www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News SCOBA STATEMENT ON MORAL CRISIS IN OUR NATION

//The only thing I find interesting (not per se objectionable, but interesting) is that they cited only to the letters of Paul when saying that "homosexual acts are condemned by Scripture."//

Isn�t Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy �Scripture� in the Christian tradition? What are you trying to say?

The SCOBA statement briefly cites key biblical points in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The Christian idea of sexuality and marriage can be seen developed with each biblical quote, beginning with the general idea of creation and sexuality, and then leading to the nature and purpose of marriage. Finally, the specific (Pauline and pseudo-Pauline) quotes regarding those things that work against marriage and God.

Joe Thur

How did I know someone was going to twist what I said and come up with something as preposterous as an alleged suggestion that the letters of Paul are not part of Scripure?

Let me ask the question this way - I wonder why did they not choose to cite to the Old Testament or the Gospels to spectifically support the one particular sentence wherein they come right out and say that homosexual acts are condemned by Scripture?

There, is that better? SHEESH! :rolleyes:


Yours,

kl

Call them and ask. Their text was a statement, not an encyclical.

Joe

You got their phone number?

kl

Here is their link. Tell us what you find out.

http://www.goarch.org/en/archdiocese/organizations/scoba.asp

Joe Thur

In the August 3, 2003 issues of the Coptic Digest, Pope Shenouda wrote a longer statement regarding same sex unions and homosexuality entitled, �Homosexuality and the Church.� He too uses the same New Testament quotes as did SCOBA, and in the same order. He also includes an additional quote from the Letter of Jude. Here is a clip from his letter, which was from his address to the Coptic priests in England:

- - - - - - -

Of course, the New Testament is not less pure than the Old Testament, and we find a proscription of homosexual acts there as well. In ROMANS CHAPTER ONE [emphasis mine] it is written, 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.' How? Verse twenty-four teaches, 'Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.' 'Gave them up' means that the grace of God left them, abandoned them and left them to their uncleanness to dishonor their bodies. In such abnormality, they dishonor their bodies. The honor of the body is to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. But if it is abused then it is a dishonor to the body. 'For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Like wise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust for one another, man with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due'

St. Paul spoke about the debased mind of the homosexual using the phrase 'exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.' We take this to clearly mean that homosexuality is clearly against nature. This he avers is uncleanness and dishonor of the body, also receiving penalty. Again, 'Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use' means that this is abnormal and against nature, 'committing what is shameful.' What I would like to ask is how such a matter which is so shameful and against nature have become such an important matter of discussion in the Church? If there were an attempt to make such acts lawful, it would be a disaster. If we change something shameful and worthy of penalty, something clearly against nature, to a thing accepted and lawful, we deserve the punishment of God both on earth and in the world to come

In the FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, CHAPTER SIX [emphasis mine], the Apostle says, 'Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.' None of these will inherit the kingdom of God. How is it then that some employ unimaginable devices in an attempt to circumvent a Biblical text so clearly written? Have we come so far as to challenge the Apostle of God who writes, 'do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?' Your body is not your own; your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The homosexual is sinning against the temple of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul writes, 'Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.' When a person sins against the Holy Spirit; that means he is separating himself from the Holy Spirit. Light and darkness cannot exist together in one place. From the beginning God separated light from darkness. The Holy Spirit cannot abide in such a case.'

The apostle exhorts, 'glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God's,' because the body is for God and the spirit is for God. In CHAPTER THREE OF HIS EPISTLE TO FIRST CORINTHIANS [emphasis mine] he adds, 'Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.' Further along in chapter six St. Paul writes, 'Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!' These are the members of Christ because we are His body and His bones. 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.' If Christ then lives in me, how can we abuse the body or the members of Christ or the temple of the Holy Spirit? How can we abuse or dishonor the image of God and lose our holy image and live in the lust of the flesh? This is against a holy life and against chastity

In his EPISTLE, ST. JUDE [emphasis mine] writes, 'as Sodom and Gomarrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' And in his FIRST EPISTLE TO ST. TIMOTHY [emphasis mine], St. Paul reminds, 'knowing this: that the law is not make for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites.' St. Paul includes this word 'sodomites' or homosexuals among the murderers, among the lawless, among the ungodly. This sin then was condemned in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. So can we disobey God in order to please some sinful persons? Is it not better to correct them.

- - - - - - -

The entire text can be read here:

http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/currentissues/homosexuality.cfm

Joe

I am sad, Mr. J Thur, that you did not find my question to be worthy of whatever it is supposed to be worth of. I'm out of here!

