Leviticus 18-22 and 1-10 of the supposed first letter of Paul to Timothy: the origins shall we say of your revolting opinions on homosexuals and to render them second class citizens or worse.

Judges 1-19: real all-powerful god you have there. I wouldnt expect iron chariots to pose much a problem for an omnipotent entity.

“written in a specific time. . .they were speaking the truth.”  Like you I am also a convert both to Catholism & reading the bible.  I am daily amazed at the very simple truth that we can all understand when reading scripture.

Steve, your comment, while typical of a certain sort of militant secularist, is a common error. The pronoun in that passage references Judah, not God.

As for “homosexuality” consider the analogy to “transsexuality”. If you, patiently and charitably but nonetheless firmly do not accept that a “transsexual”, that is a man who insists that he is a woman, or vice versa, was “born that way” or is in any way irreversibly or innately so, but are not intolerant in doing so, then neither are we in this case. I wonder if you would be rather be factually incorrect than politically incorrect to go so far as to say that a man who insists he is a woman is really a woman.

Individuals who experience same-sex attraction, just like these individuals who already experience inclinations improper to their sex, and who both experience confusions as to sexual identity, need to be told the truth, it will be tough, but it will set them free. Homosexuality like GID or transsexuality is intrinsically disordered, and ignoring that reality is neither just nor tolerant to anyone involved, but only spawns confusion and error, in the minds of those who cannot tolerate the truth.

Xavier: Never minds the pronouns, which change depending on which translation of the Bible you’re reading, if the lord really was with Judah, then shouldn’t it have mattered whether the people of the valley were driving chariots of iron, steel, titanium, depleted uranium or what have you?

Steve, Leviticus 18-22 and 1Tim. 1:10-11 are not simply bias opinions, nor verses that make homosexuals “second-class citizens”. They are actually verses that proclaim the truth about the intrinsic law that is put inside of us that helps us to live according to our nature.  For example in 1Tim. 1:10-11, Paul just doesn’t condemn homosexual behavior, he also condemns such things as lying, kidnapping, and murder.  He does this because all these actions go against what’s best for human nature.  He condemns lying because we are made for truth, after all it is what sets us free (see Jn. 8:32).  He condemns murder and kidnapping because we were made for life as Jesus “came that we might have life and have it in the full” (Jn. 10:10).  Paul condemns kidnapping because we are made for freedom and thus should choose what’s best and not things that will hurt or destroy us(see 1Pet. 2:16 and Gal. 5:13).  So we see that all these condemnations are based on our human condition.  He condemns homosexual behavior because it goes against the nature of sex which is to unify and procreate. You can see this biologically in the sexual organs themselves (they don’t “fit” together), and also Scripture attest to this.  It says, “be fruitful and multiple” (Gen. 1:28-the procreative aspect) and “the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24-they are meant to unify). Since a homosexual act can do neither of these, it must be condemned because it uses sex for something it is not suppossed to be used for, namely to use another human being (lust) and not for unity and love.  With that being said, Jesus did come so that we may have life.  Because God is omnipotent and all good, He must always get rid of sin (an evil)in justice.  But if we can seperate ourselves from our sins through God’s help (grace), He can get rid of the sin in justice, but love the sinner (mercy).  This is what He wants to do, but because He’s given us free-will, we have to want it too, which means letting go of everything that is evil or that goes against our nature, i.e. that keeps us from the true love we were made for.  In conclusion, Paul condemns this not because he’s insensitive, but because he proclaims the Gospel that we are made to fulfill our human natures and dwell in truth, love, and freedom, not to be degraded in lying, lust, and becoming slaves to our bad choices.

To steve b.

Hi little man, the seed of life should not be use for RUMP ROASTING! If the homosexual act is normal than why can’t it produce life?  See, it serves no purpose its just people with a disorder.  Homosexual need to seek therapy and God.  These people are wounded. Watch your mouth and don’t be putting down God, for one day CLOWN you will face judgement for your speech!

No, it doesn’t mean that, because their unbelief and fear in the face of such a foe would mean that God would not work for or through them.

