Has anyone else heard this?
All homosexuals died at the birth of Christ?
6,688 Views |
78 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by ramblin_ag02
Sounds super loving it should be no problem at all reconciling a belief like that with a loving god who came to save.
Seems like a odd quotation, certainly not a formal teaching of the Church. At best a statement like this could be attributed to private revelation but I have not heard of anything like this from St. Bonaventure, whose name means good luck BTW. I honestly find this dubious but not contrary to the teaching on homosexuality and it wouldn't be the first time that punishment was handed out for this offense, see Sodom.
I still read those passages as being more about sexual violence (rape) than love between two persons. But, we have been down that road before, so I won't derail this... although I do have a problem with Lot offering his daughters to the mob instead of the two angels.. I wonder how those women felt about it?
+++
Maybe, St. Bonaventure should be read in his entirety and not just in isolation? Aquinas had similar issues with the Immaculate Conception. There is a lot more there to dig through.
+++
Maybe, St. Bonaventure should be read in his entirety and not just in isolation? Aquinas had similar issues with the Immaculate Conception. There is a lot more there to dig through.
Yeah, Ezekiel even tells us what the sin of Sodom was. But that's another thread. I'd be curious as to the full context of the statement, because on it's surface, it's nonsense.
What's the Shakespeare line about protesting too much?
Then why didn't all rapists, pedophiles, and slavers die?
The focus on homosexuals is plainly absurd.
The focus on homosexuals is plainly absurd.
I have heard this as well.
Seems weird to kill all the ones who were around then and then just let us crop right back up as fast as the straight people could make more of us.
So a couple of questions about this:
1)Since this was before Jesus died and fulfilled the covenant, were the wearers of blended fabrics, eaters of shellfish and cheeseburgers killed as well? Or was it just the ones commiting the sexy sins?
2)what kind of sodomites are we talking about? Just the gay kind? Or those that participate in any sexual act that can not result in conception?
1)Since this was before Jesus died and fulfilled the covenant, were the wearers of blended fabrics, eaters of shellfish and cheeseburgers killed as well? Or was it just the ones commiting the sexy sins?
2)what kind of sodomites are we talking about? Just the gay kind? Or those that participate in any sexual act that can not result in conception?
Duncan Idaho said:
So a couple of questions about this:
1)Since this was before Jesus died and fulfilled the covenant, were the wearers of blended fabrics, eaters of shellfish and cheeseburgers killed as well? Or was it just the ones commiting the sexy sins?
2)what kind of sodomites are we talking about? Just the gay kind? Or those that participate in any sexual act that can not result in conception?
I read a little bit and it talks about the deaths being a shockwave from Christ's birth restoring nature to its pre-fall order.
So my guesses at your questions
1. Those probably didn't die
2. Probably just the gay ones
craigernaught said:
Then why didn't all rapists, pedophiles, and slavers die?
The focus on homosexuals is plainly absurd.
I think a lot of pedophiles probably did die during this instance
Why?
craigernaught said:
Why?
Because I believe the vast majority of pedophilia is male-male.
Fashionably Late said:Duncan Idaho said:
So a couple of questions about this:
1)Since this was before Jesus died and fulfilled the covenant, were the wearers of blended fabrics, eaters of shellfish and cheeseburgers killed as well? Or was it just the ones commiting the sexy sins?
2)what kind of sodomites are we talking about? Just the gay kind? Or those that participate in any sexual act that can not result in conception?
I read a little bit and it talks about the deaths being a shockwave from Christ's birth restoring nature to its pre-fall order.
So my guesses at your questions
1. Those probably didn't die
2. Probably just the gay ones
So who you commit sin with is more important than the sin you commit?
Well so much for a fair and just god.
What even is the source for this?
But anywho, this is absolutely absurd. The world didn't need to become more pure or worthy of the Christ child, since the entire reason that He came to Earth was to take on the sin of mankind for our purification.
This is absolutely ridiculous. superstitious nonsense that reeks of guilt, not grace.
