-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New study finds Bible mistranslation concerning homosexuality
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Divine interpretation?
I'm highly skeptical that they can ever be certain
exactly what the Bible says. But as you suggest,
positions have already been taken, & they are
now cast in concrete.
Just out of curiosity, do you understand the difference between mistranslation (your sloppy title) and misinterpretation?
There's also something more than a little distasteful about gloating that that, while male homosexuality is not kosher, lesbians get a pass. Thanks for making a bold stand for L
Can't figure out why anybody would even care. After all, we know what that same Bible says about snakebite: "So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live." (Numbers 21:9)
Does anybody need a 75 page report to tell them why that may not actually be the best advice?
Does anybody need a 75 page report to tell them why that may not actually be the best advice?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I don't expect the Church to change its theological views on how they define homosexuality in relation to marriage. The pope really isn't helping the situation because many LGBTQ Catholics in relationships want to be married with the blessings of the Church. Any religion can change their views on how to "love the sinner and hate the sin" but the problem goes beyond that. Unless the pope changes the "theology," to me personally, it's just well-intended words maybe to make LGBTQ people feel better but I can't imagine LGBTQ Catholics must feel about this--mixed feelings.
Geeze, Louise....cut her some slack, guy.
From the article....
"The report found that passages in Leviticus often cited as the most
explicit condemnations of homosexuality have actually been mistranslated."
Based upon this, I find her title reasonable.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Have you read this study?
I'm not sure why the Catholic Church would care. It doesn't affect the arguments in Humanae Vitae that the Church uses against all sex without procreation or procreation without sex (and by extension, same-sex sexual activity, masturbation, birth control, artificial insemination, etc., etc.).
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Of course, the homophobes have already made up their minds long before that point, and were merely looking for justification of their existing beliefs when they scoured their holy texts for suitable passages.
If it wasn't this one, they would have found a different line on a different page, and interpreted it to reinforce and justify their hatred of gay men and women.
If it wasn't this one, they would have found a different line on a different page, and interpreted it to reinforce and justify their hatred of gay men and women.
Marriages were around before the Hebrew god was even conceptualized, so I doubt the Cherokee or anyone else would care what you consider valid.
I was politely asked a question about whether I consider their marriages valid. I said no. That's all that happened here. The OP is asking about a Torah verse so I responded with the Torah God in mind. In my own faith tradition I don't consider it valid either. I understand that you probably don't like this, but I was asked a question and I responded.
I feel - quite apart from the merits of the actual exegetical argument (which do not strike me as being very plausible or convincing either, I agree with those preceding me) - that the tone in which this study has been delivered and addressed to the Pope could have been less, I guess, seemingly adversarial and judgmental in nature, maybe?
The authors seem to assume - taking as a premise for their argument - that the Catholic Church, in adhering to its beliefs, is seeking to discriminate unfairly against its members who are homosexual in orientation. I question if that's really a good and charitable assumption on which to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Pope, so much as it is about seeking to impose a certain paradigm (and on the basis of very contestable reinterpretations of scriptural verses from the Torah, which seem to lack persuasive weight, too).
I would say that Catholic doctrine, as it stands, does not seek to discriminate against LGBT Catholics or deny them the freedom to live in accordance with their innate disposition, identity and sense of self. The Catechism itself makes this clear: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual orientation...They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
The Church does define though, in accordance with her sacred tradition, what constitutes a sacramental union for our theological purposes, and this requires a male - female sexual partnership at it's heart, for reasons primarily of complementarity to image the way in which Ephesians, in the New Testament, describes the mystery of marriage as a symbol of the union of Christ with his Church, the latter defined as a She. This is not something that any Pope is at liberty to alter.
The Church recognizes, nonetheless, that sexual relationships which don't posses all of the qualities necessary for a sacramental bond can still have many positive, praiseworthy, grace-infusing and important moral goods for the people involved in these relationships, even if they don't align with our ideals for sacramental purposes.
As Pope Francis wrote a number of years ago in an apostolic exhortation:
Amoris Laetitia - Chapter 8 - Amoris
This encompasses cohabitating heterosexual couples, remarried divorcees who have not had their former marriages annulled and homosexual relationships. We are not ostracizing people, let alone seeking to aid and abet a culture of persecution or alienation on the basis of an immutable characteristic like a person's sexuality.
