Cause and effect v.2.0

Yes there ARE!! Go read on Ruth and Naomi again. With a 2006 mind, not a 210 mind

And therein lies the rub. I do not believe the Bible needs to be altered to suit modern times.

And anyone who wants to tell me that the Bible condones homosexuality is not reading the Bible. It's as plain as the nose on your face, unless you want to try and update everything to suit some PC nonsense politcal agenda view of things. We all see how well that works everywhere else it's used.

As to women preachers, it's there. I cannot quote chapter and verse from memory, but it's in the New Testament. Roles are clearly defined. Women can fill many important leadership roles in churches, and do so every day. But they are not called to preach. God isn't 2006 PC. Sue Him. I double dog dare you.

As I said from the outset, beliefs vary. But when a group who identifies themselves as Christian goes out and directly contradicts the teachings of the Bible, that is wrong and (quite obviously) misleads the very people we are to try and minister to. Leslie, Paul...you guys unwittingly proved the very crux of my argument. For which I express appreciation. I figured it would be you two that would do it. BUt I knew someone would.

People will forever interpret the Bible in different ways. Some of those differences are minor and in the grand scheme of things don't really matter too much. It's when folks want to latch onto one or two of those differences and try to claim that these differences disprove the entire theology that it becomes almost comical. Almost, if the stakes weren't so high.

I maintain that this lady is wrong in both her statements and in her very appointment. I will maintain precisely the same thing 50 years from now if I'm still here. The word of God does not change, is not open to modification, and will stand all tests.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
It's when folks want to latch onto one or two of those differences and try to claim that these differences disprove the entire theology that it becomes almost comical. Almost, if the stakes weren't so high.

Case in point...
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
So ya sold your soul for some skinoony.

That's it. We're revoking your man card. Hand it over, bub. :D
Excuse me??? What self-respecting heterosexual male wouldn't sell his soul for some "skinoony?" :rolleyes:
 
:yawn:

Speaking as someone who was raised catholic in a part of the country dominated by baptists, who was exposed to several other faiths, including a taste of judaism, and who finally decided it was all just your basic mythology, I can tell you with absolute certainty that anyone can make the bible back virtually any position they wish to hold.

I'll let y'all get back to your mental masturbation now.
 
Paul said:
yes cause I was a gun-toting right winger before I met her.
Before you met her you were a casual, generallly uninterested rider on the liberal railroad...now you're vying for Bishs conductors seat (since we all know Leslie shares ownership with 40 million of her closest friends to the damned thing ;) )
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
And therein lies the rub. I do not believe the Bible needs to be altered to suit modern times.

then you read ancient hebrew and aramiac, impressive.

And anyone who wants to tell me that the Bible condones homosexuality is not reading the Bible. It's as plain as the nose on your face, unless you want to try and update everything to suit some PC nonsense politcal agenda view of things. We all see how well that works everywhere else it's used.

It's plain as the nose on my face that you have interrpeted that way, or your church has.

As to women preachers, it's there. I cannot quote chapter and verse from memory, but it's in the New Testament. Roles are clearly defined. Women can fill many important leadership roles in churches, and do so every day. But they are not called to preach. God isn't 2006 PC. Sue Him. I double dog dare you.

I think again interpitation, as to suing god, I might as well sue the tooth fairy, both are make believe to me (the to me is important, cause that way we don't start another debate)

As I said from the outset, beliefs vary. But when a group who identifies themselves as Christian goes out and directly contradicts the teachings of the Bible, that is wrong and (quite obviously) misleads the very people we are to try and minister to. Leslie, Paul...you guys unwittingly proved the very crux of my argument. For which I express appreciation. I figured it would be you two that would do it. BUt I knew someone would.

see you have it all wrong, we are not contradicting the bible, we are interpputing it diffrently, just like yoru church does and this other church does. Everyone wants to believe ther church and upbringing is right.

People will forever interpret the Bible in different ways. Some of those differences are minor and in the grand scheme of things don't really matter too much. It's when folks want to latch onto one or two of those differences and try to claim that these differences disprove the entire theology that it becomes almost comical. Almost, if the stakes weren't so high.

and some diffrences are major, and lead to burning at the stakes, yeah, very comical.

I maintain that this lady is wrong in both her statements and in her very appointment. I will maintain precisely the same thing 50 years from now if I'm still here.

and I am sure she will maintain you are wrong, and she will maintain that same thing 50 years from now as well

The word of God does not change, is not open to modification, and will stand all tests.

:eek3:
 
A few various comments for Leslie:

That Timothy quote mentions sodomites, so it is relevant.

