Christian and Queer

Asry

Sooooo. It's probably an oxymoron, but yeah. I'm RC.

I *know* the hierarchy hate me, but all of the runofthemill priests I've ever talked to about stuff has been amazingly supportive and kind. Well. Apart from one. But he's been moved from my parish so therefore I don't care anymore about him. He was really young too and I think just wanted to throw the rulebook at someone. He'll probably grow up and stop being a wanker eventually.

I could go on and on about different facets related to this topic, but by my supreme force of will I'm sticking to my question. (!)

But. I know in the US and even in the UK there's organisations or something for Jesusfreaks who aren't straight. I've been trolling Google but my search terms musn't be good because I ain't findin' nothin'.

Anyone know of anywhere?

Max Power1

You cant be gay and christian

Its like joining a golf club but not following some of the rules because you dont like them.

(Spoken as a bisexual male)

Sir Ophiuchus

At this point, I should warn you about Courage, which is a hierarchy-approved group for LGBT Catholics that upholds the idea that queer folk are "called to chastity" and have a "strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil", et cetera. I realise mentioning them here gives them prominence, but you might have run across them on your searches and not realised the stance they take.

I strongly recommend the nonfiction book "Since my Last Confession", written by an author of gay porn who's an active practicing Catholic and lay minister in Boston. It's blunt, funny, and deals with a lot of his struggles to integrate these two sides of his identity.

http://www.amazon.com/Since-My-Last-Confession-Catholic/dp/1559708697

Endymion

Max Power1 wrote: »

You cant be gay and christian

Its like joining a golf club but not following some of the rules because you dont like them.

(Spoken as a bisexual male)

Nonsense.

im invisible

Max Power1 wrote: »

You cant be gay and christian
Its like joining a golf club but not following some of the rules because you dont like them.
(Spoken as a bisexual male)

eh, wrong.

fair enough you cant be a strict roman catholic, and gay. but then you cant be a strict RC and have pre-marital sex either.

OP i dont know of any religious organisations that dont frown on homosexuality, but then i havnt looked. im sure there are some around,

Sir Ophiuchus

Max Power1 wrote: »

You cant be gay and christian

Its like joining a golf club but not following some of the rules because you dont like them.

(Spoken as a bisexual male)

You are wrong.

1) If we adopt a strictly Catholic perspective, then gay people can and should be included within the Church's ministry: the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, 1986), although in opposition to many aspects of homosexuality and quite offensive to me personally, acknowledges that "the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin". The Church believes that having gay sex is a sin, not being gay itself, which they recognise is not a choice but an "intrinsic tendency".

In other words, being a gay person who has sex and a Catholic is like a straight person who is Catholic and has sex outside of marriage, or uses birth control, or gets an abortion. They are sinning in the eyes of the Church, but sinning does not mean that you are no longer a Catholic.

2) From a more general Christian perspective, prohibitions on homosexuality have very limited Biblical roots. The parts of the Mosaic Law that deal with homosexual conduct (a) are given the same weight as eating shellfish, (b) do not reflect the needs or values of a mdoern society, being composed in the context of an oppressed tribal people who needed to maximise their birthrate, (c) are in any case no longer valid, as the Old Law of Moses and the original Covenant with God was (according to Christian theology) ended with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who began a new Covenant through his sacrifice on behalf of Christians.

The letters of St. Paul reflect St. Paul's personal beliefs on the matter, not God's.

The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah has been repeatedly misinterpreted as being about homosexuality; it is about breaking hospitality. Reading the text it is clear that the sin of the people is that they want to rape their visitors. This is bad because they are guests, not because it's male-on-male. Hospitality is a sacred tradition in every culture worldwide.

3) Christianity is founded on the ideal of selfless love (Greek word agape). Denying another their identity, whether as a gay person or as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, is not love.

