jump to navigation

Exploding pro-sodo-marriage flowcharts that claim to “refute” Christian objections to sodomy August 20, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, disaster, error, General Catholic, persecution, rank stupidity, Sacraments, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
trackback

Someone asked me to fisk one of these charts a while back.  The one below is actually probably one of the more thoughtful ones, so I’ll tackle it.  The others are even easier to refute, since they seem to conflate “Christianity” to “things I think Jesus directly said.”

flowchart-2-450x389

Going from left to right –

“Because Jesus said so.”  They claim this is false.  They can only base this claim on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Holy Trinity, not comprehending that any action taken by any of the Three Persons is in essence taken by all.  So since we know Scripture was written under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and since sodomy and the sins of gomorrah are condemned throughout Scripture, we know that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit condemn these sins.

Having said that, I believe that Christ at least tacitly condemns the sin of sodomy/perverse lust in all of the three Synoptic Gospels through multiple references to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. To wit, Saint Matthew x:14-15:

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words; going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust form your feet.  Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

What does this quote, and others like it, tell us?  It tells us Jesus Christ, who is perfect charity but also perfect justice, saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as the just recompense for their sins.  And what were those sins?  Not the truly pathetic canard of “lack of hospitality,” but unnatural lusts/acts of grave perversion!  Why was the entire city struck blind before its destruction? For trying to forcibly rape – sodomize – Lot, his family, and the angels sent to judge the place.  Remember that not even 10 just men could be found in the city, for whose sake the Lord would have spared the entirety.  That is because sins of perversion lead to a reprobate sense, and also demand others to fall into that sense, so that the entire city was eventually corrupted from probably a small initial cadre.  Something for us all to remember.

“The OT also say its sinful to eat shell fish, pork, etc”  Please, this is just stupid, because the New Testament actually features at least as many condemnations of sodomy as the old.  However, as this link makes clear, the creator of this flowchart is deliberately conflating the ceremonial law and the moral law.  The ceremonial law of the old covenant is obsolete, it has been wiped out by the New Covenant.  The moral law, however, remains always and forever, so that the 10 Commandments and other aspects of the moral law remain. We in fact know they remain because the Apostles/authors of the New Testament were at pains to make clear that the moral law was still in effect, while the ceremonial law was obsolete.  Thus Saint Paul’s numerous condemnations of “Judaizers” who tried to foist the old, obsolete ceremonial law on the Church.

“Oh so the New Testament actually does condemn sodomy, but it also condemns other things men today find offensive and we should therefore feel free to pick and choose among what we like and do not like.”  That’s literally the argument proposed.  Once again, this link destroys the notion that Saint Paul just happened to choose words that could be misinterpreted to include sodomy. WRONG.  Saint Paul specifically and deliberately denounces sodomy – so much of the early Church was in Greece, where man-boy relationships still existed! – in many of his Epistles.  In addition, Our Lord Himself condemned all sexual activity outside the confines of one-man, one-woman marriage.  As for St. Paul ostensibly being a misogynist for calling for women not to speak in Church and for wives to be obedient to their husbands, once again, you can see how trying to justify one particular sin inexorably leads to the dismissal of whole swaths of Scripture, and the creation of a false religion of human origins.  I really don’t care what kind of insult a lost worldly self-justifying soul tries to slap on me for adhering to Scripture, our Blessed Lord told us the world would hate us, so there you go.

“Because the Bible clearly defines marriage as being between one man and one woman – Wrong the OT said multiple wives were OK”  Well once again you have someone deliberately twisting Scripture to their own ends, conflating aspects of the OT we know are obsolete (especially in this case, since Jesus Christ directly told us so) with aspects that were carried over to the New Covenant.  The Lord condemned Jewish divorce and serial adultery directly, saying it was only permitted for their hardness of heart.  Multiple wives were obsolete in Jewish practice even well before the Incarnation.