After Jesus says that nothing can defile a man by going inside of him His own disciples asked him about the parable (their dietary laws say they can not eat certain foods or else it will defile them). He clearifies by saying it is not the external that defiles you, but internal. The tradition of washing the hands was already dealt with and he goes further that no food (since it enters your stomach) can defile you. Non-kosher food was around to be eaten. Not everyone there was Jewish (Jesus preached to all who would listen including the Romans). There is no use in pretending that it was not available then.

"We note the covenant friendship between David and Jonathan. This was a form of relationship made in the presence of the Lord, in which each party accepted obligations toward the other; it was regarded as being of the same order as blood relationship. It was such that it could be described as the knitting together of the souls of the two men ( 1 Samuel 18:1), by which was meant that the very being of the one was extended into and embraced the personality of the other; each became the other's alter ego."

Source: Layman's Bible Commentary, Volume 6, p 108 - Charles T. Fritisch, 1959, John Knox Press, Richmond, Virginia

2 Samuel 5:13
[13] And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David.

David also had an affair with Bathsheeba and and fathered a child by her. (2 Samuel 11:1-28) Hardly the actions of a gay man.

King David was not a homosexual. He obviously loved Jonathon as he loved himself. Also, taking off the clothes and giving them for the other person to wear was an ancient sign of "what's mine is yours".

I can not find any passages that say Ruth and Naomi had a homosexual relationship. Could you please point them out for me?

There are passages in the New Testament that state the New Covenant and why Christians are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law. The below articles will help explain far better than I can at the moment.

A few various comments for paul_valaru:

The Catholic Church has been around nearly for 2,000 years (I should of said "nearly" before in my previous post. In about 30 years or so it will be 2,000 years.) what event do you think started the Catholic Church? It was on Pentecost, A.D. 29, which became the birthday of the Catholic Church. I know you think otherwise and I would like to know what it is.

Homosexual behavior has been around way before biblical times. That doesn't justify it as natural. The same can be said for bestiality. I think you are confused with what is common to what is natural.
Also, the Vatican Councils did not change the faith of the Catholic Church at all. What was modified was behavior i.e. saying the mass in Latin.

Note: Though, there is no perfect translation, you really should not use the King James Version. If you like the old style English then I suggest you use the Douay-Rheims bible.

The below articles tackle everything that was brought up in this thread:

The Law of God

By Jimmy Akin

Christians talk about God's law all the time, as well they should. God's law is designed to lead us in his will and to make us happy.

But people often don't have a good handle on the nature of divine law, and problems result. A bit of background can help prevent some of these problems.

The first thing we need to understand is that God doesn't have just one body of law. He has several that we know of—probably more that we don't. That's not surprising. Even a nation like the United States has different bodies of law governing different aspects of life in America. There's international law, federal law, state law, and municipal law.

Theologians refer to God's ultimate law as the eternal law. Aquinas explains that "the eternal law is nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as directing all actions and movements" (ST I-II:93:1). All other, lesser laws, whether divine or human—to the extent that they are laws—participate in some way in the eternal law.

One part of the eternal law is what theologians refer to as the natural law. In the sciences, the phrase natural law is often used to refer to those principles pertaining to non-living or non-intelligent things in the universe. This isn't the case in theology. In theology, the term is used to refer to those moral precepts of the eternal law that a rational creature can discern without special revelation. For example, the fact that murder, theft, and lying are wrong can be discerned by human reason without special revelation and so the prohibitions against them constitute part of the natural law.

Just because something can be discerned without special revelation does not mean that it always will be so discerned, so it is useful to have law that is given by special revelation. Laws that are promulgated by words—whether written or oral—constitute positive law. God has chosen on two major occasions to give to man bodies of divine positive law.

The first of these was when God gave the Jewish people the laws of the Pentateuch or Torah. The second was when he gave us the laws governing the Christian dispensation. Biblically, the former body of law is known as the Law of Moses (1 Cor. 9:9, Heb. 10:28), and the latter is known as the Law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21, Gal. 6:2). They have come to be known in theology as the Old Law and the New Law.

There has been a misimpression on the part of many that in some sense all men were bound to obey the Old Law before the time of Christ. This is not the case. The Law of Moses was always and only meant to be observed by the Jewish people. We see in the Old Testament many non-Jews who were worshipers of the true God, such as Melchizedek the Jebusite and Jethro the Midianite, who were both priests of God (Ex. 3:1, 18:12), Balaam the Pethorite, who was a prophet of God (Num. 22:18–19), and Naaman the Syrian, who came to worship God and was in no way asked to embrace the Mosaic Law (2 Kgs. 5:15–19).

The specificity of the Old Law to the Jewish people is also illustrated by the precepts in the Torah that pertain to the civil life of Israel. For example, Numbers 35:2 commands the building in the land of six cities of refuge to be controlled by the Levites.

