Posted on 01/01/2007 3:48:47 PM PST by hiho hiho
So...there! If beasts do it then, by God, it's OK for us, too!
Some say homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural.. Now you suggest it's bad because it's bestial and humans are above it.. Seems to me both arguments are weak and arbitrary.
Well...yes. Precisely.
So is it natural or unnatural? And how does that matter?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.
Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
I'm sure, and God is just a pipe dream. Exactly.
Well, FWIW, I believe gay/lesbian sex is bad because first and foremost it never has been, is not now, and will never be a (re)productive action on its own. God's very first commandment was to "be fruitful and multiply." I simply do not see how gay/lesbian sex can fulfill this commandment. If anything the action thwarts the commandment. Purposefully and unrepentantly repeating the act is not just an oops of nature.
I could say more, but I cannot without getting preachy.
Even if "be fruitful and multiply" is meant as a duty for every single person, then this would not make the act of homosexual intercouse itself bad unless engaged in exclusively.
Anyway, it makes more sense to me to view that as a command to all mankind, because nature itself precludes some from obeying it, whether though poverty or infertility or even an asexual or homosexual sexual orientation (if they exist). Despite some individuals being unable to obey the command, humankind would nevertheless continue to be fruitful and multiply.
I'm well aware that "be fruitful and multiply" is not the only relevant scripture; I figured I'd address what you said. Anyway, scripture doesn't relate much to the topic of this thread. Plus, it won't convince anyone who doesn't believe.
I didn't mean to say scripture isn't relevant to the topic.. I meant to say it wasn't relevant to the question of whether homosexual patterns in lesser animals is pertinent to homosexual patterns in humans.
Something else to add. Ansolm of Canterbury was 11th century.
Anselm of Canterbury was only "of Canterbury" because he was the archibishop. He was born in Italy, and was an educated philospher in the Roman Catholic Church. While he was ABC, he was never Anglican.
According to what I have read, some historians think that he was a celibate homosexual. I wouldn't know since I haven't read any of the letters Anlsem wrote (to male friends and relatives). Apparently, though, the argument is over the translation of the phrase "Dilecto dilectori." I assume this is Latin? Anyone know how this translates?
I still haven't found anything of him referring to "Mother Jesus."
Thus far, everything I have read says he was a man of reason. He tried to demystify so to speak. His goal seems to have been to make it possible to understand by reason, faith in God. It makes my head hurt to follow his logic (not a difficult thing to do right now - I have been sick with a hellacious sinus infection for the past two weeks.)
My opinion on Anselm was that he was a great thinker of the Church. I have no idea where the "Mother Jesus" comment that Schori attributes to him came from.
If she is going to make a claim like that, she needs to back it up with attainable sources. It seems she is picking an obscure reference that cannot be verified easily and holding it up as tradition.
blech. She sickens me. I love the local church, and really would hate to leave it. However, I do not wish to be apart of anything tainted by this womans' hands. Some, including our current priest, have referred to the coming "split" as a divorce - saying that they do not believe that ECUSA is ready for a divorce. I say that it was never a marriage in the first place, except in the imagery of Christ and the Church. Which, if we are going Biblical here let's be consistent, if your eye causes you to sin, then pluck it out (Mt 5:29).
Okay, my head hurts again. Sermon over for now.
She must mean Anselm, not spelled "Ansolm," and I have his works. I've read most of them...and I don't recall anything about "Jesus our mother," I honestly think she's fudging there....
Anselm's biggest contribution, besides his ontological proof of God, the work Cur Deus Homo, fully and logically understands and describes the substitutionary atonement of Christ, an idea I'm certain, good liberal that she is, Schori rejects.
A professor I know says that Cur Deus Homo is still the best work available on the substitutionary atonement--written 900 years ago....
That's just it though, isn't it? Gays and lesbians do practice homosexual intercourse exclusively.
One can also go to creation, as Jesus did when asked about divorce, to show it is a member of the opposite sex which properly fulfills human sexual desire.