If you read carefully through the book of Acts, you’ll find an interesting comment on Paul’s humanity, as modified by his new Christian personality. (Same Paul who said he had been an “insolent man”.)
At one point he had traveled north through Asia Minor (the Roman “Asia”), preaching and starting congregations as he went. Then he retraced his steps, heading again for the southern coast. THEN he turned back (north) in order to ‘strengthen the newer congregations).
Look at any map of the area and you’ll see that at that point he was within hollering distance of his home town, Tarsus. One would think he might treat himself to a little vacation. (‘I’ll take over my old bedroom from my kid brother, eat some of Mom’s cooking ...’) AND the area through the middle of Asia, although on Roman roads, was considered dangerous because of the presence of predators, both four- and two-legged.
Quite a self-sacrificing individual.

steve b writes: “to render [homosexuals] second class citizens or worse”
It’s worse, in fact: Didn’t you know the penalty was death - same as for thieves, drunks, [straight] fornicators ...?
What Jehovah wants is the best for us, so he lays down rules, as a human parent does for a child. He does it out of love for his creation [or so I say], and we benefit as much as a child does who doesn’t play in the street. See the tone of voice in Isa 48:17-19.
You acknowledge the right of your boss to set work rules, and expect to get fired if you disobey. Christians are those who acknowledge Jehovah as boss on account of his position as our creator. (Rev 4:11) Where you can start, if you want to, is by looking at God from the Bible’s viewpoint (as in Isa 48, which most ‘hellfire for homos’ church members aren’t aware of. You can start here:
http://watchtower.org/e/20100215/article_01.htm
or here
http://watchtower.org/e/20030215/article_01.htm
(Tip: don’t let anyone know you’re going to our site; they’ll just make fun of you. :-) )

Xavier: That would be you reading in between the lines of what happened, as the chapter doesn’t attest to the mindsets of the soldiers during the battle (or battles).  Or did Judah’s army even engage the people of the valley?

The others: If Paul and the author(s) of Leviticus had studied the phenomenon of homosexuality and reached their conclusions based on trial, error and testing, we might have cause to agree with their claims.  But they wrote at a time when we knew very little.  We also considered back then slavery as part of God’s moral framework (in 1 Timothy again no less), and things such as eating certain animals and wearing mixed fabrics as abominations. As we’ve learned more, we’ve cherry-picked which parts of the Bible we want to put stock into and which we can gloss over, usually convieniently timed with a revelation of some sort.  If I give the Catholic church credit for one thing, it gives itself explicit license to do so through granting authority to the priests and “sacred tradition.”  It doesn’t make the practice any less ridiculous, but I appreciate that they’re up front about it.

steve b writes “to the others”: “[Paul and the others] “wrote at a time when we knew very little [about homosexuality]”

I hope you didn’t include my reply in the thinking of “the others”. My major point was that the Bible talks about a God who knows very much about homosexuality, radar, agriculture, and other things that are part of his creation.

How about, “Do not desire a multitude of useless children.”—Sir. 16:1

Jen, you did a great job on the show.  Usually I listen to it as a podcast, but I wanted to see it since you’d done that other post about having an allergy attack.  I couldn’t tell at all.  You looked and sounded great!  I could hear the love and passion you have for Christ and His Church in your voice.  Kudos

Why do people think when you are discussing the morality of someone’s actions, that you think they are second class citizens.

When I say someone’s action is wrong, i’m not simultaneously saying they are second class citizens…..

@steve b.,

The origin of our revolting opinion of homosexuals are the revolting practices of homosexuals (anal sex, fisting, rimming, abuse of small furry animals, sex slaves, group sex with strangers in bathhouses, etc., etc.

@Steve B. You write:

“If Paul and the author(s) of Leviticus had studied the phenomenon of homosexuality and reached their conclusions based on trial, error and testing, we might have cause to agree with their claims.  But they wrote at a time when we knew very little.”

Would you honestly say that Homer, Aristotle, Cicero, Chaucer, Sophocles, Euripides, Euclid, Confucius, Virgil, Augustine or Boethius knew very little? Also, Paul wrote during the reign of the Roman Empire. How did this empire become as large and powerful as it did, with as many innovations, which we have learned from and use, without knowing much?