The Old Law includes certain precepts of natural law. All of the Ten Commandments, for example, are either direct expressions of natural law or, in one case (that of the Sabbath commandment), a particular application of a natural law principle. Because the natural law is binding for all time on all people and never changes, those natural law precepts of the Old Law are also binding on non-Jews. This is why they get quoted in the New Testament as obligatory for Christians and which is why we continue to quote them today.

What happens, though, is that people end up forgetting that the reason they are binding on us is that they are part of natural law. People hear the verses quoted and think that they are binding because the Old Law says them. Aquinas explains: "The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to the Old Law, but because they belonged to the natural law" (ST I–II:98:5).

When you understand this fact, it cuts through a bunch of the problems people fall prey to when looking at the New Testament's use of the Old Law. People will mistakenly ask, "In what way is the Old Law binding on us today?" This question is framed wrong. It assumes that there isa way in which the Old Law is binding on us, and there's not. The Old Law itself is binding on no one, and, unless one is Jewish, never was.

Those who do not have this insight—and this is especially common in conservative Protestant circles—often get bogged down in elaborating the different kinds of precepts found in the Mosaic Law and discussing which are or are not binding on us today.

For example, there is a common way of classifying the precepts of the Mosaic Law according to whether they are moral, ceremonial, or judicial (in Protestant circles this last category is often called civil).

The moral precepts are those most directly demanded by natural law, such as the prohibitions on murder. The ceremonial precepts are those that deal with the regulation of worship in Israel, such as how sacrifices are to be offered or when holy days are to be kept. The judicial precepts deal with the actions of rulers, of citizens with respect to other citizens, of relations with strangers and foreigners, and of the home life (ST I-II:104:4).

A common Protestant position is that the moral precepts are binding on us today but the ceremonial and civil precepts are not. Others (theonomists) will hold that the judicial precepts are binding, though perhaps with minor modifications. And a very small number even holds that some or all of the ceremonial precepts are binding to day as well.

This division of the precepts of the Law into three classes has even led some (many in Presbyterian circles) to speak as if there are three separate laws in the Torah—"the moral law," "the ceremonial law," and "the civil law." This is completely unbiblical.

The Torah is one corpus of legislation, not three. The moral/ceremonial/judicial scheme is a convenient but arbitrary way of classifying its precepts. There are other ways in which the precepts can be classified. For example, the common method of classification used by Jews divides the precepts into two classes—those that are commands ("Thou shalt . . .") and those that are prohibitions ("Thou shalt not . . .").

When one understands that that the moral precepts are binding on us because they are demanded by natural law, one is no longer dependent on figuring out which is the "right" Mosaic Law classification scheme for the precepts. Instead, one needs to ask: "Is this precept demanded by reason?"

There is also the special case of precepts that are applications of natural law precepts—for example, the Sabbath command. There is no natural law reason why one should rest and worship on Saturday rather than another day, but there are natural law reasons why one should devote adequate time to rest and worship. Consequently, we are not bound to observe the Sabbath day, but we must still observe the natural law requirements for rest and worship.

The Roman Catechism makes this point in its discussion of the Sabbath command: "The other Commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.

"This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not fixed and constant, but changeable, pertaining not so much to mores but to ceremonies. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the Sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh."

With the coming of Christ, the Law of Moses was abrogated even for the Jewish people. Jesus "canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14). Paul tells us that we must " let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Col. 2:16).

Rather than fulfilling the Law of Moses, Paul points us toward fulfilling the Law of Christ: "To those outside the [Mosaic] law I became as one outside the [Mosaic] law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the [Mosaic] law" (1 Cor. 9:21). He wrote also, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).

The Law of Christ, or the New Law, is the second major revelation of positive divine law. It contains the laws set forth by Christ and the apostles in the deposit of faith. Some of these are moral (prohibitions on murder, adultery, and polygamy), some ceremonial (baptism, the Eucharist, Sunday worship), and some are civil or judicial ( e.g., "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities"—Rom. 13:1—and the Church's social teaching as grounded in the deposit of faith).

The New Law also provides something that the Old Law did not: the grace of the Holy Spirit, who empowers individuals to keep the New Law in a way that those under the Law of Moses were not able to keep it. This internalization the New Law was prophesied by Jeremiah: "this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:33).

Finally, we should mention two other manifestations of divine law—civil law (international, national, state, and local laws) and ecclesiastical law (e.g., canon law and liturgical law). To the extent these are laws, they participate in the eternal law and we are bound by God's authority to obey them. Thus immediately after telling his readers "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities," Paul explains this by saying "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom. 13:1–2).

Source

Homosexuality

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.