4) You, personally, do not have the authority to make a statement like that. Being a Christian is a personal relationship between an individual and the ascended Jesus of Nazareth, and is therefore a matter of self-identification. You can say that in your opinion someone does not act like a Christian should, or that certain acts are, in your opinion, incompatible with being a Christian. What you can't do is say whether or not someone is a Christian.

Max Power1

im invisible wrote: »

eh, wrong.

fair enough you cant be a strict roman catholic, and gay. but then you cant be a strict RC and have pre-marital sex either.

OP i dont know of any religious organisations that dont frown on homosexuality, but then i havnt looked. im sure there are some around,

NO.
Its actually correct.

Similarly to if you want to be a member of the RC church, you cannot have premarital sex, use contraception, etc.

I'll thank you to retract your "wrong" remark.

There is no such thing as a "strict" RC. You either are one or arent.

virmilitaris

All you need to believe to be Christian is that there is a deity and a lad named Jesus brought a message from the deity to us.

Christianity today, like most if not all religions, is a la carte. People believe in their own personal little deity to which they attribute certain features from their religion of choice. Taking Christians as the main example, see how many Christians you can find who believe in something in the bible that they personally disagree with.

They take what they want to believe from it and disregard or interpret the rest in a way in which they agree.

Just google for Christianity + whatever you are or want to believe in and I'm sure you'll find some church that already does it.

Here's a link to get you started; Christian atheism -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Yes friends, you can be a Christian and not believe in a deity or believe that Jesus was anything but a man.

I should mention that I am profoundly anti-religious so while I try and be as neutral as possible I might be somewhat biased and I think it's only fair to say so in my response.

Sir Ophiuchus

Max Power1 wrote: »

NO.
There is no such thing as a "strict" RC. You either are one or arent.

The Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church wrote:

Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God.

That is the only definition that applies as to whether one can be considered a member of the Christian faithful.

Feel free to read the canon law on the matter here.

Also feel free to address any or all of the points I made above.

Chuchoter

I think you can be Christian and gay, all there is to it is follow the main things Jesus said and abandon the old testament because most of thats pretty crazy anyway. Catholic now is a different kettle of fish.

I don't know if there is one, but if you really wanted to I'd say you could set one up! I'd say thats literally down to that Ireland doesn't really have a culture of young people really into their religion anymore so we don't have groups like America does based around it.

baby and crumble

It's the organised religions that are the issue, not being christian. You can believe in God and Jesus and live your life by a very strong faith but not practice in an organised religion. Most of the organised religions and churches will have some issues with homosexuality, but to varying degrees. Most of the Church of Ireland churches don't really give a crap. The US anglicans are a different kettle of fish, butt hen they're closer to Catholicism than Irish or English Anglican churches.

Although a friend of mine has joined the Unitarian church up on St. Stephens green and she loves it, they seem really chilled and welcoming from what she tells me...

LegacyUser

crayolastereo wrote: »

I think you can be Christian and gay, all there is to it is follow the main things Jesus said and abandon the old testament because most of thats pretty crazy anyway. Catholic now is a different kettle of fish.

I don't know if there is one, but if you really wanted to I'd say you could set one up! I'd say thats literally down to that Ireland doesn't really have a culture of young people really into their religion anymore so we don't have groups like America does based around it.

To be fair, anyone who calls themselves a Christian can't just 'abandon' the old testament. I agree, however, you can be Christian and gay. I wouldn't go as far as to say you can be Catholic and gay.

Asry

1 - Zoegh, I think you're right about organised religion being the problem, not your faith in Jesus and God them(him?)self(s). It's not that God hates me, it's that the Vatican might. I think the whole "the lady doth protest too much" thing might apply to the Vatican anyway.

2 - Max Power1, what a very infantile, even stupid thing to say. Speaking as a bisexual female. I mean come on, now.