However, the reception of the sacraments has never been necessarily open to everyone, by their very nature. They are divine gifts and dispensations that, with the exception of Baptism itself, are strictly circumscribed. The sacrament of Holy Communion, for example, is restricted only to baptized Catholics - even fellow Protestant Christians cannot partake, unless they are confirmed as Catholics. The sacrament of Holy Orders, priestly ordination, is restricted to men. So, the restriction of the sacrament of matrimony to male - female is a strictly theological matter and no different from the other two.
The real debate within my Church, between the more socially conservative American bishops (their stance supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and the more progressive German Synodal Way bishops, in a conversation that has been facilitated by Pope Francis's open-mindedness and spirit of brotherly listening to the different perspectives voiced by orthodox Catholics, has concerned whether homosexual people who have contracted a marriage or union civilly outside church can be blessed together within Church, as a sign of pastoral accompaniment and support.
The Vatican's doctrinal arm, the CDF, ruled definitively last year in the negative against this idea - but the German synodal bishops have raised objections and the discussion remains ongoing amongst our global episcopate.
With that being said, while the mistranslation claim vis-à-vis Leviticus seem deeply strained to say the least, I do find some things of utility in the report.
For instance: "Evolutionary biology also suggests that the distinctiveness of human sexuality in comparison to most other mammals lies precisely in a move away from a sexuality whose exercise and purpose was almost exclusively limited to reproduction – to the extent that sexual intercourse only occurred during the female oestrus – and towards a sexuality taking on a variety of additional purposes, including socialization, pair-bonding, and so on."
I appreciated that in reference to the above, the study engaged with the theology of the great 20th century Jesuit Fr. Bernard Lonergan SJ. It's true that, as Fr. Lonergan argued many decades ago, no act of even heterosexual intercourse has an absolute capacity to procreate. As Lonergan noted: "The discharge of two million spermatozoa into the vagina does not mean or intend two million babies. Most of the time it does not mean or intend any babies at all. The relationship of insemination to conception is not the relation of a per se cause to a per se effect".
This is true, and to that extent I think theological arguments trying to justify sacramental marriage being limited to male - female on the basis of the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships alone, miss the mark and are rather weak. St. Paul in the New Testament does not even cite procreation as the primary motive for marriage. This was recognised by the early church father St. John Chrysostom in his Homily 12 on Colossians, preached during his time as bishop of Constantinople in the 390s. He held that procreation is a normal feature of marriage, but not essential to it:
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 12 on Colossians (Chrysostom) (newadvent.org)
So, yes, it's not a good argument to say something along the lines of "homosexual sex is inherently not procreative, and so cannot form the basis of a sacramental union". As St. Paul and St. John Chrysostom recognize above: “with rich pleasure [τῆς ἡδονῆς χωνευούμενος],” the sexual act as one of companionship, intimacy and physical enjoyment can be sufficient in itself as the rationale and basis of the bond.
And that's why we can still recognize 'good' in unions, such as homosexual relationships, that do not align perfectly with our ideals, even as we cannot admit them to the sacrament of matrimony. Even though they are not procreative in capacity, they still have admirable qualities, 'quenching nature's burning' by providing an outlet for sexual desires and emotionally bonding the couple together in a stable partnership etc. etc..
However, the primary basis on which the theology of the sacrament of matrimony is restricted in the Catholic Church to men and women, does not chiefly concern procreativity - but rather the requirement for "a genuine affective and sexual complementarity" of the sexes, as St. John Chrysostom described it on the basis of Ephesians:
The authors seem to assume - taking as a premise for their argument - that the Catholic Church, in adhering to its beliefs, is seeking to discriminate unfairly against its members who are homosexual in orientation. I question if that's really a good and charitable assumption on which to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the Pope, so much as it is about seeking to impose a certain paradigm (and on the basis of very contestable reinterpretations of scriptural verses from the Torah, which seem to lack persuasive weight, too).
I would say that Catholic doctrine, as it stands, does not seek to discriminate against LGBT Catholics or deny them the freedom to live in accordance with their innate disposition, identity and sense of self. The Catechism itself makes this clear: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual orientation...They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
The Church does define though, in accordance with her sacred tradition, what constitutes a sacramental union for our theological purposes, and this requires a male - female sexual partnership at it's heart, for reasons primarily of complementarity to image the way in which Ephesians, in the New Testament, describes the mystery of marriage as a symbol of the union of Christ with his Church, the latter defined as a She. This is not something that any Pope is at liberty to alter.