My personal favorite “human moment in the Bible”

In the Gospel according to John, John is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and he always talks about himself in glowing terms and casts himself in a very positive light.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John is shown has having a bit of an ego problem and Jesus rebukes him for it.

As for the gay issue:

Paul’s rant in Romans 1:18-29 is best understood if you imagine a very pious, conservative, former strict Pharisee walking onto the set of Caligula. He was writing about a very specific event: The moral decline of Rome.

The verse isn’t about homosexuality, it is about contraception. The women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature (this is a euphemism for contraceptive acts, not lesbianism) The men then got bored with the women and became so degraded by lust that they started having sex with each other. This is not “two guys in love who want to get married”, this is pederasty, male prostitution, “rest stop homosexuality”, and all the other excesses of male on male sexual behavior. The set of Caligula.

Compare this to Pope Paul VI’s predictions in Humanae Vitae. Women start using contraception, the men get bored with them and are destroyed by their lust. The modern equivalent would not be homosexuality, but pornography.

Jen,

I appreciate you efforts here on your blog and admire your courage, patience and fortitude in putting yourself and yor faith out into the blogosphere, particularly considering some of the bilge that comes in over the transom from trolls that target you. I think you and Tracy are two of the most courageous Catholics I have come across. Go bless and protect you and yours.  Best- Dust

Way to go, comboxers on both sides…nearly ruined the damn article.  Was this the time or the place?  Sorry, Jennifer.

Hi Jennifer. You were so intelligent on the Journey Home that I was inspired to look up your blog, and was charmed by your choice of “hidden verses.” Re humanity of early Christians, see that fabulous book by Mike Aquilina, Mass of the Early Christians, St. Dionysius the Great (3rd c) his account of the death of monk who had sacrificed to idols and had been shunned by his community, but received communion on his deathbed and was reconciled and celebrated for his good deeds. (P 155.)

Jennifer, I loved you Journey Home episode. It was very interesting that an Atheist would choose the Catholic Church over Protestants; and your beautiful explanation of why it was so (truth was the reason). I think that Truth is also why every single Atheist who ever lived struggles some much internally with convincing themselves and others that God does not exist; especially when no one really cares if an Atheist chooses to reject Truth. As long as they don’t force the rest of us to worship at the Atheist Alter of Planned Parenthood (where Obama’s heart lies).

Heironymous: By what grounds do you equate two grown consenting people of the same sex having a mutual caring loving relationship and concomiant sexual congress on the same level as all that other stuff you mentioned?  Never mind for a moment what the church says, because saying you believe it because the church says so doesn’t cut the mustard, why do you equate them?

Doug and Lazarus: Imagine if you could show any of those folks Lazarus mentioned your computer, show how it works, perhaps pull up some of their own writing, how would they react?  And just for fun, advise them to be careful touching it because there are millions of tiny organisms living on the keys that may give them a cold, flu, the runs or other unpleaasantness.  That’s what I mean when I say we knew very little.  And that’s just the technology, imagine how they’d react to all the varying philosophies we have.  Contrast that with the Bible, and is there a single sentence that is written by someone for whom 2nd century technology would be cutting edge?  If the bible had an account of DNA, microbes, radar, or 21st century tech, we’d have to talk about that. Now I’m aware of a verse in deuteronomy 29-29 that goes something like this “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Has all of our learning been secret until God has revealed it to us?  If you say yes, you’ve just shouldered a large burden to demonstrate that.  There are a number of counters to that, first I’d say if God has revealed everything we’ve learned so far, he sure has done it the hard way, almost as though we’ve for it all ourselves.  Second, and this is a philosophical conceit that may very well color my view, but I’d say if you hold that view it rather cheapens our efforts.  I’d rather recognize our discoveries as our own, rather than parcels from some invisible untestable entity.

steve b writes: “we knew very little.” “We” needed to know very little about secular affairs. The writers say they were inspired by [dictated to by] Jehovah, and the message had to do with the proper worship of Him. Along the way, though, are some verses you may never have seen:

Job 26:7, NWT “He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;” Some research will show you (a) when that was written and (b) how long that was before I. Newton’s day. Job was a wealthy rancher but with none of our educational advantages.

Ps 139:16, ibid., 1984 “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.” Written by David, a shepherd by background. The KJV of 1611 says “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [Jacobean for “incomplete”]; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.”
Your research will lead you to the word “homunculus”, and will beg the question, ‘Why didn’t the KJV folks use that word instead of substance?’ Your research will also lead you to the term “blastula”, which is closer to the words in both Bibles. Your research will also lead you to the DNA scientists’ description of the blastula, which matches matches the full verse.

Isa 40:21 says, “Do YOU people not know? Do YOU not hear? Has it not been told to YOU from the outset? Have YOU not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell” Why “circle”, which can equally be “sphere” in Hebrew? When you do research in your back yard tonight you’ll notice that the stars are not like “fine guaze”, they’re unevenly spread out. But you’ll recall from your own advanced knowledge that science now knows that, on the large scale, Isaiah’s description was correct. (Isaiah was the son of a priest; as you would say, ‘an ignorant, fanatical religious person’.)

And, speaking of astronomy, science can tell us [imperfectly] how and when various objects came into being. What we lay people want to know, though, is “Why?” Science says that question is not its affair. But if there is a God who created us- mind and body- he ought to anticipate the question and have the answer. Look up Isa 45:18, please.
Get cracking on that research; pop quiz tomorrow. :-)

“Posted by enness on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 12:35 AM (EST):Way to go, comboxers on both sides…nearly ruined the damn article.  Was this the time or the place?  Sorry, Jennifer.”
And enness apologizes for the language, Jennifer.
BTW enness, s/b “damned”.

My posts have had their share of ‘unknown scriptures’, anyway. Just waiting for the complaint, ‘But their from the wrong Bible!’ :-)

Doug: When you read something as vague as the passage in Job you quoted with the eyes of faith, you can make a mystical interpretation of anything.  Michael Shermer did it by finding hidden meesages in the Bible and Sam Harris did it with a shrimp recipe.  What you’re doing is making a presupposition about God and twisting things to fit your preception.  I’ll leave it to one of your own priests to tell you why that’s wrong.  Georges Lemaitre was a priest and physicist who applied relativity to show there had to be a big bang.  The pope at the time published a letter saying these findings proved Genesis.  Lemaitre wrote him back and told him to stop saying that.  This was a scientific theory, he said, you can take it if you’re a believer to vaildate your beliefs, or you can take it to mean natural laws take us right back to the beginning of time without God.  What you take from it depends on your spiritual view, but either way the big bang happened.  We’re getting better ideas of what happened at the beginning of time as well.  We don’t have all the answers, which is ok, but it doesn’t add to the explanation to impose a supernatural entity.  If there is such a being, again he’s doing it all the hard way, by not violating a single natural law that we’re aware of.  Instead of saying there is a supernatural extrauniversal force steering the universe by way of natural processes and not not breaking a single law of physics, why not save a step and say natural forces are all that’s at work?

“quoted with the eyes of faith” ??? “hangs upon nothing” is true, isn’t it? Job couldn’t see gravity and neither can we. We believe Newton “with the eyes of faith”- unless we’ve done the math ourselves. I can’t, can you? Or perhaps you meant the “we” literally in “We’re getting better ideas of what happened at the beginning of time”. The guy in the wheelchair can do the math for that, he says, but not all agree with his views. Do you? Can you prove why or why not?
Job’s contemporaries had ideas about the suspension of the earth that matched your ideas of primitive men; Job said otherwise.
How does the Big Bang help you cope with economic crisis? increasing crime? political corruption in the most “advanced” nations?
Told you: do the research! The Bible will be there when you’re ready for it.3
BTW Lemaitre is NOT ‘my priest’ in any sense of the phrase.

I really don’t think there’s anything further to be gained from continuing with you Doug, if you really think your last statement in any way jibes with reality or validates your views.  I’d say you need to research basic physics and find out the forces at play that hold things together in the solar system.  Rather than dispute my views, I’d say you’ve illustrated them quite well, especially on my point on vagueness and reading into what you want to read into things,when you yourself noted the circle-sphere ambiguity.  With that I rest my case.

Nice article.Thanks!
Feed not the trolls.