3 - Sir Ophiuchus, thank you for your in depth discussion of canon law and the text of the scriptures themselves. I was aware that being a non-practicing homosexual was pretty much OK in the eyes of the Church, and that the pre-marital sex/abortion/contraception debate continues to rage on around us, regardless of gender or sexual persuasion. To that end, in defence of my status as a Catholic:

I had been very strict on views surrounding pre-marital sex/abortion/contraception. Growing older, however, I've come to see that things are not so black and white. I would never have an abortion, regardless of how I feel for other women (I am pro-choice) because for me it would mean excommunication. Contraception I still have issues with.

As for pre-marital sex, I have discussed this with my former parish priest, in confession, and he said that he has no right to pontificate to me about sex as he is celibate, and a priest, and always has been. He said that if you love the person, then in the eyes of God surely it is a good thing, a great thing even, as love should be celebrated, cherished.

As for the gay sex thing and the Church, however. I have crazy problems with that. Outrageous guilt, self-loathing etc. It's just in my head that it's wrong, and an abomination, and nothing anyone can say, or anything I can learn, will change that. I have had a history of commitment problems with women, in that I would high-tail it if things felt like they were going right. This is a whole other story. But I do feel it has to do with my Catholic upbringing.

I was very surprised by all the replies to this question. Thank you so much for your ongoing insights and different points of view; it is always comforting and enlightening to talk.

Annasopra

Asry wrote: »

Anyone know of anywhere?

I think there is a group called branching out

www.branchingoutcc.ie

AndrewJD

This thread made me wonder about my abandonment of religious views. It occurs to me now that this happened at around the same time I gave up the notion that I was straight. Whilst my homosexuality wasn't the reason for going atheist, I was aware of the various churches views on the topic, and I wonder now if it wasn't inexorably linked. It's certainly much easier this way.

Asry

ooo Branching Out looks perfect! I wonder how they do it. Only one way to find out.

I'm glad that you're finding everything easier the way it is, Andrew I just have to find a way to make this work and then I'll be like you too!

edwinkane

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

You are wrong.

...The Church believes that having gay sex is a sin, not being gay itself, which they recognise is not a choice but an "intrinsic tendency".

.

It's quite funny that the RC church is still offering moral advise to everyone else, presumably with its straight and serious face on.

Their "love the sinner but hate the sin" doctrine is as ridiculous as it is stupid, and all this coming from a church which has spent many years covering up for its members decades of sexual abuse, rape, buggery and torture, yes torture, of boys in it's care.

Why anyone wants to be a member of such an institution defies logic. Can't you just be a christian, read your bible for guidance, and ignore the cruel and intolerant attitudes of a disgraced institution which is the rc church.

Asry

I know that it's a disgraced institution, and that the sex abuse scandals cannot in any way be excused or condoned. But if you read my earlier post, my own experience of the clergy has been nothing but positive and supportive, and I can only go on my own experiences, not anyone else's.

Plus I can't get away from the ritual, the dogma, the meaning inherent in every gesture or word. It's in me.

edwinkane

Asry wrote: »

I know that it's a disgraced institution, and that the sex abuse scandals cannot in any way be excused or condoned. But if you read my earlier post, my own experience of the clergy has been nothing but positive and supportive, and I can only go on my own experiences, not anyone else's.

Plus I can't get away from the ritual, the dogma, the meaning inherent in every gesture or word. It's in me.

If you are to follow the teachings of the disgraced rc church, then you have to decide if youa re going to have sex, and break their rules, or not have sex. No one here can make that decision for you.

If you feel you have nothing to learn from anyone elses's experience, then thats also a decision you have to make. Personally, I feel i have a lot to learn from the experience of others, and wonder why you ask for opinions here if you then say you have nothing to learn from them, or from the experience of others?

Asry

I've noticed that now we have the grand entrance of people who just hate the church because it's like a club they've been excluded from. Abstaining from sex is what I do, and the way I try to live my life. Obviously sometimes it's like I can't control myself; enter self-hatred - but there's room within the church to grow and change, to apologise and try to live your life in a better way. I apply this to all sex, not just gay sex.

rainbow kirby

Asry - might be worth searching on here for posts by the poster DS333 - he is another gay Christian and has made some very interesting posts and book recommendations.