Divine Law


The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).


Reinterpreting Scripture


To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.


Natural Law


People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


Source

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, check out this article.

As for women priests...

Women and the Priesthood
Can women be ordained to the priesthood? This is a question which provokes much debate in our modern world, but it is one to which the Church has always answered "No." The basis for the Church's teaching on ordination is found in the New Testament as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers.

While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).

The following quotations from the Church Fathers indicate that women do play an active role in the Church and that in the age of the Fathers there were orders of virgins, widows, and deaconesses, but that these women were not ordained.

The Fathers rejected women's ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. Throughout medieval times and even up until the present day, this teaching has not changed.

Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, "Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching "requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)" (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).

The following quotations from the Fathers constitute a part of the tradition on which this infallible teaching rests.


Irenaeus

"Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, [Marcus the Gnostic heretic] contrives to give them a purple and reddish color. . . . [H]anding mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence.

"When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, and pouring from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: 'May that Charis who is before all things and who transcends all knowledge and speech fill your inner man and multiply in you her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in you as in good soil.'

"Repeating certain other similar words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many and drawn them away after him" (Against Heresies 1:13:2 [ A.D. 189]).


Tertullian


"It is of no concern how diverse be their [the heretics'] views, so long as they conspire to erase the one truth. They are puffed up; all offer knowledge. Before they have finished as catechumens, how thoroughly learned they are! And the heretical women themselves, how shameless are they! They make bold to teach, to debate, to work exorcisms, to undertake cures . . . " (Demurrer Against the Heretics 41:4–5 [ A.D. 200]).

"[A female heretic], lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. . . . But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icthus [Greek, "Fish"], Jesus Christ, are born in water . . . so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water" (Baptism 1 [ A.D. 203]).

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office" (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [ A.D. 206]).


Hippolytus


"When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all" (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [ A.D. 215]).


The Didascalia


"For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [ A.D. 225]).


Firmilian


"[T]here suddenly arose among us a certain woman, who in a state of ecstasy announced herself as a prophetess and acted as if filled with the Holy Ghost. . . . Through the deceptions and illusions of the demon, this woman had previously set about deluding believers in a variety of ways. Among the means by which she had deluded many was daring to pretend that, through proper invocation, she consecrated bread and performed the Eucharist. She offered up the sacrifice to the Lord in a liturgical act that corresponds to the usual rites, and she baptized many, all the while misusing the customary and legitimate wording of the [baptismal] question. She carried all these things out in such a manner that nothing seemed to deviate from the norms of the Church" (collected in Cyprian's Letters 74:10 [ A.D. 253]).


Council of Nicaea I


"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (Canon 19 [ A.D. 325]).


Council of Laodicea


"[T]he so-called 'presbyteresses' or 'presidentesses' are not to be ordained in the Church" (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] ... In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony ... ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit" (Against Heresies 78:13 [ A.D. 377]).

"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (ibid.).

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (ibid.).

"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (ibid., 79:3).


John Chrysostom


"[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature" (The Priesthood 2:2 [ A.D. 387]).


The Apostolic Constitutions


"A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [ A.D. 400]).

"Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them" (ibid., 3:16).

"[T]he 'man is the head of the woman' [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, 'He shall rule over you' [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ" (ibid., 3:9).

"A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Anna—those women of great reputation—let her be chosen into the order of widows" (ibid., 8:25).

"A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women" (ibid., 8:28).


Augustine


"[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman" (Heresies 1:17 [ A.D. 428]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Source

WHY NO WOMEN'S ORDINATION

By MICHAEL J. TORTOLANI


DURING John Paul II's visit to the United States for World Youth Day, a television reporter interviewed a 14-year-old Catholic girl who was boarding a bus bound for Denver to see the Holy Father. After being asked what she thought of the spiritual leader, the young girl replied, "I think he's really great, but I disagree with his opinion that women can't be priests."

I couldn't help but wonder what sources had influenced this young Catholic to form her views about this papal "opinion." Had she actually read the documents issued by the pastor of the universal Church?

Despite the Pope's injunction that women's ordination is a non-issue for the Church and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's recent responsum ad dubium reiterating that the Church's teaching is to be definitively held by Catholics, it remains as one of the constant benchmarks by which feminists measure progress. Let's lay out some of the leading propositions favoring the ordination of women and examine them in the light of Scripture, reason, and official magisterial teachings.

Proposition: "Those who support women's ordination are acting in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council."

Contrary to popular belief, Vatican II did not support the cause for ordaining women. While many positive statements about equality and the role of female gifts in the Church were made (especially in Gaudium et Spes) no change, explicit or implicit, was made to this effect.

