divorced from responsibilty.

The Sodomites themselves identify Lot as an alien.  If hospitality was the issue, they would have dealt with Lot previously on the issue.  Since Lot was wealthy, as Genesis tells us, if wealth was the issue he would have offered that rather than his daughters. No, the story makes quite clear that the Sodomites take offense at being judged by Lot for their sexual choices.

The words in Hebrew, Aramaic (and for that matter Arabic), Greek etc. lump all sorts of variations of sexual immorality into one lump sum of sin.  I find nothing in St. Paul that approves of polygamy, concubines, or of course gay marriages: he is quite emphatically supporting monogamy, which he could more than contemplate (e.g. his urging to remain monogamous even after the death of the spouse).  St. Paul, a GREEK name btw, was born and grew in the gentile Greek town of Tarsus.  He was not a Hebrew hick from the stix of Palestine.  He was well aware of what went on in the Greek world.

I would say those are quite plausible arguments.  I wonder if anyone knows what the "devil's advocate" position against these arguments might be.

I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

[Salpy]

I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.

[ialmisry]

I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.

Really Salpy!  taking the interpretation of the Lord's brother over that of the enlightened modern Biblical scholar. Why, St. Jude never even went to seminary....

[Asteriktos]

I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.

I would agree that the hospitality interpretation is a stretch, though I have to ask, which Jude 7 are you using? The version that includes a phrase about "going after strange flesh," or the one that omits that phrase and just mentions "perversion"?

[minasoliman]

I too also wondered about why Lot offered his daughters if it was inhospitality.  As Adrian Monk would say, it doesn't make sense.

The lack of hospitality argument is also inconsistent with what Jude 7 says about the two cities.

I would agree that the hospitality interpretation is a stretch, though I have to ask, which Jude 7 are you using? The version that includes a phrase about "going after strange flesh," or the one that omits that phrase and just mentions "perversion"?

Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

Lot offering daughters, Jude's quote; I think those are both excellent arguments.

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one, and see where this goes.  The first thing that came to my mind when talking about inhospitality was Christ who sent his disciples two by two, where He said:

14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

10 But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 12 But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city.

A clear case of inhospitality?  Was Christ comparing the inhospitable towns the Apostles went through to some sort of Sodomite inhospitality?

PS Just an aside, did Jude believe the fallen angels fell for carnal reasons?

[DavidH]

The commentary I have on this verse is from both Oecumenius (6th century) and Clement of Alexandria (3rd century):
"The unnatural lust in which the Sodomites indulged was homosexuality, which is wrong because it cannot lead to procreation. Jude mentions them in order to point out that if God destroyed them , regardless of their earlier state of blessedness, how will He spare us if we act in an ungodly and lustful way? However well-disposed and kind He may be toward us, He is still the righteous God, and because of His righteousness He does not spare those who have sinned against Him... It is worth noting here that Jude does not spare us the details of these people's sin, which he attributes to the fact that they are deluded by a kind of dreaming. Those who do such things have lost there powers of reason and act as if they were sleepwalkers, stumbling from one thing to another." (Oecumenius, COMMENTARY ON JUDE)

And Clement: "These deluded people imagine that their lusts and terrible desires are good and pay no attention to what is truly good and beyond all good." (ADUMBRATIONS)

No mention of hospitality being the problem. The problem for these writers is the unnatural sin itself and the delusion of calling homosexuality good (BTW, I think calling any other similar sin such as adultery or fornication good would be a similar delusion in the eyes of our Tradition).

[Salpy]

PS Just an aside, did Jude believe the fallen angels fell for carnal reasons?

It's possible.  Starting in verse 14, he begins quoting from the Book of Enoch, so he obviously had been reading that text.

[Asteriktos]

Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

[minasoliman]

Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?

[Asteriktos]

Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?

Perhaps attempted (or intended) gang rape. If it was homosexuality, or sodomy, why wouldn't Jude just say that, rather than confusing things by talking about "strange flesh"?

[minasoliman]

Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?

Perhaps attempted (or intended) gang rape. If it was homosexuality, or sodomy, why wouldn't Jude just say that, rather than confusing things by talking about "strange flesh"?

The word "strange" I'm assuming the translator looked at the Greek word and thought something is unnatural.  If it was gang rape, I don't think that sounds like "strange flesh" but more like "violently taking flesh" or something along those lines.  Strange would sound like perversion, like sodomy or homosexuality.

Perhaps someone who knows Greek can help us on this one.  But I don't think "strange flesh" fit with gang raping.

[DavidH]

It means "other flesh" The word is eteras as in heterodox meaning "other-dox"

[GammaRay]

It is very kind of you to worry about the real furries' behaviors, but animals don't have souls.

They do. They just do not have the ability to go any furtherer and reason like humans, since they're not made in the image of God.

[ms.hoorah]

^^My feeble brain can only comprehend that humans posses a soul with essence and energy, but non-humans posses only an “energy” thingee. 