All of these arguments are paper thin and patently self-serving.  They are proved to be that way by the negative conclusions reached – in both cases  you’re a worthless bigot and shameful neanderthal for not adhering to the pro-sodomite propaganda.  It is an amazing condemnation that this obviously self-interested sodomite activist (who also has to have more than a passing if self-deluded knowledge of Scripture) could actually reasonably appeal to his side – open adherence and advocacy of an unspeakable evil – by claiming that HIS is the side of civilization and reason.  Please.  But that is effectively the coup these sexular sodomite pagans, with the media constantly at their side, have been able to achieve.

The link I point to above makes another very important point: the Bible is not the sole rule of Faith, nor is it just a book full of “thou shalt not’s.”  Because of the constant battles we find ourselves faced with in dealing with the world, the flesh, and the devil, sometimes it can seem like that.

In reality, the Bible presents a beautiful, sublime, and timeless approach to male-female relations, the creation of family, and the right ordering of all society with the wholesome family as the building block.  The Bible has far more to say that is positive about marriage and the family that it has negative proscriptions.  Unfortunately, almost the entirety of that edifying truth has been forgotten, or, I should say, forced down the memory hole by sexular pagans who desired to create a humanist “utopia” cut off from God.  We’ve been living in that experiment for 400+ years and finally starting to reach the end game – a society so perverse as to pretend that sodomy = marriage.

 

Comments

1. CF - August 20, 2015

Can someone please point me to some traditional exegesis of the Sodom and Gomorrah passages in Genesis? I was shocked when a priest at a Dallas diocese parish claimed that the sin of Sodom was “lack of hospitality” earlier this summer when it came up in the NO mass readings. I had never heard this before. (To be fair to the priest, I must say that a few weeks later he condemned homosexuality, if only in passing; still it’s much more than you normally hear in an NO parish.). Anyway, after hearing his first homily I went back and read the relevant chapters in Genesis and was again shocked to see that it was not made explicit what the sin of Sodom was. The only thing with vague sexual connotations was that Lot offered the mob his daughters instead, saying do with them what you please, but not the guests. Anyway, just hoping for some sound teaching with which to refute anyone else who confronts me with this “lack of hospitality” interpretation.

2. richardmalcolm1564 - August 21, 2015

I feel like I lost 20 IQ points having read that poster.

If modern day churches aren’t going to live by “all of [St.] Paul’s values,” then they aren’t practicing Christianity. They’re cherry-picking items out of an old text to make some new belief system they find condign. I have more respect for the militant secularist who authored this poster – at least (s)he’s consistent.

3. Margaret Costello - August 21, 2015

Hmmm…so it’s between perverted anal sex which leads to psychological disorders, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, relationship instability, domestic violence, HIV, AIDS, Cancer, STD’s and colons falling out and living a life of virtue, truth, wholeness, chastity, authentic love, purity, goodness and life? And how is it “advanced and civilized” to destroy yourself in amoral sexual and emotional addiction? True civilization is built on objective truth, virtue and charity. Sodomy is the antithesis of this. God bless~

Tantumblogo - August 21, 2015

Good comment!

tg - August 21, 2015

I guess Word Press doesn’t like me calling homosexuality an abomination. It’s deleted two of my comments.

4. tg - August 21, 2015

The Jews probably didn’t challenge Jesus about homosexuality because it was an abomination to all of them. It’s wasn’t like divorce or the rest of the Jewish law. Jesus said marriage was between a man and a woman – end of story.

5. tg - August 21, 2015

My comment was deleted. I said the Jews never challenged Jesus on this topic because to all of them, homosexuality is an abomination. This topic was not like the rest of the law. Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story.

6. Jim the Tim - August 22, 2015

Can you get H I V or Gonorrhoea or Syphillis or Hepatitis or an inverted colon or a prolapsed bowl from eating shellfish -Just wondering.

Tantumblogo - August 24, 2015

I got a real bad allergic reaction from Norman mussels once, but that’s about it. Too bad, I really used to love mussels.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: