Home PEx Local Entertainment Showbiz - TV

SPEAK YOUR MIND: What can you say about the CBCP reacting to My Husband's Lover?

NakuraNakura PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
[center-hidden]7254913228_712e68463f_o.jpg[/center-hidden]

As expected, GMA's My Husband's Lover drew flack from the people due to its homosexual theme. Though the MTRCB really has a responsibility to track if the show will go overboard, what can you say about the CBCP's reaction? For this week, we ask you...

[center-hidden]My-Husbands-Lover-e1372212365342.jpg[/center-hidden]

What can you say about the CBCP reacting to the theme of My Husband's Lover?

Post your bold opinions in this thread.

Click here for details on Speak Your Mind Monday

Comments

  • EASY!!!

    Nagpapapansin at ume-emo lang sila kasi HINDI na sila relevant sa sambayanang Pilipino.

    .
  • starczamorastarczamora Sissie DaToic PEx Moderator
    Contrary to what the media pundits might say (*cough*NelsonTorre*cough*), television is not a "for general patronage" medium. What is GP at the news we see daily? What is GP at poking fun at the expense of another person?

    With the said, the CBCP (along with other religious groups) should lay their hands off with a public mass medium. They could state countless homilies from pulpits nationwide, cherry-picking on verses that justify God's hatred on homosexuals, but dictating such backward beliefs outside the confines of the Church should not and never be tolerated by the government and the public at large.

    Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church is rattling at the fact that the entertainment industry has paved the way to ease Americans' attitudes towards homosexuality, and they do not want that to happen here... in the only country where divorce is illegal (no thanks to them).

    The fundamentalists should always be reminded that for every Bible verse that allegedly condemns homosexuals, there are tens of Bible verses that encourages ***** victims to marry their rapists, for sons to fornicate their mothers (well hello there, Eve!), for men to have 1,000 wh0res, and other so-called "God's laws" that are ridiculous at this modern age.
  • raikou_99raikou_99 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The CBCP has both the right and the duty to speak out on a moral issue.

    Bishops have the right to freedom of speech. The often invoked "separation of the Church and State" is irrelevant to this issue because in no way does it take away the CBCP's right to express judgment on certain issues. It simply means that the government shouldn't establish a state religion and should respect the people's freedom of religion. Just like any citizen, the bishops and the laity can also appeal to their government representatives to be their voice in public discourse.

    In the Roman Catholic Church, bishops in communion with the Pope make up the Magisterium, which is regarded as the teaching authority of the Church and rightful interpreter of the Bible and of Sacred Tradition. Their task is to preserve from error the teachings of Christ handed down from the apostles to their successors (the subsequent bishops). Given this office, it is their duty to teach and guide Roman Catholics on faith and moral issues such as this one. Given that the majority of Filipinos are baptized Catholics, it's not surprising that bishops should use the public media to reach their audience.

    In short, in this case the CBCP is exercising its right and is doing its job.
  • starczamorastarczamora Sissie DaToic PEx Moderator
    The Church enjoying civil rights they otherwise deprive on some sectors? How convenient! :lol:
  • raikou_99raikou_99 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The fundamentalists should always be reminded that for every Bible verse that allegedly condemns homosexuals, there are tens of Bible verses that encourages ***** victims to marry their rapists, for sons to fornicate their mothers (well hello there, Eve!), for men to have 1,000 wh0res, and other so-called "God's laws" that are ridiculous at this modern age.
    Does a certain verse really encourage a certain practice just because it is mentioned in the Bible? Which Mosaic laws still hold true today and which no longer apply in the Christian age? This highlights the need for the Bible to be interpreted correctly. Anyone cannot just grab a Bible verse and try to twist the words to suit one's fancy. The interpretation should be consistent with the entire Bible as well as with Sacred Tradition (how Christian teachings were elucidated, understood, and passed on across the ages). In the Roman Catholic Church, this problem is addressed by the existence of the Magisterium (see above) which the Church holds as having Jesus' given mandate and mission (Mt 28:19-20) to teach Christian truths correctly, including the correct interpretation of Bible verses.
  • raikou_99raikou_99 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The Church enjoying civil rights they otherwise deprive on some sectors? How convenient! :lol:
    In what way? If you're talking about gay marriage, it is arguable whether that is a legitimate right.

    Inalienable rights are founded on what naturally belongs to humans. Freedom of expression is one such right (naturally, with certain limits, of course). But is there such a natural right for a man to have sex with another man and force the society to recognize its legitimacy? Is there such a natural right for same sex couples to demand the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples that are given them in view of their role in procreation, the rearing of children, and in the bulding up of families, which are the basic units of society?
  • TotnakTotnak PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The Church enjoying civil rights they otherwise deprive on some sectors? How convenient! :lol:

    the CBCP doesn't have any authority to deprive anyone of their civil rights.....
  • TotnakTotnak PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The CBCP, as concerned sector or our society, have every right to express their reaction be it negative or not, on issues that goes against their teachings and principles....however, the CBCP have no legal personality to ask the cessation of any entity or program directly thus, they air their concern and criticism via specific government agencies that have the legal mandate to effect such changes.....as to whether this government agency would act on it is clearly another issue.....

    you cannot fault the CBCP if the MTRCB deems it rightful to suspend that show based on the merits of CBCP's complaint.....the MTRCB is supposed to be independent and impartial......
  • Tama ang cbcp...sobrang immoral ang series na to...dapat tangalin na sa ere dahil dami nang paring nagpupuyat sa gabi para abangan kailan maglaplapan sina eric and vincent...lol :rotflmao:
  • LOVERS AND OTHER STRANGERS
    73823_1714535387397_1358561825_31826248_3078079_n.jpg
    It was bound to happen sooner or later. Not that we are really surprised. As a matter of fact, we were counting the seconds --- like the ticking of a time bomb. Or just like when you light a whistle bomb and you hang around nearby waiting for that familiar loud sound right before the big bang.

    But in this case, well, there was no big bang at all.

    Just a lot of saber-rattling and moralizing from the same folks that gave you the anti-RH filibustering. As a matter of fact, we realized that it had already reached the level of the highly predictable. When something turns out to be guaranteed, then the whole protest against a television show about a married gay man, his wife and his lover just turned out just to be that ... predictable.

    What did we expect? This is after all the holy of everything holy. This is the cradle of conservative Catholicism. Of course they will get mad because they are expected to do and they do not disappoint. Of course they will accuse the network and its creative people of polluting the minds of the television audiences. A show like this shamelessly propagates immorality because the Catholics believe that it is a perversion, a manipulation of the demons ... to even think that a man can love another man ... or (Susmaryosnes garapones!) have sex with the same gender.

    Not in their Universe. Not in their mindset. A show like My Husband's Lover is dangerous because it packages itself as something real by defying stereotypes, daring to explore a plot line that has been considered taboo for television ... and worse, depicting homosexuals as normal people.

    Normal people? Yes, in the sense that the gay men in this series do not sashay, do not speak bekimon and act/look/talk like everyday men. Correction: extraordinarily good looking well-dressed men (maybe the baby pink clothes are a bit of a giveaway but then go look at Style.Com and you realize that it isn't exactly a mortal sin) who do not have the slightest hint of being effeminate.

    That's pretty dangerous, huh? The fact that certified heterosexual actors like Dennis Trillo, Tom Rodriguez and Victor Basa are the points of a controversial triangle should indeed send shivers up the spines of the moral guardians who would exclaim: "That is not possible! Mga lalake sila! Hindi sila puwedeng maging mga bading!"

    What will the kids think? That these guys are role models for good looks and alternative lifestyles?

    The images being sent by this telenovela has become a deliberate deviation from the stereotype badings who have spiced up the idiot box through generations of screaming, squeaking, prancing and even playing the role of the buffoon or the village idiot. These are not the parloristas with agua oxigenada dyed hair, fake or manipulated mammary glands to impersonate women or who walk around any possible nook and cranny of the city sporting scandalously short shorts, tube tops and barrettes on their hair.

    The gays in My Husband's Lover are not even comedians! They are human, goddamn it! They have real honest-to-goodness feelings. They cavort with one another ... not to indulge in that usual rowdy act of cheap flirtation but because they are ... in love?!