Pope Paul VI (during a May, 1976, consistory in Rome) identified a "polarization" in the Church brought about by individuals who have misinterpreted the message of Vatican II.

He called it a cause of "deep sorrow" that some who "mistakenly believing they are continuing along the lines of the Council, have put themselves in a position of preconceived and sometimes irreducible criticism of the Church and her institutions."

Included in the list of mistaken critics are "those who believe themselves authorized to create their own liturgy," "those who minimize the doctrinal teaching in catechetics or distort it according to the preference of the interests, pressures or needs of people," "those who pretend to ignore the living tradition of the Church, from the Fathers to the teachings of the magisterium, and reinterpret the doctrine of the Church, and the gospel itself," and "those who interpret theological life as the organization of a society here below, reducing it indeed to a political action [which confuses] the transcendent message of Christ with ideologies which negate this message."

While Paul VI did not specifically mention ordination in this brief letter, within a matter of months (January 27, 1977) a papally-mandated Vatican declaration was promulgated through the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; it reaffirmed the tradition of a male-only priesthood ( Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, 1977).

Proposition: "The Church has no theological grounds for refusing to ordain women."

The fact that individual theologians may disagree with the grounds the Church uses to explain the male-only clergy is another issue altogether. Church arguments are based on the historical events of the Church, the apostolic teachings, a Sacred Tradition which has never acknowledged a valid female ordination, the "maleness" of Christ, and scriptural references from both testaments.

Catholic writer Michael Novak has written a moving and thoughtful article on the Church's need to further clarify and articulate the theology which maintains a male-only priesthood ( First Things, April 1993, 25-32). He points out that "the theological reasons for the reservation of the Catholic priesthood to males have lain dormant and unarticulated over many centuries," mainly because, like so many theological questions, the doctrine was never challenged.

Novak correctly noted that this issue did not even arise at the Second Vatican Council. Rather, it is the result of recent attitudinal changes in Western culture. The main question, according to Novak, is whether the Church, which at many times in its history was called to be "countercultural," even has the authority to give in to the dominating secular culture on this issue.

Proposition: "Historically there is evidence of female ordination in the early Church, as seen in the gnostic sects that were discredited by the so-called 'orthodox' groups."

It is certainly true that some early gnostic (meaning "special knowledge") groups favored a more active role for women. Feminist theologians such as Rosemary Radford Ruether point to these groups and proclaim that they offered women greater status before "patriarchal" orthodoxy discredited the gnostic believers.

But two important points must be noted. First, the questionable beliefs of gnostic groups also included dangerous Christological errors (such as a "Jesus" who never had a physical body. Second, while Ruether points to gnostic texts which seem to support feminist causes, she ignores other gnostic texts which state that "women are not worthy of life" and "must become male" in order to reach heaven (the Gospel of Thomas). Overall, the gnostic texts are recognized as a mixed bag of speculative theological teachings and damaging heresies, the latter being rooted out by early Church leaders.

Proposition: "The apostolic teachings, as well as arguments based on the maleness of Christ, are evidence of a culture-bound religious setting almost 2,000 years old. Jesus and his followers were subjects of their culture."

To bind Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, with cultural constraints is historically and theologically inept. As the 1977 Declaration (nos. 3, 4) points out, Jesus often broke with religious and societal convention: He converses with a Samaritan woman (John 4:27), pardons a woman caught in adultery and indicates that a man is equally guilty in sins of lust (John 8:11), and departs from the "unbreakable" Mosaic law concerning the rights and duties of both sexes in marriage (Mark 10:2-11). Jesus surrounds himself with women in his ministry and even appears first to women after his Resurrection.

Despite these and other examples of breaking with prejudices and discriminations of his own time concerning women, Jesus appoints only males to serve as the twelve apostles in his ministry. This was a freely made decision on Christ's part, as he was not constrained by culture or convention. The Declaration (no. 2) recalls Pope Innocent III's thirteenth-century teaching: "Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Proposition: "But scripturally, Paul states in Galatians 3:28 that there is no more distinction 'between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.'<|"

The Church has consistently interpreted this passage to be an essential truth of the salvation message of Christianity. As the Declaration (no. 6) points out, "This passage does not concern ministries: It only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all."

In a similar way, part of the remarkable teaching of Jesus centers around baptism as a sign of covenant for all people. This is in marked contrast to the Jewish custom which it replaced-circumcision of the male, whereby a man's entire family was dedicated to God through a patriarchal show of faith.

Proposition: "The maleness of Christ is not a necessary component of God's plan of salvation."

Although some feminist theologians have argued that since Jesus represented all of humanity, he must have been either sexually androgynous or neuter, orthodox Christology has always maintained that Jesus was "fully human." Furthermore, the prophetic tradition inherited from the Old Testament looks specifically for a male Savior from the house of David ("For to us a child is born, a son is given . . . He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom," Is. 9:6-7).