Yours,

kl

KL,

Worthwhile, you ask a question that none of us can possibly answer. Both SCOBA and the Coptic Pope use the same New Testament quotes. Maybe because that is where the issue of homosexuality is specifically mentioned? Are you aware of any other NT passage that the bishops might have overlooked? Please let us know. I sure would appreciate it.

Joe

I would think that it's pretty obvious why. St. Paul's letters give the strongest and most specific condemnation of homosexual activity, as the teaching of the Church. There are only a few places in St. Paul's letters where he specifically states something that is his opinion, that is, he did not receive it from the Lord. Other than that, he is expressing the mind of Christ.

The tired and weak argument that Jesus was moot on this point, and therefore, His lack of a specific condemnation of homosexual activity is actually an acceptance of it rings hollow. Jesus clearly defined the union of a man and a woman as a marriage in Matthew 19.

But I'm sure no one was implying that Jesus blessed homosexual unions! Now that would be a ridiculous notion!

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
McKees Rocks, PA

I admit that I know very little about what the Gospels do or do not say about the issue of sexuality and, hence, make no argument one way or the other.

I merely and in all humility asked a question.

Thank you, Fr. Thomas, for answering it.

kl

KL,

I apologize if I took your post the wrong way. You began it with an expressed fear of being attacked. This influenced me to consider your question in a different light.

Joe

No problem.

kl

Dear Theophilos,

Thank you for your response to my questions.

I am sorry that you felt that I was saying that you were attacking Dr. John personally. I felt that you were attributing to him sentiments and positions for which I did not find evidence in his writing. So, I asked for the evidence which led you to your conclusions.

I have read both the posting of Dr. John that you reposted and your own response to that posting.

Dolt that I am, I did not find there evidence to support this statement:

"It is clear that Dr. John, for all of his pious nonjudgmentalism, simply refuses to accept that the Church has not only the right but the obligation (1) to articulate Her divinely-inspired conception of moral virtue and (2) to propose to the secular polity that this conception ought to form the basis, in whole or part, of the common good that the polity legislates and enforces."

What I found there is a discussion of the role of government in legislating against certain behaviors. The arguements that you both presented were interesting then and they are now.

However, I did not find any evidence that Dr. John said that the Church has no right to place its position in the political forum or that Christians should not argue for that position. Neither did I find the place where he said that secular society in its legislators could not find these arguements of value in deciding what decision to make in the legislative process.

Perhaps I am missing the central point that you intended to make by reposting these two postings.

So, as I did in my earlier request, I ask for your help to understand where, in his words that you've reposted, the evidence is. That would be most helpful.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

O ye bitten by Satan, look upon Christ;

For this was He lifted up, that ye might gaze on Him and be healed by Him.

O ye throughout whose members the hidden gall hath spread,

By the sight of the Cross of light ye are restored to health.

O ye slain by the bites of wicked demons,

Lift up your eyes, look, and be healed, if ye will.

O thou that are bitten in soul by iniquity, doubt not;

Look on the Cross, and it will swiftly heal thy soul.

Sins have torn thee like the bites of serpents:

If thou gaze not on the Slain One, thou wilt not be healed.

As Moses lifted the serpent, thy Lord was lifted up:

Look on Him, O man, and the wound that pains thee will take to flight.

Mar Jacob, Bishop of Serugh, On the Serpent of Brass that Moses Lifted up in the Desert.

Steve:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I�m sorry it has taken so long for me to respond to your question.

You and Dr. John are right. I am the dolt for thinking that we shouldn�t just let everyone live as they wish according to their �understanding of �morality.�� Who am I, rotten and despicable sinner that I am, to say what is just or unjust, right or wrong?

I was so wrong. But I�ve been miraculously cured of my authoritarian Fallwellian disposition to call a sin a sin and a virtue a virtue. Silly Orthodox Christian, laws are for Prots and Fundies! We should just accept everybody as they are, and let the Spirit do as He will (or won�t). Well, maybe we should pray for them, if we think what they�re doing is bad or harmful... but perhaps that�s getting ourselves a bit too involved? I wonder whether it�s okay to invade one�s personal, autonomous space by praying for his/her moral and spiritual rebirth? I�ll have to think about that one...

I�ll also have to think about the rules I lay down in my home. Maybe my son should be allowed to do whatever he wants. He�s a member of Christ�s Body, just like me, and, well, if he wants to watch Blue�s Clues ten hours a day, I probably shouldn�t stop him. I mean, I haven�t exactly promulgated a condemnation of racism, sexism, homophobia, et al. yet, so I�m not sure if I have the legitimate moral authority to prevent him from doing something I�m pretty sure is harmful to his development. Who am I to judge him? I do watch the Simpsons, after all.

Hugs and kisses!

Theophilos