    So are we still surprised that the Bastion of the Morally Upright would not be offended, appalled not to mention shell-shocked and mollified by this? Prime time television! We are talking prime time television!

    But wait: there is more to this than this boring predictability of it all.

    The unquestioned Numero Uno entertainer in our country who holds the record for the biggest box office hit in the history of Philippine movies is an overt homosexual who makes no qualms --- and certainly does not hold back on the fact that he is active and practicing in his chosen alternative lifestyle. As a matter of fact, his association with various men often make it to the newsworthy in the field of entertainment journalism.

    Not only does he reign in the box office, he also filled Araneta Coliseum and has a high rating daily noontime and late Sunday evening shows.

    It was only a couple of weeks ago when this entertainer found himself in the eye of a storm because of his alleged recklessness in exercising his brand of acerbic humor on a most respected broadcast journalist. Indeed, if we are to believe the comments and observations of a great number, Numero Uno crossed the line of good taste --- while performing with a blonde wig, fake exaggerated boobs and a skimpy shiny outfit in front a throng of thousands for his audience ... and even more on his Pay-Per-View telecast.

    There was an outcry about his sense of propriety --- but, hey, not a pip from the moral guardians, right?

    That was because Numero Uno was not a threat while wearing his outlandish costumes. He may have said a mouthful of hurtful things but he was being a clown. And jesters are never taken seriously. They are not within the moral radar.

    Even if the performer was a certified and self-confessed homosexual, he was seemingly exempted from holy castigation because he was "entertaining."

    So what has that go to do with this whole brouhaha about My Lovers Husband?

    A helluva lot.

    Because it only confirms that gay characters are tolerated (not necessarily accepted) as long as they do not exhibit the behavior of any other normal human being --- which is caring and loving and having sincere relationships with one another.

    The "moral standard" demands that gay characters are laughed at, make fools of themselves, present their personas as larger than life dedicated to the amusement of others --- but never introspective, then they are passable. They are tolerable.

    But make them hurt ... worse, make them love, then they become threatening. Then they are perceived as that lethal virus that transforms everyone queer upon contact like that kind shown in World War Z.

    Make them true ... then the moral guardians will feel threatened. And appalled.

    But what is even saddest about all this is not the ridiculousness of it all ... or the endless moralizing or grandstanding ... but the alienation from truth that emerges when institutions build walls to protect themselves from the rest of the world in order to create their own version of virtual reality.

    That, unfortunately, is the much greater danger because it is intolerance and prejudice re-branded as the vessel of the greater good.

    *okay**okay**okay*
  • it is ok, i felt like this is only a reminder from CBCP. magtataka ako kung hindi sila magrereact.
    But i don't really care what they say, i will watch whatever i want to watch and alam ko namang wala akong ginagawang masama at malinis ang konsensiya ko! yun lang!
  • raikou_99raikou_99 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    shellphone wrote: »
    LOVERS AND OTHER STRANGERS ...
    This appears to be a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine, and perhaps, the stance of CBCP.

    First, the Catholic Church is against any unjust discrimination towards homosexuals. To imply that it is a Catholic "standard" that persons with homosexual inclinations should be reduced to lauging stocks is inaccurate and reveals a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Talk about bullying or unjust discrimination in the workplace and the Church should be the first to stand with and defend persons experiencing same sex attractions.
    Catechism of The Catholic Church #2358 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.

    Next, the fact that CBCP didn't release a statement on Vice Ganda's ***** joke doesn't mean that they tolerate the action as acceptable or that they are being inconsistent. Almost everyone was convinced that it was inappropriate. What's the point of adding the CBCP's voice in this issue? It's not like the CBCP has to give a statement for every moral concern in TV/showbiz. Perhaps, they only choose to when issues are seen to scandalize (ie, lead to error or sin) a significant number of Catholics, which is the reasonable thing to do. Ordinarily, priests only preach in their respective parishes. The CBCP will only intervene in significant or extraordinary circumstances. It goes without saying that MHL has attempted something out of the ordinary, hence, the reaction.
    But what is even saddest about all this is not the ridiculousness of it all ... or the endless moralizing or grandstanding ... but the alienation from truth that emerges when institutions build walls to protect themselves from the rest of the world in order to create their own version of virtual reality.
    I thought the author was against stereotyping, but here, he seems to be trying to make a stereotype of the Church being out of touch with reality.