The Church recognizes, nonetheless, that sexual relationships which don't posses all of the qualities necessary for a sacramental bond can still have many positive, praiseworthy, grace-infusing and important moral goods for the people involved in these relationships, even if they don't align with our ideals for sacramental purposes.
As Pope Francis wrote a number of years ago in an apostolic exhortation:
Amoris Laetitia - Chapter 8 - Amoris
"Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' (sexual) situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.
A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin...
A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin...
By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God."
This encompasses cohabitating heterosexual couples, remarried divorcees who have not had their former marriages annulled and homosexual relationships. We are not ostracizing people, let alone seeking to aid and abet a culture of persecution or alienation on the basis of an immutable characteristic like a person's sexuality.
However, the reception of the sacraments has never been necessarily open to everyone, by their very nature. They are divine gifts and dispensations that, with the exception of Baptism itself, are strictly circumscribed. The sacrament of Holy Communion, for example, is restricted only to baptized Catholics - even fellow Protestant Christians cannot partake, unless they are confirmed as Catholics. The sacrament of Holy Orders, priestly ordination, is restricted to men. So, the restriction of the sacrament of matrimony to male - female is a strictly theological matter and no different from the other two.
The real debate within my Church, between the more socially conservative American bishops (their stance supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and the more progressive German Synodal Way bishops, in a conversation that has been facilitated by Pope Francis's open-mindedness and spirit of brotherly listening to the different perspectives voiced by orthodox Catholics, has concerned whether homosexual people who have contracted a marriage or union civilly outside church can be blessed together within Church, as a sign of pastoral accompaniment and support.
The Vatican's doctrinal arm, the CDF, ruled definitively last year in the negative against this idea - but the German synodal bishops have raised objections and the discussion remains ongoing amongst our global episcopate.
With that being said, while the mistranslation claim vis-à-vis Leviticus seem deeply strained to say the least, I do find some things of utility in the report.
For instance: "Evolutionary biology also suggests that the distinctiveness of human sexuality in comparison to most other mammals lies precisely in a move away from a sexuality whose exercise and purpose was almost exclusively limited to reproduction – to the extent that sexual intercourse only occurred during the female oestrus – and towards a sexuality taking on a variety of additional purposes, including socialization, pair-bonding, and so on."
I appreciated that in reference to the above, the study engaged with the theology of the great 20th century Jesuit Fr. Bernard Lonergan SJ. It's true that, as Fr. Lonergan argued many decades ago, no act of even heterosexual intercourse has an absolute capacity to procreate. As Lonergan noted: "The discharge of two million spermatozoa into the vagina does not mean or intend two million babies. Most of the time it does not mean or intend any babies at all. The relationship of insemination to conception is not the relation of a per se cause to a per se effect".
This is true, and to that extent I think theological arguments trying to justify sacramental marriage being limited to male - female on the basis of the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships alone, miss the mark and are rather weak. St. Paul in the New Testament does not even cite procreation as the primary motive for marriage. This was recognised by the early church father St. John Chrysostom in his Homily 12 on Colossians, preached during his time as bishop of Constantinople in the 390s. He held that procreation is a normal feature of marriage, but not essential to it:
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 12 on Colossians (Chrysostom) (newadvent.org)
Marriage does not always lead to child-bearing, although there is the word of God which says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless...Marriage, then, was given for childbearing also, but even more so in order to quench nature’s burning. Paul himself bears witness to this, saying, ‘Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife,’ – not for childbearing. And again, he commands that couples should come together, not that they might become the parents of many children, but what? ‘Lest Satan tempt you,’ he says. Indeed, after this, he did not say, ‘but if they desire to have children,’ but what? ‘If they cannot abstain, let them marry’ (1 Cor. 7:9)...
How do they become one flesh? As if she were gold receiving the purest of gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and she then returns it as a child! […] But suppose there is no child; do they remain two and not one? No; their intercourse effects the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment.
How do they become one flesh? As if she were gold receiving the purest of gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and she then returns it as a child! […] But suppose there is no child; do they remain two and not one? No; their intercourse effects the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment.
So, yes, it's not a good argument to say something along the lines of "homosexual sex is inherently not procreative, and so cannot form the basis of a sacramental union". As St. Paul and St. John Chrysostom recognize above: “with rich pleasure [τῆς ἡδονῆς χωνευούμενος],” the sexual act as one of companionship, intimacy and physical enjoyment can be sufficient in itself as the rationale and basis of the bond.
And that's why we can still recognize 'good' in unions, such as homosexual relationships, that do not align perfectly with our ideals, even as we cannot admit them to the sacrament of matrimony. Even though they are not procreative in capacity, they still have admirable qualities, 'quenching nature's burning' by providing an outlet for sexual desires and emotionally bonding the couple together in a stable partnership etc. etc..
However, the primary basis on which the theology of the sacrament of matrimony is restricted in the Catholic Church to men and women, does not chiefly concern procreativity - but rather the requirement for "a genuine affective and sexual complementarity" of the sexes, as St. John Chrysostom described it on the basis of Ephesians:
[The sacrament of matrimony] is a mystery and a type of a mighty thing; and even if you reverence not it, reverence that whose type it is. This mystery, says he, is great, but I speak in regard of Christ and of the Church. Ephesians 5:32 It is a type of the Church, and of Christ... How is it a mystery? They come together, and the two make one. And this may be confirmed from many sources; for instance, from James, from Mary the Mother of Christ, from the words, He made them male and female...
Shall I tell how marriage is also a mystery of the Church? As Christ came into the Church, and she was made of him, and he united with her in a spiritual intercourse, for, says one, I have espoused you to one husband, a pure virgin. 2 Corinthians 11:2 And that we are of Him, he says, of His members, and of His flesh.
Shall I tell how marriage is also a mystery of the Church? As Christ came into the Church, and she was made of him, and he united with her in a spiritual intercourse, for, says one, I have espoused you to one husband, a pure virgin. 2 Corinthians 11:2 And that we are of Him, he says, of His members, and of His flesh.
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Mr know it all human men.
One thinker science.
One human life human is reversed by feedback voice body status imaged recorded in gods heavens. Stones one gases. Is lived by two bodies.
String theists think as one self about one idea science were taught that science owned criminality by changing natural human biological consciousness.
The teaching.
You cannot discuss a topic unless changes are witnessed to then re theorise about it as a human.
Basic commonsense not used egotism was.
One thinker science.
One human life human is reversed by feedback voice body status imaged recorded in gods heavens. Stones one gases. Is lived by two bodies.
String theists think as one self about one idea science were taught that science owned criminality by changing natural human biological consciousness.
The teaching.
You cannot discuss a topic unless changes are witnessed to then re theorise about it as a human.
Basic commonsense not used egotism was.
Then you should have little difficulty identifying where and how the words were mistranslate. That would be valuable input indeed.
She referred to the language of the article.
This is reasonable.
If the article is in error, snapping at her is not.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Human men theoried for the status human scientific expressions.
Human words are ever-changing as they describe. Thinking however never owned changes words owned the expression changed topic.
Mass above us one.
Mass below us one.
Don't name anything an enforced human law against theist occult machine destroyers.
Basic men advice human agreed as one self who said two womb conditions holy.
Space womb owned all gods a womb.
Human female mother sister daughter owned man's life continuance as a holy human womb.
Basic survival of words applied. Describing.
The scribe hence by words changed God by his descriptive fake analogies the warning.
Human words are ever-changing as they describe. Thinking however never owned changes words owned the expression changed topic.
Mass above us one.
Mass below us one.
Don't name anything an enforced human law against theist occult machine destroyers.
Basic men advice human agreed as one self who said two womb conditions holy.
Space womb owned all gods a womb.
Human female mother sister daughter owned man's life continuance as a holy human womb.
Basic survival of words applied. Describing.
The scribe hence by words changed God by his descriptive fake analogies the warning.
That report is unfortunately too brief to understand the argument the report is making. What verses? What misinterpretations? Who says? Who says otherwise? Is Paul included?
And so on.
And who if any of the investigators filed a dissenting opinion? if they were unanimous, that in itself would require some looking at ─ how were they selected, how neutral have their researches been in the past?
I'm all in favor of LGBT rights, but not for any religious reason.
For all my considerable admiration of their works of charity and humanity, their official views on morality are often at odds with mine, and their record contains not a little of 'do as I say not as I do'.