Pictured above is the latest internet flow chart that attempts to pervert Sacred Scriptures in order to justify same-sex marriage as well as to mock those of us who hold to the Holy and inspired Word of God. I'll keep this one a little entertaining and I'll tackle each statement from left to right.
1) JESUS NEVER UTTERED A WORD ABOUT SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS. True, He never mentioned anything about this but, if you’re attempting to argue for what the bible doesn’t say instead of what it does say, then unfortunately, you’re venturing into the land of assumptions. Jesus also didn’t mention that He had two wills, one divine and one humanly (see hypostatic union), so I guess that makes Him either 100% man or, 100% God but not both. Jesus also didn’t mention that He was "of the same substance” as the Father, that is, he was homoousios and not heteroousios; indeed, without this concept, God as Trinity cannot stand. Additionally, Jesus never mentions – nor does the bible ever use the word – the Trinity, I guess that means that we must throw out 2,000 years worth of established history for the doctrine of the Trinity, right? >facepalm<
As stated, attempting to argue for what is not mentioned instead of arguing against what is stated is an unintelligent and intellectually dishonest endeavor that leads nowhere (perhaps this is the reason for this assumption?), furthermore, what we see here is an crude venture into trying to extrapolate non spoken words into some form of concrete meaning...how foolish. If anything, the argument can successfully be made that Scriptural silence proves that homosexual marriage wasn’t even an issue because everyone in the Judeo-Christian faith fully understood that it could never be justifiable: Christian history advocates for man-woman marriage, Christian theology advocates against homosexual acts and, Scripturally speaking, the notion of same-sex marriage is comes to an abrupt dead end. Only someone without any knowledge of Church history, tradition or scripture would try to suggest there is room for gay marriage within the Bible. Hey, since Jesus is silent about bestiality and the New Testament fails to mention anything about this, then does that legitimize a person’s sexual attraction to an animal? Because by the definition of this very first statement, it should. >mega facepalm<
2) THE O.T. SAYS IT’S SINFULL TO EAT SHELLFISH, TO WEAR CLOTHES WOVEN WITH DIFFERENT FABRICS, AND TO EAT PORK. True, it does say this in the Book of Leviticus which describes Kosher dietary laws as well as other miscellaneous laws pertinent to the Jews. Let me state that again: pertinent…to…the…Jews. You see this only sounds crazy to the ignorant masses who attempt to distill their own personal belief from Sacred Scripture. To begin with, Jesus has already done away with the old law and therefore, Jewish Kosher dietary laws don’t apply to Christians, in the same manner that circumcision (see Acts 15) doesn’t necessarily apply to the Christian faithful. These practices could be observed if the average Christian wanted to but, it has absolutely no bearing on salvation, sanctification or appeasing God.
I challenge ANYONE who believes this misleading notion to talk to any Orthodox or Hasidic Jew on a Saturday and see if they’re going to go eat a cheese and pork sandwich after temple services. You see, to this day, all good devout Jews STILL OBSERVE THE MOSAIC LAWS INCLUDING ALL KOSHER LAWS but, you already knew this, it’s not like you’ve never heard of Kosher foods before right? It’s not like you never asked yourself what Kosher means right? Or maybe your just uninformed? Either way, Jewish Mosaic law has already been fulfilled via Jesus and no longer applies to the Christian.
3) THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE N.T. ACTUALLY REFERS TO MALE PROSTITUTION, MOLESTATION OR PROMISCUITY, NOT COMMITTED SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS. PAUL MAY HAVE SPOKEN AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY, BUT HE ALSO SAID THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT AND NEVER ASSUME AUTHORITY OVER A MAN. There’s only one place that this “confusion” could’ve taken place so, let’s look at the word used (in the Greek) in the N.T. in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, states:
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The issue taken here is with the words “practicing homosexuals,” in the Greek the word is ἀρσενοκοῖται,
it’s transliteration is the word arsenokoites. According to Strong’s Concordance, this word come from ἄρσην, which translates to “male” and koítē, which means “a mat, bed.” Properly stated it means a man in bed with another man, i.e. a homosexual. The same exact use of this word is found again in 1 Timothy 1:9-10:
“…with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching…”
Again here are the words “practicing homosexuals” and, in the Greek, we find the word ἀρσενοκοίταις
which again means homosexual, not male prostitute. A simple look at 1 Cor. 6:9-10, demonstrates that Paul mentions not 9 different types of sin but 10. But, this in no way takes away from a homosexual person’s ability to be saved, if we continue with 1 Cor. 6:11, we read the following:
“That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
Notice what Paul says, you “used to be” sinners but now are sanctified but, how is this possible? In verses 15-20, Paul lays out why our bodies are our temples and why giving ourselves up to Christ – and not the needs of the flesh – join us ever closer to Him. Undeniably, this is exactly where the Catholic Church extracts it’s teaching on homosexuality as read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2358 (with my emphasis):
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Remember, the Catholic Church isn’t against the homosexual, therein lies not the sin but, it is against homosexual acts; which, as Scripture and Christian history attest to, are immoral. Thus, as stated in 1 Tim 1:10, it is the unchaste for whom the law is meant for and as CCC# 2359 mentions:
Homosexual persons are called to chastity…
Homosexuals are called to be chaste in THE SAME EXACT MANNER as all non-married Christians are called to be chaste, there is no difference. As for women staying silent in Church, this is from 1 Cor. 14:34 which states:
“…women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.”