Asry

thanks Rainbow! That's great Jesusfreaks are few and far between these days anyway - finding gay ones is unprecedented!

edwinkane

Asry wrote: »

thanks Rainbow! That's great Jesusfreaks are few and far between these days anyway - finding gay ones is unprecedented!

There is a difference between following Jesus, and subscribing to the disgraced rc church!

Jesus said that faith, hope and love were the three greatest commandments, and the greatest of all was love. Thats not what the disgraced rc church says. The disgraced rc church says that you are a sinner because you are primarily same sex attracted, and it says it's love for you is conditional, and it will withdraw its love for you, if you fall in love with another person and want to share the joy and express your love with that other person.

And thats all from a church which conspired to break the law, and destroy the lives of so many humans who it connived to torture and abuse, emotionally and sexually and physically, over many decades. And a church which made so many other lives miserable through its warped teachings on human sexuality when it preached about the evil of contraception.

While the rc church has, inexplicably, many wonderful people subscribing to it, the church itself has been a great force for evil and misery over centuries, from the inquisitions where it murdered countless thousands of humans, to the brutality it inflicted on those who were too weak or disenfranchised to protest.

Sorry if thats hard hitting ( I am not, and never have been, a member of the disgraced rc church myself), but I find it difficult that someone who is condemned by the same disgraced rc church as "evil" because they are guilty of the "sin" of wanting to love another human, is beyond contempt. More especially because that same disgraced church conspired to allow its priests and nuns to abuse, torture, rape and brutalise children who had no where else to turn.

Think about that.

Asry

I know all that. I do. It makes no sense, my adherence to something like this. In my family it's a way of life though. With my mother, I mean, not my father. Mass at easter, blessing yourself as you pass a church, holy water by the door. It's comfortable, nostalgic even. A sense of belonging to something greater.

I do believe that they have the capacity to change. To transform. And now is the time, to bring themselves into the future and live as they're supposed to. They're only human. You give humans power and this is what happens. I'm not condoning the abuse, the inquisition. But I do believe in regeneration, in moving forward, in the best of people.

edwinkane

Asry wrote: »

I know all that. I do. It makes no sense, my adherence to something like this. In my family it's a way of life though. With my mother, I mean, not my father. Mass at easter, blessing yourself as you pass a church, holy water by the door. It's comfortable, nostalgic even. A sense of belonging to something greater.

.

You are right, it makes no sense. Had you not been brought up RC, but as a muslim or a hindu or a baptist, or a nazi, you'd be here now making the same arguments for being a muslim or a hindu or a baptist, or a nazi.

Belonging is important for all of us, but to choose to belong to an organisation with such a long and disgusting and unchristian past, in the hope that they might change, seems to be the triumph of hope over experience.

More especially so when that organisation tells you you are evil for the way you feel, and denies you the opportunity for the happiness which might be found in a loving and caring adult relationship.

If Christ did come back, how do you think he'd feel about a man living in an enormous palace, surrounded by servants and sycophants, dressed in the most elaborate & expensive robes spun with gold thread, surrounded by priceless treasures and riches, and head of an organisation which is responsible for centuries of so much misery, murder and torture, right across the world, claiming to be Christ's representative on earth?

Asry

...I wasn't aware that I opened this thread to be lambasted by the likes of you? I asked a question and got answers, which was my intent. I am fully aware that the fact that I am Catholic enrages people, but to be honest I really don't care about your opinion of either me or the church. Actually I do find it amusing to see how quickly people can jump on their soapboxes.

As I said before, I stand by my theory of progression and change.
Thank you again to those of you who answered my questions regardless of your own personal feelings on the matter. Much appreciated.

rainbow kirby

edwinkane wrote: »

You are right, it makes no sense. Had you not been brought up RC, but as a muslim or a hindu or a baptist, or a nazi, you'd be here now making the same arguments for being a muslim or a hindu or a baptist, or a nazi.

Belonging is important for all of us, but to choose to belong to an organisation with such a long and disgusting and unchristian past, in the hope that they might change, seems to be the triumph of hope over experience.

More especially so when that organisation tells you you are evil for the way you feel, and denies you the opportunity for the happiness which might be found in a loving and caring adult relationship.

If Christ did come back, how do you think he'd feel about a man living in an enormous palace, surrounded by servants and sycophants, dressed in the most elaborate & expensive robes spun with gold thread, surrounded by priceless treasures and riches, and head of an organisation which is responsible for centuries of so much misery, murder and torture, right across the world, claiming to be Christ's representative on earth?

This is not a place to soapbox. The OP is looking for information on Christian life as an LGBT person, not to argue with you. Take 7 days to reconsider your attitude and posting style.

TaraJo

There are lots of gay Christians out there. Just a simple google search for "gay Christian" gets lots of results. I know a girl in Tulsa who is transsexual and is currently in seminary.

But I can understand your concern. I've watched gay people from conservative religious backgrounds deal with tremendous internal conflict between their faith and their sexual orientation.

Asry

Thanks Tara My search terms tend to be rambling and imprecise [I think I was dropped on my head as a child]

Dr. Baltar

I would seriously recommend watching a fantastic documentary called "So the Bible Tells Me So" which is centred around the lives of a number of Christian families and how they have dealt with coming out and relating their religion to their sexuality. I recall their being at least one catholic family of Irish descent in said documentary.

As anti-RCC (and I make no apologies for it) as I am, I genuinely wish you the best in finding a balance between your faith and yourself.

easychair

Asry wrote: »

...I wasn't aware that I opened this thread to be lambasted by the likes of you? I asked a question and got answers, which was my intent. I am fully aware that the fact that I am Catholic enrages people, but to be honest I really don't care about your opinion of either me or the church. Actually I do find it amusing to see how quickly people can jump on their soapboxes.

As I said before, I stand by my theory of progression and change.
Thank you again to those of you who answered my questions regardless of your own personal feelings on the matter. Much appreciated.

to be honest, the crusades is no opinion, but fact, as are the child sex abuse scandals from round the world over the last years.

surely u can understand how difficult it is for a gay man, who has been told by the RCC he is evil and will go to hell for his feelings, being quizzical about why someone else wants to choose to join the RCC when the RCC has been so nasty to gay people, and when the RCC keeps on being nasty to gay people by telling them they are evil and so on.

I was that man, brought up in the RCC and made to feel so terrible because of it I thought of suicide as a teenager. its hard for me to see some1 else who is gay wanting to join an organisation which tells gay people they are evil. I cannae understand it.

Asry

easychair wrote: »

I was that man, brought up in the RCC and made to feel so terrible because of it I thought of suicide as a teenager. its hard for me to see some1 else who is gay wanting to join an organisation which tells gay people they are evil. I cannae understand it.

Oh, believe me, I completely understand. I was that teenager too. I'm still that person. I stay away from ladies as much as I can, as far as physical relations go, because I cannot deal with the guilt/shame etc that happens afterwards.

So, yeah. It transcends understanding. As a woman, as well, I should be against their hierarchy. As a queer woman, I'm subhuman to them. But there's always been this need in me, this attraction, to the symbolism, ritual etc, as I said before. I need guidance and advice. And I've found it. I know that for many other people it's gone wrong; but as you said, child abuse is not restricted to the RCC

bitter_lemon

Asry wrote: »

Sooooo. It's probably an oxymoron, but yeah. I'm RC.

I *know* the hierarchy hate me, but all of the runofthemill priests I've ever talked to about stuff has been amazingly supportive and kind. Well. Apart from one. But he's been moved from my parish so therefore I don't care anymore about him. He was really young too and I think just wanted to throw the rulebook at someone. He'll probably grow up and stop being a wanker eventually.