Scriptural imagery from the Song of Songs to Revelation presents a nuptial theme of bridegroom (Christ) and his bride (the Church). The "bridegroom," according to the New Testament writers, has been revealed as Christ (Eph. 5:23-32). The Declaration (no. 5) states that "In the exercise of his ministry of salvation . . . his role must be taken by a man" who is acting " in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ). Christ, the God-man mediator, was prophesied as being male and, in fact, was born, suffered, died, and was raised in male form.

Proposition: "The concept of revelation is antiquated, and revelation is seen as an 'ongoing' process after Vatican II."

This is clearly a false notion. The teaching of the First Vatican Council (that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle) was supported by Vatican II. Some modification did take place in Dei Verbum (the conciliar declaration on divine revelation), but this stressed the coequal weight of Scripture and Tradition as "a single sacred deposit." The Council also stated that this deposit can only be authentically interpreted only by the teaching office of the Church (the magisterium). While there may be a deepening of understanding about the deposit of revelation, there is no "new" revelation.

Proposition: "Women are ordained in other Christian churches, so the Catholic Church should do likewise."

Neither of the two oldest traditions (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) permit the ordination of women. Unlike the Protestant churches, these traditions have maintained a total sacramental system in which the theology of ordination is a central part.

Sacramental theology teaches that a grace-giving sacrament instituted by Christ must be carried out the way Christ intended it-this is considered "essential and normative" for the Church.

Most Protestant churches have entirely rejected the sacramental system of Rome and the Eastern churches and, as a result, have rejected a sacrificing priesthood as well. Instead, they ordain "ministers," a role very different from that of priest. Ministers do not act in the person of Christ and make no claim to do so. Furthermore, not all Protestant churches ordain women.

For example, Evangelical teaching relies heavily on Paul's letter to Timothy concerning instructions on worship ("I do not permit a woman to have teaching authority over a man" [1 Tim. 2:1].). By the way, this passage is not presented by the Vatican as a "proof" against ordaining women.

Proposition: "The Christian concepts of justice, equality, and dignity apply to men and women and therefore support the idea of females in the priesthood."

Justice and equality are not identical. Justice is "giving a person his due" and can be taken either negatively (punishment) or positively (reward). While all persons must be treated "justly," they need not be treated "equally"-if for no other reason than because each has different potential and capabilities.

As a teacher I cannot give a student who has an average grade of 65 percent the same "A" for a course that I would give a student who has an average of 95 percent. Both students get what they deserve (justice) but not the same grade (equality). For his part God shows favor to certain individuals (Jacob, Mary, John "the beloved disciple") in ways that are beyond the understanding of creatures.

In terms of male and female identities, the Declaration (no. 5) stresses the different gifts, talents, and contributions of the two sexes. Beyond the obvious physical differences, men and women are seen as different but complementary expressions of the one human nature. The equality affirmed at Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes and Pope John Paul II's 1988 apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) denies the premise that men and women are interchangeable in every aspect of their existence. Instead, Christian equality is based on the "equality of dignity" of both sexes.

In preserving the uniqueness of the sexes (an idea which is increasingly rare and "politically incorrect" in today's social climate), the introduction to the Declaration supports a view of equality that will "secure the building up of a world that is not leveled out and uniform but harmonious and unified, if men and women contribute to it their own resources and dynamism."

The Vatican document points to the differences between the sexes as being much deeper than differences of ethnicity or race (which are not factors in ordination). Sexual differences go beyond those of mere biology and represent the primary division of characteristics between human beings.


Proposition: "If a woman feels 'called,' she should have a right to be ordained a priest. This is the only way that women can gain entrance to the hierarchy of the Church."


The Church has consistently taught that not everyone who feels "called" to a vocation in the priesthood must be ordained ( Declaration, no. 6). It is within the Church's authority to discern the veracity of a calling. There is no inherent "right" to ordination. There is no "due." Thus there is no justice denied. Biblically speaking, Christ "called to him those he wanted" (Mark 3:13). Following the Ascension, it was the Church that received the duty of authenticating and validating vocations to the priesthood. Even the great apostle Paul, who received a special revelation and direct calling from Jesus, had to have that calling verified by the leaders of the Church.

A "calling" to ministerial service should not confuse the specific sacramental priesthood (acting vicariously for Christ on earth) with the "royal priesthood" incumbent on all the baptized who must serve and glorify God (1 Pet. 2:9). It is this second type of priesthood which can and must be carried out by all Christians according to their abilities.

