"Catholic Priest to Gay Couple: Get Divorced & You Can Have Communion"

Really, strange that no where in the OT or the NT does it actually states that homosexuality in general is a "perversion and abomination", the oft quoted verses are disputed as to their actual meaning, add to this that there is no Hebrew word for homosexual and Paul interpreted the Greek word `malakoi', to mean 'homosexual' (1 Corinthians 6:9) when in reality 'malakoi' means "softness", "weakliness" and 'arsenokotai' was a word created by Paul, it has never been found in any script prior to Paul's usage, 'arsenokotai' is a compound of two other Greek words "arsen" which means "man"; "koitai" which means "beds.". If Paul had been referring to homosexuals he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males.

 

I wondered how long it would be before you brought your 'party piece' into the debate .. nothing at all to do with the OP of course.

 

Wrongly disputed. The term "lie with" in Lev. refers to sexual intercourse in the phrase "lie with a male as one lies with a female." It is an abomination. The word here is תֹּועֵבָה towʿebah, toʿebah.

117 occurrences; AV translates as "abomination" 113 times, "abominable thing" twice, and "abominable" twice. 1 a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable. 1a in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages). 1b in ethical sense (of wickedness etc. ).


This whole bogus argument is the same one Satan made to Eve in the Garden, "Did God really say.......?"

 

For every so called scholar you use confirming your interpretation I can offer one who does not ergo your opinion is based on the bias you already have.

Problem you have is that Paul made it very clear that Christians do not live under the law of the OT;

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” (Galatians 3:10)

If we rely on following the Law (the Torah, the first five books of the Bible) we are under a curse. The passage above, Galatians 3:10, contains a quote from the Law itself, Deuteronomy 27:26. According to Paul’s statement below, things have changed.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. (Galatians 3:13)

It was Jesus’ death on the cross that rescued us from the curse of the Law. If we insist on following the Law and imposing the Law on others, we negate the cross of Christ, and repudiate Christ’s death on the cross.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

If you measure yourself as Christian by how well you follow the Law, you have returned to your slavery, to sin. You are then measuring yourself, “justifying” yourself, by evaluating behavior by the Law. For religious folks, this is precisely what is meant by “a dog returning to its own vomit” (Proverbs 26:11; II Peter 2:22). And if you put other Christians under the Law, you are subjecting them to the very yoke of slavery Paul warned about. You force them to return to their own vomit as well.

Those who would return to slavery, to the Law, slavery to sin, will say, “Paul was talking about the ceremonial law, not the moral law. He abolished the ceremonial law, but we are still under the moral law.”

Sorry. That distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law is a man-made excuse to keep themselves and others under bondage to the Law. An argument can be made to support the alleged distinction between a ceremonial law and a moral law, but it is not a Biblical distinction. None other than conservative Bible scholar F.F. Bruce says this in his book, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, in chapter 18, “What the Law Could Not Do.”

Paul never makes a distinction between a so-called ceremonial law and a so-called moral law. The Bible makes no such distinction. The Law is the Law, according to James the brother of Jesus.

For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:10)

Not only is no distinction made between a ceremonial law and a moral law in the scriptures, the actual emphasis of the scriptures is the unity of the law. That phrase, “the whole law,” is used in at least half a dozen places–Deuteronomy 4:8; 33:10; Galatians 5:3,14; 6:13; James 2:10; and elsewhere.

By the very words of Paul, who you claim wrote them lead/inspired by God, the laws of the OT are no longer relevant.

 

The dietary and ceremonial laws, yes, the moral laws (including homosexual sin) were reinforced in the NT.

 

I've always been curious, and for once I'm actually directing this question at those who believe in this bit of scripture, how is a "drunkard" defined? Is getting drunk once in your life enough? Monthly? Weekly? Just on the weekends? Daily? Anyone care to share? (And yes, though it's unusual for me, but I'm actually looking for a scriptural answer.)

 

nope, no where in the NT are homosexuals generally condemned. Strictly speaking the NT says nothing about homosexuality, at most there are only three passages in the entire NT that refer to what we would today call homosexuality, It is only in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 that there may be references to homosexuality.

None of the four gospels mentions the subject.
There is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Further, homosexuality is not mentioned in ten of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul.

 

If only the church did not hide and protect the deviants within it....we might know. At lest the Gay folks do not play that disgusting game.

 

are you kidding, when caught their given a new church...


.

 

And fresh victims......



how anyone can admit to being a Catholic is way beyond understanding....

 

Thanks for conceding the NT does condemn homosexual activity. Why would the Gospels address it, it wasn't exactly a hot topic in Jewish society at the time. Anyone found engaging in that sin would have been stoned, like the woman caught in adultery almost was. It WAS an issue with Paul's gentile audiences, which is why he addressed it. In that pagan society, homosexuality was probably more accepted than it is today in the dying West.

 

I guess 'the whole law', doesn't mean whole to you.
And this all started with your claim gays can't be christian. And you still haven't shown it.

 

You seem to be reading what you want to see, I have not conceded anything of a sort.

Simply because it was not the issue it seems to be with modern Christians now.

Nope, doesn't say that at all.

Except it is still disputed whether Paul was actually condemning homosexuality over all or whether it was directed towards Pagan temple prostitution.

As it should be, as there is nothing in the bible that specifically condemns it.