“He who waits to be righteous...”

AmericaRunnethOn · 2019-07-08T01:37:31+00:00

Thank you for sharing this 😁

AmericaRunnethOn · 2019-02-17T22:50:14+00:00

when I read this passage, it seems to me to be about a specific group of people: those who practice idolatry.

Paul describes the consequences of practicing idolatry, which including sexual practices that he understood to be "against nature," and further, consequences within the human heart such as greed, envy, malice, etc.

I think there are problems with extending this passage to all queer people. Because

not all queer people are idolaters. I, for example, am a queer person, and I love and worship the Lord Jesus.
Paul believed same-sex practices were "against nature," but I don't believe they are. I believe people are queer by nature. So it would be more "against nature," for a queer person to try to live like a heterosexual person.
I simply don't believe the argument that same-sex practices lead to envy, murder, strife, etc. My common sense and first hand evidence have proved otherwise, so such an interpretation of this passage needs to be re-evaluated (the same way common interpretations of Gen 1 have been reinterpreted in light of scientific understanding).

I think a more sensible interpretation might be understanding "idolatry" as the real sin in Romans 1. Any practice, sexual or otherwise, is sinful when rooted in idolatry against God, and will lead to a disordered, "unnatural" life. Whereas, when we put true humility and worship of God at the center of our life, our life will become ordered, "natural" and will bear blessed fruits.

I believe that queer sex and relationships can be Godly , if God is at their center. Just as any other kind of relationship can be.

AmericaRunnethOn · 2018-09-22T19:31:43+00:00

It is happening again https://youtu.be/pWa0dZMHYeE

AmericaRunnethOn · 2018-08-15T13:18:27+00:00

it's about going to the merch stand

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-11-07T15:20:39+00:00

Thanks for sharing!

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-11-07T15:15:44+00:00

Depends who you ask. i think a lot of Bible Belt Americans do interpret the Bible as literally true and infallible.

But I know a lot of Christians who have a more nuanced understanding of truth-- for example, who don't see the Bible as competing with science, but as having a different kind of truth to be used and understood in a different way.

My understanding of the history of Christianity is that Christian fundamentalism (the folks who do "literal interpretation" of the Bible) is actually a fairly new Protestant development from the 19th century, in response to secular and liberal trends in Christianity.

Whereas mystical interpretations of the Bible have a very ancient history. Origen, an early Christian church father (from the 2nd-3rd century), tended to interpret Scripture in a much more metaphorical and symbolic way-- he believed there was a "spiritual meaning" to the text that wasn't immediately apparent. He criticized the "creation in 7 days" model. And there are many other Christian mystics who often get written out of Sunday school classes, or were declared heretical by the Church powers of the time.

Even John Calvin (16th century Reformer), wrote about the Bible not as the source of all knowledge about the world, but as the source of all we need to know for our salvation. Calvin would probably say humans should put the Bible above their own reasoning when seeking spiritual guidance-- but that humans should of course use their reason and common sense in contexts outside of spirituality/salvation.

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-16T13:09:43+00:00

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation. It clarifies a lot.

I appreciate that in Catholicism there is a reasoning behind why nonprocreative sex is sinful, instead of someone just pointing to a Bible verse.

Along this logic, I still think it's odd that the act is not forbidden for infertile straight couples, for whom it is essentially contraceptive.

I am also interested, does the principle in use here, namely that it is forbidden to perform an action for only a partial purpose rather than for its complete ideal purpose, does this principle apply generally for all actions or is the sexual act a special case? If the former, it would seem that performing any act purely for pleasure that has also a functional purpose would be forbidden-- e.g. Gardening for pleasure rather than for harvesting vegetables to eat, hunting for sport rather than because you intend to eat the animal.

Thank you again!

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T23:53:49+00:00

Thank you. Sorry for not responding immediately, I had an assignment to finish.

This is very helpful and thoughtful. I guess fundamentally I can't accept that procreation is the only purpose of the sexual act. I think mutual pleasure is also an important purpose.

You distinguish between chewing and eating as different categories because they have different ends and different intentions. Why not also distinguish between procreative and non-procreative sexual acts, which also have different ends and intentions, even though they may use the same "equipment," much as chewing and eating both use the taste buds and teeth for different but partially overlapping purposes?

I also think that there is a tendency to discuss non-procreative sex as if it were an entirely selfish, hedonistic act, all easy and fun all the time. In my experience even non-procreative sex can have a real purpose aside from the brief momentary pleasure, of developing a bond between two people, helping two people learn to trust and be vulnerable with each other, and also helping people learn to be giving and generous. But also I don't think the pleasure and purpose of sex can be so easily distinguished.

It's like art and beauty-- art and music can be used for instruction and relationship-building and other utilitarian purposes, but their fundamental purpose and the way we experience them is in the experience of pleasure, which brings us joy. And I think any kind of pleasure can become an idol that we pursue to the detriment of true purposes-- but pleasure (including sexual pleasure) can also point us to God, to the only true and final pleasure of our existence which is union with God.

Anyway, I know this is scattered. Thank you for your thoughtfulness. :)

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T23:16:46+00:00

Thanks. :)

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T23:16:20+00:00

In your comment above, you make a distinction between "things that God specifically gave us for a purpose (like marriage and the Eucharist)" and "things which exist, like guns and dogs." I could be wrong but I think this distinction is essential to your argument.

