1884219

...Are we having the same conversation? Because you seem to keep responding to things that I didn't say.

You started this conversation with a discussion on the interpretation of Matthew 19. I gave a counterargument to that issue, and asked a couple basic questions about where you were coming from in terms of religious conviction. You answered those questions, so far so good, but then it went off the rails. You argued against the Bible being one-hundred percent literal (a point I never made). You argued that animals in nature engaged in same-sex sexual activity (a point which had no resemblance to anything I'd argued). You admonished me not to quote Leviticus (which I had not done). You admonished me not to reference the official positions of the Catholic Church (which I had not done). And you admonished me not to claim that the United States must institute the Bible as law (which I had not done).

Despite the fact that you had just made a great number of arguments against positions that I had not taken, I responded to your points. You then proceeded to argue against equating same-sex sexual activity with incest (which can be derived from one of my responses, but only by ignoring the context entirely), polygamy, and bestiality (which I had not done). You claimed that I was "deflecting" in my response to your claim about same-sex sexual activity between animals, arguing against the claim that it was "unnatural" (a claim that I did not make), and saying that it "is not nearly as uncommon as you think" (when I had made no claim whatsoever to its commonality). You responded to my question as to why you would identify as Catholic despite not agreeing with Catholic authority and tradition (which I pointed out were key distinctions of Catholicism from protestant Christianity) by appealing to Catholic laity. To be fair, your responses to my points on American governance were at least germane to what I'd said on that topic, as was your claim about the letters of Paul (though I find neither convincing).

If you wish to continue this conversation, then perhaps you could discuss points that I've actually made and positions that I've actually taken, rather than throwing out talking points at "generic conservative Christian."

1884142

Also, being in love with someone of another gender isn't temptation. It's love.
Well, duh. But loving someone is not the same as engaging with someone sexually. I love my sisters, but I don't have sex with them. I love my parents, but I don't have sex with them.

Being gay is not equivalent to incest. At all. Gay marriage isn't inherently dangerous to someone's body or mind the way incest is. It's also not taking advantage of a familial relationship in an inappropriate way the way incest is. And don't tell me polygamy or bestiality is the same either, those are a choice. Being gay is something you're born with.

And you cannot tell me animals in nature don't display gay tendencies nor do anal sex, DOLPHINS have sex for fun.
Black widow spiders eat their mates. Should we do that?

You're deflecting just like Reality Check. My point is it is no good claiming gay sex isn't a part of nature or is "unnatural" when it is not nearly as uncommon as you think.

And it's no good quoting Leviticus. Those rules established by Moses which only applied to the Israelis when they were going into Canaan, and to dissuade them from imitating the behavior that Moses had seen the Canaanites doing.
It's true that the Levitical law does not apply directly to us today, in the same form that it did to the ancient Israelites. But through it we do gain a window into God's nature, and his intentions for us. Paul made this clear in his letter to the church in Rome. He made a lot of other things clear in his letter to the church in Rome as well. In fact, the first chapter of Romans seems rather pertinent to this discussion.

Paul was a great man but not the final authority or even second authority on Jesus. The first is Jesus himself, the second is his BROTHER, James, who did NOT get along with how Paul wrote and disagreed with many of his points. A fact that's quite well known.

At what point did I reference the Catholic Church's stance on...well, anything? Incidentally, though, why do you call yourself Catholic if you have such disregard for their teachings? I could possibly understand belonging to certain protestant denominations while disagreeing with them on some doctrinal issues. I myself am technically a member of the United Methodist Church, and have some disagreements with some of their stances. But the Catholic Church is a horse of a different color. One of the major things that distinguishes them from protestant churches is their claim that sola scriptura is insufficient, and that to be a true Christian requires submission to Church authority and traditions. Is there something I'm missing here?

Most Catholics think gays should be allowed to marry. How's THAT for a teaching?

And finally, it's no use insisting that America has to follow the rules of the Bible, because we are not a theocracy, we are constitutional republic.
We are indeed a constitutional republic. A constitutional republic rooted in "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Does that mean we must enshrine in our laws every moral command that the God of the Bible gives? No, it most certainly does not. The government has a rightful sphere of authority, the church has a rightful sphere of authority, and the individual has a rightful sphere of authority. But while it is not the responsibility of the government to enforce the moral law, it is necessary for the government not to violate the moral law.

The govt violates what you call moral law all the time. "Thou shall have no other Gods before me" doesn't apply here. "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" can't work due to the first amendment. What actually applies as "moral law" is tricky. Murder and stealing? Fine. But others? Notsomuch.

And there was meant to be a separation of church and state to a degree because it's usually a bad thing when the two crisscross.
There was a restriction upon the government establishing a state religion, and a protection for the free exercise of religion. That is what "separation of church and state" meant. That is all that "separation of church and state" meant.

It also means not adopting church doctrine as law for the govt to impose. That stuff led to the Defense of Marriage Act and other bigoted stuff. The religious sphere is meant to be more private whilst the political sphere is meant to be public. Religion can inspire and influence others, even law, but it cannot be the end-all justifier of it. It cannot be a substitute for law. Only a supplement, if that.

1884091

[The] Bible is divinely inspired, not literal. Nobody intelligent thinks that. For Christ's sake, if you're to take everything literally, then Jesus wants us to grow wings when he tells us to be as doves.

Well, duh. Some things in the Bible are meant to be taken literally, some are meant to be taken figuratively, and some are meant to be taken symbolically.

Also, being in love with someone of another gender isn't temptation. It's love.

Well, duh. But loving someone is not the same as engaging with someone sexually. I love my sisters, but I don't have sex with them. I love my parents, but I don't have sex with them.

And you cannot tell me animals in nature don't display gay tendencies nor do anal sex, DOLPHINS have sex for fun.

Black widow spiders eat their mates. Should we do that?

And it's no good quoting Leviticus. Those rules established by Moses which only applied to the Israelis when they were going into Canaan, and to dissuade them from imitating the behavior that Moses had seen the Canaanites doing.

It's true that the Levitical law does not apply directly to us today, in the same form that it did to the ancient Israelites. But through it we do gain a window into God's nature, and his intentions for us. Paul made this clear in his letter to the church in Rome. He made a lot of other things clear in his letter to the church in Rome as well. In fact, the first chapter of Romans seems rather pertinent to this discussion.

It's also no good insisting that the Catholic Church says so-and-so. The Catholic Church used to say that it was perfectly fine for women to be priests, until some 15th century pope got it in his head that women were ugly and had cooties and stuff, and banned them from becoming priests.

At what point did I reference the Catholic Church's stance on...well, anything? Incidentally, though, why do you call yourself Catholic if you have such disregard for their teachings? I could possibly understand belonging to certain protestant denominations while disagreeing with them on some doctrinal issues. I myself am technically a member of the United Methodist Church, and have some disagreements with some of their stances. But the Catholic Church is a horse of a different color. One of the major things that distinguishes them from protestant churches is their claim that sola scriptura is insufficient, and that to be a true Christian requires submission to Church authority and traditions. Is there something I'm missing here?

And finally, it's no use insisting that America has to follow the rules of the Bible, because we are not a theocracy, we are constitutional republic.

We are indeed a constitutional republic. A constitutional republic rooted in "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Does that mean we must enshrine in our laws every moral command that the God of the Bible gives? No, it most certainly does not. The government has a rightful sphere of authority, the church has a rightful sphere of authority, and the individual has a rightful sphere of authority. But while it is not the responsibility of the government to enforce the moral law, it is necessary for the government not to violate the moral law.

And there was meant to be a separation of church and state to a degree because it's usually a bad thing when the two crisscross.

There was a restriction upon the government establishing a state religion, and a protection for the free exercise of religion. That is what "separation of church and state" meant. That is all that "separation of church and state" meant.

1884081

I'm Catholic, the Bible is divinely inspired, not literal. Nobody intelligent thinks that. For Christ's sake, if you're to take everything literally, then Jesus wants us to grow wings when he tells us to be as doves.

Also, being in love with someone of another gender isn't temptation. It's love. And you cannot tell me animals in nature don't display gay tendencies nor do anal sex, DOLPHINS have sex for fun. That's as natural as it gets. And it's no good quoting Leviticus. Those rules established by Moses which only applied to the Israelis when they were going into Canaan, and to dissuade them from imitating the behavior that Moses had seen the Canaanites doing.

It's also no good insisting that the Catholic Church says so-and-so. The Catholic Church used to say that it was perfectly fine for women to be priests, until some 15th century pope got it in his head that women were ugly and had cooties and stuff, and banned them from becoming priests.

And finally, it's no use insisting that America has to follow the rules of the Bible, because we are not a theocracy, we are constitutional republic. And there was meant to be a separation of church and state to a degree because it's usually a bad thing when the two crisscross.

1883794

Funny you should mention that. I also think it's clear that Jesus was using the term "eunuchs" in a broader sense. But I disagree wholeheartedly with your conclusions.

We agree that the normal usage of the word was in the context of men whose testicles had been removed. Now, consider the implications of that. Why did people remove men's testicles? The direct answer, of course, is that doing so prevents a man from fathering children. Further than that, the drastic decrease in testosterone production essentially kills the man's sex drive. Thus, a eunuch is a man who, for all practical intents and purposes cannot have sex.

Thus, when Jesus says that "there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," He is saying that there are people are not able to participate in marriage and sex as God had designed it, and it's okay for them to not participate therein. For some, that's because of circumstance of their birth, for others it's because of things that have been done to them, and for yet more (such as the apostles) it's because they are called to serve the Lord in manners that preclude such things.

Note that Jesus did not say that "eunuchs" should go ahead and marry and engage sexually in ways that God had not ordained. In fact, he had just before said "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’?"

We are all subject to sinful temptation. Some are tempted to steal. Some are tempted to have sex with members of the opposite sex outside of marriage. Some are tempted to covet. Some are tempted to lie and slander. Some are tempted to engage sexually with members of the same sex. All of us are called to resist temptation, and to pray for deliverance therefrom.

Jesus came to pay the price for all the sins of humanity. That includes people who have given in to the temptation of engaging sexually with members of the same sex, just as it includes thieves and slanderers and adulterers. But Jesus then calls us to "go and sin no more."

What does that mean for "gay" people? Well, it means the same thing it means for unmarried people. If a person does not or can not marry according to God's design, whether due to choice, circumstance, or incapacity, then that person is called to abstain from sexual contact. Is that easy? No! But resisting the temptation to sin is often not easy.

It is also worth noting that if Jesus was concerned about homosexuality or any other gender/sexual orientation issue he would have spoken about it. But he didn’t, and those focusing on it as a central tenant of their faith should stop calling themselves ‘Christians’ as they clearly cannot claim to be following the teachings of Christ.

He seems to have said quite a bit about it in the very verse you quoted, albeit through skillful use of few words. And would this standard make sense if applied to any other area in which he taught? Jesus arguably speaks in more detail about sexual sin than he does about theft or murder. Does that mean he was not concerned about theft and murder?

And allow me to end this with a couple of questions. Do you consider yourself a Christian? Do you believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God?