Well I guess that proves that Christians are evil, misogynistic, backwards cavemen, right? Let’s see what Pope Paul VI said in his encyclical letter, Inter Insigniores (with my emphasis) said about this matter:
“…the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.”
And what, pray tell, does Galatians 3:28 say?
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Yup, definitely sounds sexist and misogynictic to me. >triple facepalm<
4) THIS WAS WHEN THE EARTH WASN’T POPULATED. THERE ARE NOW 6.79 BILLION PEOPLE. BREEDING CLEARLY ISN’T AN ISSUE ANY MORE. Attempting to reduce Adam and Eve to simply procreative status is disingenuous. This notion very cleverly also strikes at what marriage, as historically defined, is; it is a social union designed not only for procreation but, to legitimately attach children with their parents. If in fact, same-sex marriage would be justified using this argument, then clearly it is at odds with homosexuality itself.
Hypothetically speaking, if we were to take 100 monogamous heterosexual couples and 100 monogamous homosexual couples and put them on two different islands (with all of the modern conveniences) and then come back to their respective island in 100 years, which island would have a greater population and which island wouldn’t have a “breeding problem?” Easily seen then is that when taken at face value, this statement could be seen as an indictment against the homosexual lifestyle. It is nonsensical to assume that too many people = no need for children and that, therefore, no need for children makes same-sex marriage justifiable – to make such a leap is not only absurd but negates the very differences between the God-given natures of women and men.
But, did Jesus say anything about this, because after all, if he didn’t utter a single word about this then gay marriage is okay, right? Well, let’s see what Jesus says in Matthew 19:4-5:
He [Jesus] said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Here we see that Christ is recalling the creation narrative as read in Genesis 2:24, He is stating that the reason that man will “leave his father and mother and cling to his wife” is because man is inherently incomplete, he must regain what was once part of him, namely the woman that came from him. Man therefore becomes complete when he is of one flesh with his wife, that is, in the conjugal marital act man and woman become one not only physically but spiritually as they, having given themselves up selflessly, can now participate with God towards procreation.
5) THE BIBLE ALSO DEFINES MARRIAGE AS ONE-MAN-MANY-WOMEN, ONE MAN MANY WIVES AND MANY CONCUBINES, A RAPIST & HIS VICTIM, AND CONQUERING SOLDIER 7 FEMALE PRISONER OF WAR. Once again as state rebuttal #2, this is pertaining only to the Old Testament. Jesus has already fulfilled the Old Law and ushered in the new and everlasting covenant. Picking up Matthew 19, we read that the Pharisees are testing Jesus when they ask him in verse 3,
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
To which Jesus replied in verses 4-5:
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?”
To which the Pharisees ,quoting Deuteronomy 24:1-4, state in verse 7:
“Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”
Uh oh! They trapped Jesus, game over! What ever will Jesus say or do now? Well in the very next verse, Jesus says:
“Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
There it is, Christ in his own words, proclaims that the old Law allowed for divorce because of their stubbornness towards God but now, as Christians, the old Mosaic laws are fulfilled in Christ and the New Covenant and through this fulfillment comes the true meaning of the Old Laws. As such, this is why the Catholic Church is against divorce because the Savior Himself decreed that from the beginning man and woman were and have always been one. Additionally, notice how Christ allows for unlawful marriages to be dissolved, in the same exact manner as Canon Law #1055-1165 allows for dissolution of marriage based on certain criteria.
No comments:
Post a Comment