But anywho, this is absolutely absurd. The world didn't need to become more pure or worthy of the Christ child, since the entire reason that He came to Earth was to take on the sin of mankind for our purification.
This is absolutely ridiculous. superstitious nonsense that reeks of guilt, not grace.
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom both young and old surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
+++
My issues with Christians using GN 19, as a sort of "proof text" for a biblical understanding of homosexuality is with the nature of the requests by the Sodomite men - they wanted to rape the two angels, whom they assumed to be new "meat" (to put it bluntly). On top of that, Lot offering up his daughters to the mob to "do whatever you like with them" - is so wrong on so many levels.
What do y'all think?
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
+++
My issues with Christians using GN 19, as a sort of "proof text" for a biblical understanding of homosexuality is with the nature of the requests by the Sodomite men - they wanted to rape the two angels, whom they assumed to be new "meat" (to put it bluntly). On top of that, Lot offering up his daughters to the mob to "do whatever you like with them" - is so wrong on so many levels.
What do y'all think?
I did have to laugh when mark burnet produced that bible miniseries and completely left off the part about lot offering his daughters for raping.
I always wondered if lots wife was looking back at the home, not longing for it, but, instead thinking "after trying to throw our daughters to the mob, this MFer expects us to just follow him.
The whole story isn't one that paints god in a good light or as one that deserves to be worshiped.
I always wondered if lots wife was looking back at the home, not longing for it, but, instead thinking "after trying to throw our daughters to the mob, this MFer expects us to just follow him.
The whole story isn't one that paints god in a good light or as one that deserves to be worshiped.
I think you're trying to dance around the edges of doctrine and the consistent teaching of the Church since the time of Christ. You cannot tell the difference between sin and love, and have stated so many times. Those with homosexual inclinations have an incredible cross to bear, which means God desires great holiness for them and they have an opportunity to be great saints. That being said they cannot get there with people indulging their sinful practices and lifestyles. I believe you love Lord and his Church, trust in him.PabloSerna said:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom both young and old surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
+++
My issues with Christians using GN 19, as a sort of "proof text" for a biblical understanding of homosexuality is with the nature of the requests by the Sodomite men - they wanted to rape the two angels, whom they assumed to be new "meat" (to put it bluntly). On top of that, Lot offering up his daughters to the mob to "do whatever you like with them" - is so wrong on so many levels.
What do y'all think?
Fashionably Late said:Duncan Idaho said:
So a couple of questions about this:
1)Since this was before Jesus died and fulfilled the covenant, were the wearers of blended fabrics, eaters of shellfish and cheeseburgers killed as well? Or was it just the ones commiting the sexy sins?
2)what kind of sodomites are we talking about? Just the gay kind? Or those that participate in any sexual act that can not result in conception?
I read a little bit and it talks about the deaths being a shockwave from Christ's birth restoring nature to its pre-fall order.
So my guesses at your questions
1. Those probably didn't die
2. Probably just the gay ones
Nature is extremely gay.
Fashionably Late said:Duncan Idaho said:
So a couple of questions about this:
1)Since this was before Jesus died and fulfilled the covenant, were the wearers of blended fabrics, eaters of shellfish and cheeseburgers killed as well? Or was it just the ones commiting the sexy sins?
2)what kind of sodomites are we talking about? Just the gay kind? Or those that participate in any sexual act that can not result in conception?
I read a little bit and it talks about the deaths being a shockwave from Christ's birth restoring nature to its pre-fall order.
So my guesses at your questions
1. Those probably didn't die
2. Probably just the gay ones
Is the fall literal? When was this and what was the order of nature before?
Fashionably Late said:craigernaught said:
Then why didn't all rapists, pedophiles, and slavers die?
The focus on homosexuals is plainly absurd.
I think a lot of pedophiles probably did die during this instance
This just keeps sticking out to me....so they didn't die for raping children (as long as they were a different sex). But being 2 consenting adults being in love and having sex; guaranteed death.