    And yet, he's talking about an insitution that has been a witness to a 2,000 year history. It has encountered all sorts of human behavior. Homosexuality is nothing new to the eyes of the Church. It has been there from the birth of the Church in the midst of a pagan society. If there is an institution that should grasp the truth behind human realities, it is the Catholic Church.

    To those who feel that the Church is irrelevant to them, it's ok. The Church's mission isn't to become esteemed as relevant or to gain popularity and praises, but to preach Christ and his teachings, whether people approve of them or not.
  • starczamorastarczamora Sissie DaToic PEx Moderator
    Here's the thing:

    * Fundies did not stop from telling the distorted story of Sodom and Gomorrah even after some countries made same-sex marriage legal.

    * In the Bible, shrimp has been called an abomination. So why are Catholics still eat shrimp? The Bible condemns clothing made from two different fabrics, but why do they still wear them? Compare that to their cherry-picked, distorted verses that are allegedly condemns homosexuality. In this day and age of equal CIVIL rights (read: something the Church has NO RIGHT to lay its molesting hands on), shouldn't we throw those old verses as well because you know... it's passe and medieval?

    * Jesus NEVER SAID ANYTHING AGAINST homosexuality.
  • starczamorastarczamora Sissie DaToic PEx Moderator
    Totnak wrote: »
    the CBCP doesn't have any authority to deprive anyone of their civil rights.....

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:12

    Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. - I Corinthians 14:34-35

    Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. - Genesis 3:16

    Need I post more Bible verses that promote inequality?
  • raikou_99raikou_99 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Here's the thing:

    * Fundies did not stop from telling the distorted story of Sodom and Gomorrah even after some countries made same-sex marriage legal.
    The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has always been interpreted as condemning the practice of homosexuality. That is why a certain homosexual act is called "sodomy." That some countries have made same-sex marriage legal does not mean that Christians should reinterpret or twist Scripture, much more, overturn a clear moral proscription that is both handed down by Apostolic tradition and even subscribed to by non-Christians. Naturally, arbitrary State laws don't have the authority to change human morality, Church laws, or Bible interpretation.
    * In the Bible, shrimp has been called an abomination. So why are Catholics still eat shrimp? The Bible condemns clothing made from two different fabrics, but why do they still wear them? Compare that to their cherry-picked, distorted verses that are allegedly condemns homosexuality. In this day and age of equal CIVIL rights (read: something the Church has NO RIGHT to lay its molesting hands on), shouldn't we throw those old verses as well because you know... it's passe and medieval?
    Leviticus also condemns murder, adultery, and theft. Should we now allow them because they are ancient and have been condemned for so long?

    This confusion on which Leviticus laws still hold true for Christianity today and which ones no longer apply stems from a failure to recognize three types of Law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. Also note that dietary laws or that law on fabric was given only in reference to the "sons of Israel," whereas the prohibition of homosexuality applied to Israel and everyone else - meaning, it is a universal moral law. (please see link below for the verses)

    Jewish civil laws expired when the Jewish government ceased. Ceremonial laws expired when Christ fulfilled his priestly work (today, ceremonial and liturgical laws are governed by Church authorities; note that the Bible records that it is the Church leaders who have authority to pronounce on these laws, such as laws on food or on circumcision - Mark 7:19; Acts 10:11-15; Acts 15). But universal moral laws - what is good and bad for all humans - obviously hold true even today.

    http://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testament-law

    Thus, the New Testament still condemned homosexuality:
    Romans 1:24-27
    24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
    1 Cor 6:9-10
    9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1
    1 Tim 1:9-10
    ...the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine

    The universality of this moral law is also attested to by the fact that homosexual unions are also not recognized by non-Christian countries, even countries without a dominant religion.