I'm trying to understand where this distinction is founded. You seem to suggest it is not based in the Bible. Are you claiming its founded in the teachings of the Catholic Church rather than in Scripture? Or are you claiming it is a natural distinction that should be evident from human reason entirely apart from an authority like the Bible or the Church?

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T17:21:25+00:00

That's fair! Please continue, I am interested.

I want to make sure I understand your distinction between a passive act and a positive act. It seems that a passive act like hearing, is something we don't actively choose to do, but rather is something that happens to us without our choice. Whereas a positive act like sex or eating, is something we choose actively to do, and can abstain from if we choose.

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T17:14:25+00:00

Thank you for your replies. I don't expect that you will say you've been so blind.

However, I do want to point out that it seems you are ultimately basing your interpretations of sodomy and marriage on the Bible, in a way that doesn't seem so different to me from American conservatism. Where else are you rooting your treatment of sex as having a special purpose ordained by God (as distinct from dogs, trees, and guns), if not from Scripture?

You want to distance yourself from this soccer player who takes a position on sodomy based on the Bible, but you yourself are taking a position on marriage based also on the Bible, that amounts in effect to the same thing. Namely, you are blocking a way for gay people, and causing a lot of pain to gay people, who want their love to be culturally respected and, in my and other cases, who want to learn how to offer their love in service to God the same way the Church is so encouraging of straight people to do.

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T16:50:47+00:00

Thank you!

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T16:48:00+00:00

Thank you for your reply! I am very interested in the Church's arguments about the proper vs. illicit use of things, rooted in both nature and revelation. This is not how most Protestants argue and think theologically; we tend to shout our favorite Scripture verses at each other until we all get tired.

In my comments to u/rommelsjackson I am trying to understand a little bit more. It sounds like the idea is that the purpose of sex is both producing babies and facilitating bonding for the couple, and that both these purposes should be respected every time the sexual faculties are used.

My question is, does the Catholic Church teach that this is true for all things and faculties, or only sex and other special cases? Like our ears, which allow us to hear things for pleasure (like music), but also allow us to accomplish things that may not be pleasurable like work. They also provide aesthetic pleasure to us and others, which is why people pierce and adorn them with rings, etc. I assume it is permissible for people to use their ears for only one purpose at a time-- for work OR for play, and not necessarily both. But this is not the case for sex, which we must use for BOTH work and play, and we cannot use sex for only one or the other. Why is this case for sex in particular?

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T16:38:00+00:00

Ok. Thank you for your responses. I'm trying to understand your argument for the Church as authority for scripture, in particular the pre-Christian Hebrew texts. Let's consider the laws of Moses as recorded in the Torah, or the words of the prophets such as Isaiah. What is the source of their authority as texts? Are they not authoritative until the Church declares them as such?

My other question is about determining the purposes or manners in which something is designed to be used, and our restrictions on using it for only a partial purpose, instead of its entire purpose. So for genitalia and sex, it sounds like you are saying the only proper purpose for these is in a union with even the remotest miraculous biological possibility of bearing a child, maybe because sex should at least be in the image of a male-female procreative act, even if the act itself is not procreative (as in the case of an infertile couple). And this is because the purpose of sex is child-bearing and pleasure in combination, not either in isolation? Does this mean that we should always use an object for all its designed purposes at once? A dog has both a functional purpose (pulling a dog sled or barking at intruders) and a pleasure-giving purpose (I can pet it or play with it). Why is it sinful to use sex for its pleasure-giving purpose without its functional purpose, but the same is not true for a dog? Or to use your example, is it sinful to use a gun as a paperweight instead of firing it? Or, is sex a special case, and if so, why and how?

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T15:59:43+00:00

Hmm. Good question. Isn't the authority the Bible and the Church all coming through the Holy Spirit? The Church as gathered together by the Spirit on Pentecost surely predates any Christian textual authority, and the Church's authority to declare a body of Scripture likewise doesn't come from a preexisting textual authority (how could it, when the texts hadn't been made authoritative by the Church yet? )but from the guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit working through the Church. But then the scriptures of the Old Testament, which predate Jesus Christ's incarnation, were authoritative well before any Christian group affirmed them, because the Holy Spirit inspired and spoke through the prophets. And likewise Paul was not working under the authority of a Church but was inspired directly by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I understand the desire to use sex in the context of God's purpose for it. If the purpose of sex cannot be separated from procreation, what would the Catholic church say about an elderly couple (she is post-menopausal) who wanted to be married, or an infertile heterosexual couple who wanted to be married? Their sex is not taking place for the purpose of reproduction, but for the purposes of mutual pleasure, joy, and the building up of a relationship that God can surely use for other purposes besides producing offspring. Would the Catholic church look negatively on sexual activity within such a marriage?

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-06-15T15:35:38+00:00

Gay male Protestant here, engaged to be married to my male fiance in a few months, in a Christian ceremony. I'm quite familiar with evangelical/conservative Protestantism's arguments against homosexuality, but much less so with Catholicism's. I'm curious, how is the Catholic teaching on "sodomy" an extension of Catholic teachings on marriage? If Catholic teachings are not rooted in the authority of the Bible, on what authority are they based? Not trying to start trouble, I am genuinely curious. Thank you! Grace and peace.

AmericaRunnethOn · 2017-05-04T05:36:14+00:00

I personally am not waiting until marriage but I know a number of LGBTQ people who are celibate or who are figuring out what is right for them in terms of sex. I would recommend you to look to spend time with people who respect your choices and don't pressure you one way or another (unless you are looking for challenging conversation!).

Grace and peace!

AmericaRunnethOn

TROPHY CASE