Oh ok. Makes perfect sense.
Lot's daughters end up sleeping with him and giving birth to Moab and Ammon. There's more to it.
Well, I was trying to make this distinction, but I think you missed my point. The Sodomites didn't have love on their minds - just sex. That is what angered God - in my opinion of course!jrico2727 said:I think you're trying to dance around the edges of doctrine and the consistent teaching of the Church since the time of Christ. You cannot tell the difference between sin and love, and have stated so many times. Those with homosexual inclinations have an incredible cross to bear, which means God desires great holiness for them and they have an opportunity to be great saints. That being said they cannot get there with people indulging their sinful practices and lifestyles. I believe you love Lord and his Church, trust in him.PabloSerna said:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom both young and old surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
+++
My issues with Christians using GN 19, as a sort of "proof text" for a biblical understanding of homosexuality is with the nature of the requests by the Sodomite men - they wanted to rape the two angels, whom they assumed to be new "meat" (to put it bluntly). On top of that, Lot offering up his daughters to the mob to "do whatever you like with them" - is so wrong on so many levels.
What do y'all think?
Without lots offering of his daughters for raping, I'd agree that god was upset about the towns folk being all rapey. But that he saves lot, means that he was ok with the raping and just had a problem with the kind of raping. This lolNBD attitude about rape is more in line with OG god than what you are suggesting.
You seem to me like a guy who either has some homosexual issues or have family members with them who is trying to build a bridge to nowhere with regard to the churches timeless teaching on homosexuality
I'm 45 and have never heard such a thing. It does appear to be somewhat erroneous in the citation, though. Sermon 22 vs 21.
Full sermon is here:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E050_Bona-Homo.htm
Full sermon is here:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E050_Bona-Homo.htm
This is really less about me, but more about understanding God and his message of salvation for all people. Paul was instrumental in the early church as the Apostle to the Gentiles when many thought this was not God's intent. Taking that into consideration and our baptismal call to evangelize, I think a proper understanding is in order - don't you agree?
Fashionably Late said:
You seem to me like a guy who either has some homosexual issues or have family members with them who is trying to build a bridge to nowhere with regard to the churches timeless teaching on homosexuality
Your username is appropriate. You seem about 40 years late on your inveterate hatred of homosexual people.
Where do the scriptures say that what Lot did was right?
Sapper Redux said:Fashionably Late said:
You seem to me like a guy who either has some homosexual issues or have family members with them who is trying to build a bridge to nowhere with regard to the churches timeless teaching on homosexuality
Your username is appropriate. You seem about 40 years late on your inveterate hatred of homosexual people.
Love people hate sin. Have tons of respect for celibate same sex attracted people, even if they screw up time and again
Zobel said:
Where do the scriptures say that what Lot did was right?
Quote:
6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)
Simon Peter seemed to think what he did was "righteous" and that he only saw and heard lawless deeds.
Going down a rabbit hole if this turns into a thread about Lot...
Like King David, or Solomon - we are going to find all kinds of a sinful life that is contrasted against a man of faith.
Like King David, or Solomon - we are going to find all kinds of a sinful life that is contrasted against a man of faith.
Does being a righteous person mean everything you do was good or correct? He was righteous in extending hospitality to strangers and it seems in his general conduct. He was also living at the city gate among an unrighteous people, and was a sinner. Lot's actions with his daughters collectively are not put forward as an example for us to follow.
He would have called out what he did vs just what he saw and heard
I don't know where you draw your line but once a dude offers his daughters up for rape, he is no longer a righteous man. Period. End of sentence.
I don't know where you draw your line but once a dude offers his daughters up for rape, he is no longer a righteous man. Period. End of sentence.
Featured Stories
See All
8:16
2h ago
855
11:24
3h ago
1.6k
18:03
6h ago
2.5k
In-Home Visit: Elko's four early additions during spring portal window
by TexAgs Recruiting
Dalton Hughes
"Big Ten will 'definitely' have Texas school by 2026"
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
106