Best though, and I really can't understand why more don't use it, are the specific commands of Lev. 19, commonly called the "holiness code." This passage is a mixture of Jewish religious purity laws (which Christ and the Church clearly abrogated...as has been known and taught since the first generation of Christians) along with moral laws...still in effect today.
Sex between men and men, (which would also include sex between women and women, in the Hebrew understanding) men and animals, and all the various forms of incest are described as an abomination. The language indicates these are the most disgusting and despicable kinds of sins....and Hebrew Civil code (also abrogated by Christ) demanded the death penalty for them.
Various forms of the condemned sexual acts have been accepted and practiced all over the world in pagan societies...only in the Judeo/Christian world, with the acceptance of the Bible, have incest, beastiality, and yes homosexuality been uniformly condemned.
A question to ask Schori and her fans is whether they believe there can be loving consensual monogamous sexual relations between blood family members, or between humans and their pets? If you throw out Lev. 19 as the authority to call homosexual acts moral perversion, you also throw out its authority in calling incest and beastiality moral perversions.
And yes, Jesus is never mentioned to have commented about incest or beastiality...so it must be fine, right? (please forgive the nausea there)
I would be very careful here, as we know, "some historians" particularly of the pro-homosexual variety, have a huge axe to grind. The homosexual lobby--which has academia by the ummm, well, tied to it's apron strings (seems a fitting analogy) would have us believe all kinds of famous historical people were homosexuals...starting with our Lord Jesus, and the Apostle Paul! I sincerely doubt there is serious evidence Anselm was homosexual....900 years is a long time ago, after all--and I think moderns just cannot conceive of a dedicated life of celibacy.
Please see my post above about Anselm. The man has made MAJOR contributions in both the philosophy of God, and, understanding how Christ the God-Man (Anselm's term) paid our debt to God for our sins....(substitutionary atonement).
It's ironic she brings St. Anslem up, as his idea of Christ dying to pay for our sins is considered "bloody child abuse" by the likes of Schori and friends. I consider it the most precious truth of the Gospel!
I agree, and had in my post stated something to that effect before actually posting, and then I deleted it because I thought I might not be coherent anymore.
I need to get off of this computer and get some sleep - maybe my headache will go away?
Homosexual behavior is "bad" because it is described in scripture as an abomination. The "badness" is God's judgment not ours and does not depend on any sort of human ratiocination. To say it is "unnatural" has no bearing on the moral judgment, although anal sex for example is "unnatural" in the sense that it clearly violates the natural ecology of the body.
Animals and human beings can perform any number of more or less equivalent behaviors, including attacking and killing members of their own species. But this fact contributes nothing to the debate about any given behavior. We do not set animals up as moral arbiters.
For Schori to suggest otherwise "because animals do it" is more or less a reflection of what happens when a squid expert tries to play anthropologist when she is supposed to be playing theologian but has not the education or the temperament for it.
Schori's most bottom line error is she clearly does not accept creation as FALLEN, a very fundamental Christian concept. As a thorough going evolutionist though, I'm sure she see's Adam and Eve as purely mythological, and hence the Fall of man (and creation...) as fiction as well.
Unless one understands we live in a fallen creation, one cannot properly understand the world at all...with its mixture of very bad and very good.
The frustrating thing is even given her worldview, its folly to consider inherited issues as automatically good, or a part of affirming "creation is good." We all know nearsightedness or an affinity to heart disease or cancer are inherited....but NOT a part (except in His providence) of God's "good creation." Problems we inherit are things to be corrected...and this would include things like perverted sexual desires--if they were ever able to be proven to be inherited.
Bottom of it all is folks like Schori, for whatever their reasons, have chosen to call perversion good--and they simply flounder around seeking for rationalizations to justify their choices.
"To say it is "unnatural" has no bearing on the moral judgment"
"We do not set animals up as moral arbiters."
I agree with both those statements. I won't bother to argue theology, as I'm not much of a believer.
Well, if it doesn't matter, then I guess it's all moral relativity. And if that's so, I'd say majority rule (state vote) will have to be the arbiter on the legality of gay marriage/unions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.