If becoming a priest is seen primarily as an entrance into hierarchical power, then the words of the Declaration (no. 6) have an even more solemn warning: "The priestly office cannot become the goal of social advancement; no merely human progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access to it; it is of another order."

The issue of service to Christ and the issue of governance are two separate items. It has been stated often enough that the Church is not a democracy. Doctrine, truth, and revelation are not voted upon as one would vote on a local school tax. "It must not be forgotten," states the Declaration (no. 6), "that the priesthood does not form part of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of Christ and the church."

Proposition: "Catholics sincerely interested in women's rights should support women's ordination."

There are two approaches to feminist concerns for the Catholic. One way is to look at the secular world's views on feminist concerns and then try to impose these ideals on the Church-even if this requires opposing legitimate episcopal authority. This position is exemplified by a statement made in 1992 by Ruth Fitzpatrick of the Women's Ordination Conference. When the U. S. Bishops issued "Called to be One in Christ" (affirming John Paul II's position of a male-only clergy as a "tradition which witnesses to the mind of Christ and is therefore normative") Fitzpatrick responded strongly.

"This is unacceptable," Fitzpatrick said. "Women are called by God to minister fully in the Roman Catholic Church. If they [the bishops] can't say that, they should say nothing." In other words, if the Pope and the bishops don't agree with Fitzpatrick's views, then the pastors of the Church should make no pronouncements at all on the matter.

Pope Paul's 1976 letter on polarizing elements in the Church warned about the type of ecclesio-political mentality fostered by Fitzpatrick. The Holy Father had written: "Such Christians are not very numerous, it is true, but they make much noise, believing too easily that they are in a position to interpret the needs of the entire Christian people or the irreversible direction of history."

The second way of looking at feminist concerns for the Catholic is to be inspired by the magisterium of the Church and reflect on what being a woman means in the light of Church teaching.

As Mary Ellen Bork stated at the Wethersfield Institute's conference on "The Catholic Woman" (1990), "[Feminists] present Catholic women with a serious challenge: to seek a more profound understanding of Catholic teaching on women and articulate it well to a culture vastly confused about women's roles. By reflecting on the faith view of women expressed in sacred Scripture, papal documents, and in our own lives, we will persuade women of our day that there is a better way."

Source

Ordination Is Not a Right

Why the Church Cannot Make Women Priests

By Mark P. Shea

One current notion is the idea that Catholicism is denying women their "rights" when it tells us, "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and . . . this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

One need not seek far to find in response rhetoric like this: "The prohibition against women priests is based on the ancient idea of the inferiority of women. But we are all created in God's image and have the same rights, and the fact that Jesus was male does nothing to negate this. That, along with the fact that all the apostles were male, is the basis for the Church's male-only priesthood. But in the days when Jesus was on earth, it would have been unthinkable for him to select women for his ministry. Not because women weren't capable, but because they would not have been accepted."

The first difficulty here is that ordination is not a right but a gift. Trying to apply "rights" talk here is like threatening to sue heaven for the free gift of salvation. If God gave us humans what we deserved according to strict justice, we would all be damned. Christ came not to give us what we deserve but to save us from it.

And yet aren't we are all equal in the sense that "God is no respecter of persons"? Yes. And Paul knew better then anybody in antiquity that male and female were equal in Christ in the sense of having the same dignity before God. It was he, after all, who said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul saw nothing inferior about women's dignity. But he, like the other apostles, did see something that kept him from ordaining women.

"Right," says the modern critic. "What he saw were the insides of his blinkers. Like Jesus, he was prohibited by his culture from doing something that no ancient would accept. But times have changed. Now we know women are competent to pastor and preach, so they should be made priests."

This common objection is founded on a number of misconceptions about what the sacrament of ordination is and what Jesus and the apostles did. First, it is simply unhistorical to say that Jesus was stopped from appointing women priests by social norms. Greco-Roman culture had oodles of women priests. So let's dismiss this appeal to poor Jesus' jitters at offending.

Nor does the argument that he was worried about what everybody would think hold hooch. Jesus did and said lots of shocking things. He horrified his hearers by saying, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). He prompted his fellow Jews to form a lynch mob by declaring "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). He touched lepers, ate with whores, and excoriated the ruling class in Jerusalem. He challenged conventional wisdom in a thousand ways. His message (and that of the apostles) was indeed so conciliatory to his contemporaries that they rewarded him with crucifixion and hailed his disciples with stonings, beatings, and martyrdom.

Bottom line: If Jesus had wanted woman priests, he would have ordained them, public approval or no. The "Jesus was hamstrung and/or blinded by his culture" thesis is lame.

