Replies

I love how you point out, time after time, that Scripture is explicitly against the type of behavior that this sodomite is promoting, then you turn right around and accuse him of having his own personal interpretation of Scripture.

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? How's this sodomite any different than those Catholic priests who sodomized young alter boys? Isn't that a personal interpretation of Scripture as well, or could it just be that this has nothing to do with interpreting Scripture and everything to do with rebelling against our Lord's Sovereign rule on the matter, in both instances.

There are some areas that Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and the rest of us will disagree but when Scripture is clear on a topic, with more than one instance of God's views on a subject mentioned such as it is on homosexuality, then it's not a personal interpretation, it's outright rebellion against God.

Don't make this into something that it's not. This is rebellion against God's authority on the matter, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with an interpretation of Scripture, personal or otherwise.

I think the point Mrs. Don-o was trying to make was that personal interpretation of scripture can lead to dangerous ground simply because we delude our selves in to thinking that we are living according to Gods will when in fact we are, as you say rebelling.

If you could, could you point me to any evidence that would lead you to believe sodomite priests used Scripture as a defense for their actions?

I'm sorry; it looks like I didn't express myself very well. Please let me try again.

Scripture of course has a very clear testimony against unnatural sex: sodomy, onanism, contracepted sex, or any other kind of sex which isn't marital and in the procreative form. Sex which is marital and procreative is never mentioned disapprovinglyin Sacred Scripture; sex which is nonmarital or turned away from the procreative form, is never mentioned approvingly.

You and I agree on that.

However Reverend Gay Christian Pastor will not agree, because he will argue that it is YOU and I who are un-Scriptural. He will insist that it is YOU and I, Avalon, who are promoting a mistaken interpretation.

You know this is erroneous. I know it is, too. But Reverend Gay Christian Pastor will justify it Scripturally along the lines I've already indicated HERE [LINK]

To summarize: he will say that the OT prohibitions on homosex can be set aside like other temporary Israelite taboos (like the prohibition agianst eating pork and shellfish); he will say the Sodom story refers to forcible rape, not nice sweet gay Christian lovemaking; he will say arsenokoitai and malakoi (the words of St. Paul) refer to temple prostitutes and catamites, not homosexuals per se. He will say the prohibition of "fornication" indicates that gays should marry each other in order not to be fornicators, since St. Paul says "marriage is honorable for all."

And thus he will dispose of every Scriptural argument by saying that it cannot possibly refer to homosexuality in itself, because the word "homosexual" and didn't even exist until the 19th or 20th century.

"How's this sodomite any different than those Catholic priests who sodomized young alter boys?"

Here's how he's different: Reverend Gay Pastor is convinced that his stand is Scriptural, and nobody has any authority to tell him otherwise. In contrast, a perverted priest knows he's not Scripturally OK, and if he were to try to publically justify his actions, the Church's doctrines would plainly tell him otherwise. There is not even one molecule of authoritative Catholic teaching that will support the pervert priest.

The Catholic priest knows he has no "right" to put forth a personal interpretation of Scripture which is in conflict with the authoritative teaching of the Church. He may still sin, and sin damnably, and go to eternal hellfire sinning damnably, but he cannot cite Scripture to argue that he's actually all right.