    The Church (the priests and the lay) calls on governments not to approve of homosexuality not because it is a Church law or a religious teaching but because it is a universal moral law. Ideally, civil laws should not trample on universal moral laws and should reflect and foster moral laws themselves, but of course this doesn't always happen. There are countries legalizing euthanasia and abortion, and some infringing on legitimate human freedoms. Whenever civil laws violate universal moral laws, citizens (which I repeat, includes the Church) should speak against them.
    * Jesus NEVER SAID ANYTHING AGAINST homosexuality.
    Because he didn't have to. Everyone in Jesus' time understood that homosexuality is wrong. It did not merit debate. Also, if Jewish condemnation of homosexuality was in fact wrong, Jesus should have taught against this misconception as he did with many old Jewish teachings. In other words, the burden of proof lies on you. And yet, there never was a time that Jesus corrected the Jews and said that homosexuality should now be accepted.

    Still, Christ taught on God's purpose in establishing two genders and the meaning of sexuality and marriage:
    Matthew 19:4-6
    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
    Jesus reiterated that in God's plan, the difference between a male and a female is ordained for sex and marriage. On the other hand, those who support homosexuality maintain that the male-female difference doesn't matter with respect to marriage. Who is contradicting Jesus? Also, Jesus didn't say "God made them male, female, L, G, B, T, and Q." Clearly, God only thought of two genders when he created humans. Who is adding something foreign to God's plan?
  • starczamorastarczamora Sissie DaToic PEx Moderator
    In murders and adultery, you have stepped on the rights of others. In homosexuality, whose right did I step on? No one!
    Everyone in Jesus' time understood that homosexuality is wrong.

    And who assumed that? You? :rolleyes:

    Because you know, certain parts of the world practice homosexuality and they see nothing wrong with it (the Roman Empire, the South American empires, the Japanese).
  • starczamorastarczamora Sissie DaToic PEx Moderator
    raikou_99 wrote: »
    The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has always been interpreted as condemning the practice of homosexuality. That is why a certain homosexual act is called "sodomy." That some countries have made same-sex marriage legal does not mean that Christians should reinterpret or twist Scripture, much more, overturn a clear moral proscription that is both handed down by Apostolic tradition and even subscribed to by non-Christians. Naturally, arbitrary State laws don't have the authority to change human morality, Church laws, or Bible interpretation.

    "The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis does not explicitly identify homosexuality as the sin for which they were destroyed. Most interpreters find this story and a similar one in Judges 19 to condemn the violent ***** of guests, rather than homosexuality."

    Source: Mark Allan Powell, HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (entry: homosexuality)

    Leviticus also condemns murder, adultery, and theft. Should we now allow them because they are ancient and have been condemned for so long?

    This confusion on which Leviticus laws still hold true for Christianity today and which ones no longer apply stems from a failure to recognize three types of Law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. Also note that dietary laws or that law on fabric was given only in reference to the "sons of Israel," whereas the prohibition of homosexuality applied to Israel and everyone else - meaning, it is a universal moral law. (please see link below for the verses)

    Jewish civil laws expired when the Jewish government ceased. Ceremonial laws expired when Christ fulfilled his priestly work (today, ceremonial and liturgical laws are governed by Church authorities; note that the Bible records that it is the Church leaders who have authority to pronounce on these laws, such as laws on food or on circumcision - Mark 7:19; Acts 10:11-15; Acts 15). But universal moral laws - what is good and bad for all humans - obviously hold true even today.

    http://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testament-law

    Thus, the New Testament still condemned homosexuality:

    The universality of this moral law is also attested to by the fact that homosexual unions are also not recognized by non-Christian countries, even countries without a dominant religion.

    Uhm, isn't it because those countries are lagging behind in recognizing equal rights? :rolleyes:
    The Church (the priests and the lay) calls on governments not to approve of homosexuality not because it is a Church law or a religious teaching but because it is a universal moral law. Ideally, civil laws should not trample on universal moral laws and should reflect and foster moral laws themselves, but of course this doesn't always happen. There are countries legalizing euthanasia and abortion, and some infringing on legitimate human freedoms. Whenever civil laws violate universal moral laws, citizens (which I repeat, includes the Church) should speak against them.

    Separation of Church and State? Hello...

    Leave your molesting hands away from my government.

    Because he didn't have to. Everyone in Jesus' time understood that homosexuality is wrong. It did not merit debate. Also, if Jewish condemnation of homosexuality was in fact wrong, Jesus should have taught against this misconception as he did with many old Jewish teachings. In other words, the burden of proof lies on you. And yet, there never was a time that Jesus corrected the Jews and said that homosexuality should now be accepted.