Similarly, appeals to women's pastoral and rhetorical competence are quite beside the point. The Church has in her tradition abbesses, theologians, doctors of the Church, and teachers aplenty in skirts and habits. The question revolves not around pastors and preachers but around the priestly office. Anybody can do pastoral, teaching, preaching, or administrative work. But that is not the essence of the priesthood. The essence of the priestly office is celebration of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass.

And that is why all such arguments are not addressing the issue. The issue is the nature of the sacrament. What is a sacrament? It is a thing that not only does what it symbolizes but symbolizes what it does. In baptism the obvious symbol of cleansing, drowning, and new life is water, not wine. And so wine, for all its admirable qualities, is not the right "matter" for the sacrament of baptism.

Though its symbolism was determined by Jesus' culture, the wine in the Holy Eucharist-the blood of the crushed fruit-is an obvious symbol to signify the blood of Christ, who was crushed for our iniquities. Like the blood of Christ, wine invigorates, inebriates, and reminds us of the tang of death and new life. Here again, water, despite being the right matter for baptism and not in the least inferior to wine, is the wrong matter for the sacrament of the Eucharist. In short, certain things are natural signifiers. It's not a question of equality but of fittingness.

Now, Christ is, as he himself teaches, the Bridegroom to the Church's Bride in the great eschatological marriage feast of the Kingdom (Matthew 25:1-13). Gender has, in Christ's teaching, a real meaning and is not simply an accident of nature. And he ought to know, since he designed the human person and made it a participant in the mystery of male and femaleness. And so every Mass is a local marriage feast of the Lamb whereby we enter into the self-sacrificial love of that cosmic Bridegroom for his Bride.

And that brings us back to the question of symbols. For as with water in baptism and wine in Eucharist, it is not that a man is superior to a woman in being "matter" for the priesthood. It is that man is a fitting symbol of the Bridegroom and woman is not. The priest is an alter Christus-another Christ-to the Bride in the mystery of the Mass. He does not primarily "administrate" or preach or pastor. He signifies.

Ordination, then, is not a right. It's a gift. It's a sacrament, like all sacraments, that does what it symbolizes and symbolizes what it does. Symbols therefore matter-particularly those that Christ himself has instituted-and the Church has no power to alter such symbols in their fundamentals. Christ and the apostles revealed what the "matter" of ordination should be just as they revealed what the matter of baptism and Eucharist should be. The Church merely obeys. That is why the Pope tells us "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

It's out of the Church's hands. The argument is with Christ, not the Pope.

Source

The Circumcisers (First Century)

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"

Many of the early Christians were Jews who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God's covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.


Source

BTW: It is only the Church that Christ established that is guided by the Holy Spirit that can infallibly interpret Scripture. Because if everyone claimed that right then there would be like over 35,000 Protestant churches all interpreting their own way. Oh, wait! There already is!

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
 
paul_valaru said:
ok, enough of that, lol

seriously answer one question those of you with these religious beleifs.


1)if god is against gays, why do they exist?

God is against homosexual behavior not the homosexual.

paul_valaru said:
2)if jesus is the omega, why am I Jewish?

Could you elaborate on that?

paul_valaru said:
If your answer to 1 is cause god or jesus gave us free will.

then

a) if is was god giving us free will, in the old testament he was pretty hands on, actually talking to us, appearing even, smiting whole cities, how come all those people who had gay relationships in the old testament where not smited. and yes there are a few insinces of gay relations, loving relationships, yet they got away with it, scott free.

Which homosexuals were not punished (don't say David & Jonathon or Ruth & Naomi)? There are homosexuals today that are not being immediately punished. Their time will come. Even if there are homosexuals in the bible who were not punished does that mean God condones it? Weren't there also rapes and murders too that went unpunished by God?

paul_valaru said:
b) Jesus gave us free will, how come there where gays before jesus showed up?

You answered your own question.

Oh, wait, you might be thinking Jesus is not God. Nevermind then...
 
Gotholic said:
God is against homosexual behavior not the homosexual.

?? so why did he make him homosexual?


Could you elaborate on that?

If he was the son of god why didn't we all magically convert?

Which homosexuals were not punished (don't say David & Jonathon or Ruth & Naomi)? There are homosexuals today that are not being immediately punished. Their time will come. Even if there are homosexuals in the bible who were not punished does that mean God condones it? Weren't there also rapes and murders too that went unpunished by God?

Their time will come, the hallmark of racist and hatmongers everywhere, thank you for re-affirming my beleifs about the catholic church, that it is a racist hateful facist entity.

You answered your own question.

no I didn't you jsut avaoided it
 
paul_valaru said:
once again you make no sense and didn't answer my questions.

Could you explain how I make no sense? Or better yet, reiterate your questions in one post since they are scattered in this thread.
 
Back
Top