St. Gregory Palamas-"Therefore since the soul of animals has only energy, it dies with the body. By contrast, the soul of man has not only energy but also essence: 'The soul possesses life not only as an activity, but also essentially, since it lives in its own right... For that reason, when the body passes away, the soul does not perish with it."

[Tallitot]

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse does on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

Such as what? I take much better care of myself since I've been in a relationship and am healtier.

[GammaRay]

^^My feeble brain can only comprehend that humans posses a soul with essence and energy, but non-humans posses only an “energy” thingee. 

St. Gregory Palamas-"Therefore since the soul of animals has only energy, it dies with the body. By contrast, the soul of man has not only energy but also essence: 'The soul possesses life not only as an activity, but also essentially, since it lives in its own right... For that reason, when the body passes away, the soul does not perish with it."

The way you said earlier was as if you didn't believe in that kind of soul either though.

Anyway, since homosexuality can also be natural, why can't one say the same about the rest passions? Maybe one has some sort of hormone overdose (?!) and gets lusty every so often. Maybe someone else will put the blame of being lazy to his/her genes.
After all, this is not the 7th Day yet; it's the 6th - uncomplete and imperfect.

[ms.hoorah]

I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality (unlike usury, which is really bad and harmful and sinful, in my humble opinion) and that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or paraphiliacs, can marry and have a great life, and theosis, in the context of THEIR monogamous, committed, lifelong marriage.

What about the physical damage that male homosexual intercourse does on their bodies over the course of their lives, even within the context of this "loving" relationship?

Such as what? I take much better care of myself since I've been in a relationship and am healtier.

Here is the information that you requested.

Potential medical complications of anal sex (STDs not included)

anal fissures
anal and/or rectal erosion
acute or chronic proctitis
rectal prolapse
anorectal abscess
exacerbated hemorrhoids
anal and/or rectal cancer
fecal impaction
loss of anal sphincter control with risk of permanent fecal incontinence
urethritis
pyelonephritis
cystitis
bacterial prostatitis
phimosis
intestinal parasitic infections

[Asteriktos]

ms.hoorah

So I take it you disagree with what Jack Morin said in his book Anal Pleasure and Health? He argues that anal sex is not only safe, but will make you a healthier person.   



This is not to say that I agree with Mr. Morin, I just wouldn't go as far as you seem to be going.

[Rosehip]

I ended up with a couple of the most serious items on that list without ever having engaged in anal sex and by doing my utmost to follow all biblical commands for sexual purity.

[ialmisry]

Either way it sounds like Jude was talking about something sexual.

I was under the impression that we were discussing homosexuality, in which case what I brought up would seem to be important... did Jude consider the sin to be homosexuality, or some other sexual sin?

I would say Jude may have implied it.  What other sexual sin can we deduce from the story in Genesis?

Perhaps attempted (or intended) gang rape. If it was homosexuality, or sodomy, why wouldn't Jude just say that, rather than confusing things by talking about "strange flesh"?

He says ἐκπορνεύω "out of fornication/uttterly unchaste," and "strange flesh."  What other flesh is mentioned that they wanted in Sodom?

[Asteriktos]

What other flesh is mentioned that they wanted in Sodom?

So you agree that their sin was not homosexuality, but wanting to forcibly engage in sexual relations with angels?

[ms.hoorah]

ms.hoorah

So I take it you disagree with what Jack Morin said in his book Anal Pleasure and Health? He argues that anal sex is not only safe, but will make you a healthier person.  



This is not to say that I agree with Mr. Morin, I just wouldn't go as far as you seem to be going.

Oooooooh...so that’s what that book is about.  I thought this book was about colon cleansing programs. The following stinky photo is probably in that book. (I wanted to post that emoticon with the tongue hanging out, but it was waaaaaay too close to this photo.)  
 
Inappropriately gross picture edited out.

[ms.hoorah]

ms.hoorah

So I take it you disagree with what Jack Morin said in his book Anal Pleasure and Health? He argues that anal sex is not only safe, but will make you a healthier person.  

This is not to say that I agree with Mr. Morin, I just wouldn't go as far as you seem to be going.

"I just wouldn't go as far......"
Search the medical literature. You will find all of these potential complications with anal sex.

[Asteriktos]

I just threw up. Literally.  Ok, it happened because of the new meds my doctor put me on yesterday, but still, that picture didn't help!

[ms.hoorah]

I just threw up. Literally.  Ok, it happened because of the new meds my doctor put me on yesterday, but still, that picture didn't help!

Hope you feel better soon. (seriously)

So.....Santa shouldn't leave any colon cleansing products under your tree, eh?     I was going to say...."Why would anyone voluntarily use this junk?" Then I remembered we were discussing gay sex.

[ialmisry]

What other flesh is mentioned that they wanted in Sodom?

So you agree that their sin was not homosexuality, but wanting to forcibly engage in sexual relations with angels?

whom they mistook for men (bodiless powers don't have flesh).