    Still, Christ taught on God's purpose in establishing two genders and the meaning of sexuality and marriage:

    Jesus reiterated that in God's plan, the difference between a male and a female is ordained for sex and marriage. On the other hand, those who support homosexuality maintain that the male-female difference doesn't matter with respect to marriage. Who is contradicting Jesus? Also, Jesus didn't say "God made them male, female, L, G, B, T, and Q." Clearly, God only thought of two genders when he created humans. Who is adding something foreign to God's plan?

    Just a food for thought:

    If the word homosexual appears in your Bible in either passage then you have a version that was written after 1946. Prior to the 1946 Edition of the Revised Standard Version, the words that homosexual had begun to replace in many modern versions included boy prostitutes, effeminate, those who make women of themselves, sissies, the self-indulgent, sodomites, lewd persons, male prostitutes, and the unchaste.

    Source: https://christiangays.com/articles/anita10.shtml


    Romans 1:24-27
    "Romans 1:26-27 was given in a very clear context. There is no cultural indication, no doctrinal indication, no historical indication, no linguistic indication, no literary indication, no religious indication, that Paul intended to blast lesbians and gays in Romans 1:26-27.

    Instead, Paul chooses the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his rhetorical trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, everyone is guilty."

    Early Christians like Aristides and Justin Martyr understood Paul to be condemning shrine prostitution. Our rule of interpretation is: Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN."

    Source: http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-romans-12627-condemn-homosexuals.html


    I Corinthians 6:9-10
    The times the term "arsenokoitai" does appear following Paul yet its usage seems dependent on Paul's usage of the word. In the Latin Vulgate that follows Paul some 500 years later, Jerome translates it as a male concubine although nothing in the word specifies whether the concubine was involved with a same-sex or opposite-sex individual. What we do know is at the time Paul was writing there were terms common for persons involved in homoeroticism and Paul chose to not use those words but to instead use a word that remains mysterious to us. What this means is that Greek scholars and theologians come to arsenokoitai with no previous context for understanding it's meaning and so the best that anyone, whether pro-gay or anti-gay can reason is a guess.

    In the early work the "New Testament and Homosexuality," Robin Scroggs comes to an understanding of arsenokoitai by looking at the two separate words it combines; arseno (men) and koitai (bed). From this Scroggs concluded that the literal meaning of arsenokoitai was male bed which he understood as descriptive of the active male (penetrator) in same-sex intercourse. The problem with this method of interpretation can be seen with examples in English like lady-killer, manhole or butterfly. You don't arrive at the true meaning of the word butterfly by defining and then combining the words butter and fly anymore than it's possible to define the accurate meaning of arsenokoitai by combining and defining male and bed. Again, the very best anyone can do is hazard a guess at what arsenkoitai might mean but a guess is a fragile thread especially when lives hang in the balance.

    Source: https://christiangays.com/articles/anita10.shtml


    1 Tim 1:9-10
    All the sins listed are of economic injustice, whether through the oppression of the poor, the withholding of wages or accepting gifts from unjust deeds. It seems a possibility that in this context arskenokoitein refers to money earned through sexual behavior, which would also appear to make sense in that it follows prostitution (whoremongers, pornos) in I Timothy. Perhaps it has nothing to do with sex. It remains uncertain. Whether arsenokoitai is defined by this source in the same way as defined by Paul is equally uncertain. What is certain is that there seems sufficient evidence, or the lack thereof, to leave this word and it's appearance in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 as ambiguous in meaning. With so much uncertainty surrounding these words it's of painful concern that it's been used by some within the church with absolute rigidity to condemn gays and lesbians.

    Source: https://christiangays.com/articles/anita10.shtml

    On that note, I leave you with this:

    "Study to shew yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." -2 Timothy 2:15
  • Hmmm sana wag na lang silang makialam. Masyado na nilang pinapakialaman ang lahat. Kaya walang nagbabago sa Pilipinas minsan dahil narin sa mga ganyang pakikialam.

    Kung tutuusin mas malala pa nga yung ibang soap opera. Mga bata pa nai-in-love na tapos yung iba grabe ang love scene ng lalaki at babae tapos grabe ang halikan.
  • raikou_99raikou_99 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    In murders and adultery, you have stepped on the rights of others. In homosexuality, whose right did I step on? No one!
    A person who practices homosexuality steps on himself, his partner, and possibly other people if his actions cause scandal.

    Studying the natural properties of sex and the reproductive organs tells us that the human male organ is designed for the human female organ. It is by this framework that sex achieves its natural purpose. Further, sex functions to bond husbands and wives together and is essential in procreation and the building of families. Thus, sex is naturally meant to be between a man and a woman, open to children, and within marriage (functions to stabilize the family).

    Performing sexual acts other than this framework is contrary to the natural purpose of sex. It distorts the meaning of sex, impedes man from realizing its purpose, and prevents him from attaining the true good that sex is supposed to serve. A person hurts himself by doing something unnatural or unbecoming of a person.

    (Disclaimer: I don't intend to offend. I'm just going to use an analogy that explains why homosexuality is wrong based on the natural properties of man and the sexual act.)

    For example, what happens if a man proposes that it is okay to have sex with a dog? Apart from violating the so-called "animal rights," we could say that a person practicing bestiality also damages himself in the process. He is supposed to do it with a female person, not a dog. A man and a dog are not naturally compatible. The human male organ is not naturally designed for a dog orifice. Also, if he pursues this practice, what will be the meaning of sex to him? He will eventually forget that sex is meant for a husband and his wife and for the raising of children. He will reduce sex to a mere pleasure-centered activity, not the language of love that it is supposed to be. He will be blinded from what sex truly means. If this blindness spreads to society, those who approve of the ideology will also fail to appreciate the true purpose and meaning of sex even if they do not practice it. For them, human-human sex will be just another alternative to bestiality. The love-making and life-giving part will soon vanish from their perspective. They will eventually treat their partners like dogs.

    Although bestiality is obviously worse than homosexuality, homosexuality is still contrary to the natural purpose and meaning of sex.
  • raikou_99raikou_99 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    "Everyone in Jesus' time understood that homosexuality is wrong."

    And who assumed that? You?
    I mean the Jews, to whom Jesus first preached. (As evidenced by the explicit prohibition in Leviticus)
    If the word homosexual appears in your Bible in either passage then you have a version that was written after 1946. Prior to the 1946 Edition of the Revised Standard Version, the words that homosexual had begun to replace in many modern versions included boy prostitutes, effeminate, those who make women of themselves, sissies, the self-indulgent, sodomites, lewd persons, male prostitutes, and the unchaste.
    The simple reason is that the term "homosexual" appeared in English only later (1892). Thus, earlier translations had to use other terminologies. But this is a non-issue. The intended translation is the same: a person who has sexual relations with a person of the same sex. When a more accurate terminology came to usage, that one was adopted to reflect the traditional Christian interpretation.

    Source: http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946

    I don't know why it isn't clear to your sources, but what St. Paul said in Romans sounds clear to me. Unnatural relations and men burning with lust for one another are seen as punishable.

    On the other verses, basically, you are merely trying to offer an alternative interpretation. On the one hand, I have a valid interpretation consistent with Christian tradition, and on the other, you are trying to confuse people with a novel way of reinterpreting them. However, your interpretation runs contrary to Leviticus' universal condemnation of homosexuality, the writings of the Early Church Fathers*, and what Christianity has always taught. Finally, your assertion contradicts the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, which is the same authority that gave us the Bible by compiling it and determining its canon.

    * http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality

    Like what I said about the Magisterium, it is important to take into consideration Sacred Tradition (how Christian and Apostolic teaching have been explained and handed down through generations) and the authoritative teachings of the Church when interpreting Sacred Scripture. Not to do so would be "hi-jacking" the Bible and runs the risk of misinterpreting the Bible and twisting it to one's own agenda. Any verse can be abused to mean something else. If verses are not interpreted within the context of Christian tradition and authoritative Christian teaching, the following happens:

    2 Peter 3:16 "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

    That is why we are instructed:

    2 Thes 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
Sign In or Register to comment.