I could go on and on about different facets related to this topic, but by my supreme force of will I'm sticking to my question. (!)

But. I know in the US and even in the UK there's organisations or something for Jesusfreaks who aren't straight. I've been trolling Google but my search terms musn't be good because I ain't findin' nothin'.

Anyone know of anywhere?

i'm not going into all the corruption in the church. if the church's teachings help you and you find solace in it you are getting something from it.
some people are a al carte catholics, others are devout and others like me are atheists and have no time for the churchs teachings.

there are also people - a huge amount - who never go to church and are non practicing but as soon as wedding bells sound they are straight to the church for a big white wedding. thats fairly hypocritical.
my brother and his wife are like that. when they asked me to be godmother they were worried i'd say no. it is hypocritical. it means nothing to me in the religious sense but does a huge amount in being there for the child. i told them that and still was the godmother. it meant a lot to them. it meant more than my own ideals and opinions.

if you believe in this guy called jesus i am sure he would not condemn you. you don't need a middleman anyway to interpret his teachings. interpret them for yourself. good luck in your quest.

bitter_lemon

Asry wrote: »

Oh, believe me, I completely understand. I was that teenager too. I'm still that person. I stay away from ladies as much as I can, as far as physical relations go, because I cannot deal with the guilt/shame etc that happens afterwards.

jesus would be sad to see you miss out on all the lady loving
it feels good because it is good. feeling good = guilty.
your parents have a lot to answer for!

Asry

bitter_lemon wrote: »

feeling good = guilty.
your parents have a lot to answer for!

LOL! well, actually, I have told my mom about the girl thing. Years ago. Anyway she said my bf should dump me because he was too good for me, and that it was akin to beastiality!

easychair

Asry wrote: »

LOL! well, actually, I have told my mom about the girl thing. Years ago. Anyway she said my bf should dump me because he was too good for me, and that it was akin to beastiality!

Wow, your mom said you were not good enough for your bf? If I were you I'd pick up my skirts and run and run and not stop until you get to join the hippy trail on Goa! thats an awful attitude for any mom to have.

Asry

easychair wrote: »

thats an awful attitude for any mom to have.

Ah yeah, it's pretty bad alright. She used to slag me in front of her friends and stuff, and she still does take a bit odd when I mention who I've been hanging out with or whatever. But really, at the end of the day that's her view and that's it, I guess. I'm all moved out now and all so I guess it doesn't matter as much anymore.

stephen_n

Roman Catholics are not the only Christians, just thought I'd point that out as there seems to be a general assumption so far in this thread that they are.

twinQuins

That as may be but this is an Irish site and Catholics make up the vast majority of Christians in Ireland.
Point being that by and large people, on this site, when they're talking about Christians are going to be talking about Catholics as that's what they're familiar with.

ixoy

stephen_n wrote: »

Roman Catholics are not the only Christians, just thought I'd point that out as there seems to be a general assumption so far in this thread that they are.

Indeed. Roman Catholicism is not compatible with a practicing gay life style (at least not if you adhere to its interpretations). However, that doesn't mean that Christianity isn't as Christianity covers many variations on the same message and some of them could be very open to gay people and be compatible with who they love.

Killer_banana

Asry, I'd just like to say I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm also a female bisexual who was raised RC (am now agnostic). I no longer agree with a lot of what the church teaches, especially in relation to gay/bisexual people. I feel the main reason I stayed as a member of the church for so long (besides my mother forcing me to attend mass) was that, like you, I have an attraction to symbolism and tradition and the likes and found a weird comfort in receiving guidance from the church. Now...well lets just say my opinions on organised religion are very different but sometimes I do miss it and I'm not completely sure why. This has become a pointless ramble bur basically what I'm trying to say is, I completely understand where you're coming from and whatever happens I hope you find the comfort and guidance you want and need and are happy with your life and choices.

Asry

Aww Killer, thank you! That's wonderful Also, I lived in Galway for 2 years! Where the hell were you then?

As for Christianity and LGBT issues, I do agree that there are other forms where the stance on homo/bisexuality is not as, shall we say, insane. In line with the excerpts of canon law that were quoted earlier on in this discussion, in fairness I am not a practicing bisexual. Well. Haven't been for 5 years now. So therefore, by its own logic, the church would have no problem with me, as long as I stay that way. Obviously I confessed to what I had done and all that, so in the eyes of the church I'm completely clean now. As it were. [as if I was a junkie]

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that IT'S CRAP :mad: but what can one do. People make choices, and I've chosen this. Ultimately it'll probably make me happier. Well. aaahhhh. Catch 22. I dunno. Yeah. The end.

Beruthiel

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

Asry,

The above quotes are just a tiny sample of what is in the bible.
If you agree with the church on homosexuality, do you also believe the rest?

I do not accept that people can pick and choose what rules they will take from the bible. People who do that, do it for their own agenda. ie - if you hate gay people, sure the bible says you should.
Will that same person sell their daughter into slavery? I doubt it....

Asry

The previous quotes I was talking about were from canon law, not from the bible. The issue here is not what the bible itself says, but what the Vatican states. I am fully aware of everything it says in Leviticus, thank you, and yes, it does contradict itself an awful lot, doesn't it? Thankfully, that's the Jewish code of laws, not the Christian one As has been stated before, the covenant set up between God and man at the Flood, which eventually results in the code of laws, is ended and broken with the coming of Jesus. There is a point where he says that the only law that matters is love, and the greatest of all things is love. Quote forthcoming about that [I'm in work presently].

Anyway, as I said, we're discussing the canon law, not the scriptures.

AndrewJD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Couldn't resist... Love that show.

Asry

ha! cool Everyone always goes mad about Leviticus. I've only seen ever one episode of that show, if even. But whenever I see clips I really like it! Martin Sheen you legend.

Asry

Me again. I'm home from work. What I was talking about earlier was New Covenant Theology - the idea that the coming of Jesus caused the 'old covenant' ie the code of law that is sacred to the Jewish faith, to pass away, forming a 'new covenant'.

Here's a quote:

Asry wrote: »

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away

That was from Hebrews, 8:8-12.



New Covenant Theology links:

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/nct.htm
http://newcovenanttheology.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology (old reliable)

bitter_lemon

stephen_n wrote: »

Roman Catholics are not the only Christians, just thought I'd point that out as there seems to be a general assumption so far in this thread that they are.

the op stated she was a roman catholic. so it must be answered with that frame of mind.

philologos

Asry: Interesting post. Just wondering what do you make of Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, or Jude 7 all in the New Testament?

Beruthiel

Asry wrote: »

Anyway, as I said, we're discussing the canon law, not the scriptures.

Considering that canon law can be changed on a whim by those in charge, do you not think that you are running your life based on the doctrines of a few crusty old men who just make stuff up, to suit themselves, as they go along?

Asry

Jakkass wrote: »

Asry: Interesting post. Just wondering what do you make of Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, or Jude 7 all in the New Testament?

About Romans 1:26-27. Quoted out of context like that, yes, it does look a bit s*ite. But if you read the entire passage, it's about condemnation of the Greek worship of false gods, and therefore God made them give themselves over to lust. Even the bit before it: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.."

1 Corinthians 6:9. This is actually a very interesting example, linguistically. It depends on which translation from the Greek you're reading, because many translations differ. I'm unsure as to which translation you're referring to, but the King James Bible has the section as "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Which, as you can see, doesn't make references to homosexuality at all. In fact, the Greek word for homosexual was as variation of 'pederast', and if Paul had wanted to explicitly refer to homosexuality, he would have used it.

As for Jude 7. This doesn't mention homosexuality at all? Just that they gave themselves up to 'sexual perversion'? That could be anything. Isn't the story of Sodom not about sodomy, as is taken now to be what it's about, but the fact that they raped their guests? Or did someone say that earlier?