Ken Ham on LGBTQ, I Pose a Question · Genesis 18 and Ezechiel 16 Revisited
Try Rereading Sodom and Gomorrah Without Personal Bias
Rev Ed Trevors | 14 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZVK_cb9bBM
You know what? Your final words are a death knoll to "sola scriptura" and Luther's "each man, armed with the Bible is unto himself a Priest, a Bishop, a Pope" (quoting from memory).
If our personal biasses are so devious when we read Scripture, how about finding a magisterium, that spans the ages? Oh, wait, that's what Luther, Bucer, Cranmer did away with ... it's found in the Catholic Church.
So, how about reading this passage in light of the Church's perennial teaching? Well, I just did that with the two verses in Ezechiel.
"a 5:02 crime against visitors to their 5:06 City I challenge that if this story was 5:09 written about two visitors two angels 5:13 coming into the city but those angels 5:16 were who appeared 5:20 female we would never it would never it 5:23 it wouldn't be a matter that well this 5:25 is don't you see this is that 5:26 heterosexuality is wrong"
We know for very good reasons, not applicable for homosexuality, that heterosexuality isn't wrong. Plus, as said, Lot offered his daughters as a less evil alternative.
5:20 The point is, if that were the case, why are they refusing the daughters of Lot?
Why is Lot offering his daughters, as a less evil alternative?
[I wrote above before I left the cyber. I had to return. The box is what I wrote after returning, on another video.]
Lot, His Daughters, And The Town’s Men |
7:58 I dispute your reading of Hezechiel.
I agree with St. Thomas' reading. Their sin had three steps down into the abyss:
1) eating too much
2) being inhospitable
3) sin against nature.
Remember, to St. Thomas, the primary meaning of "nature" was not a walk inthe woods, it was "conception and connected" ...
Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 16:49-50]
"Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister,"
God is defining the sin. I'll now take each item as stated and show the equation.
1) eating too much = "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters:"
2) being inhospitable = and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor "
3) sin against nature = "And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me:"
Then comes God's punishment:
"and I took them away as thou hast seen"
8:37 Sodomy is not just about whom one loves.
It's also about how the love is physically acted out. If God thought that a husband making love with his wife while she was menstruating was for the Old Covenant a stoning offense, it means, He doesn't like making sex infertile. Get this straight, He is not in favour of married people using condoms either, not to mention pills, which are in fact sometimes early-abortive.
So, two men love each other? Well, tell them, "you can't have children together, but you could have grandchildren together" ... get them each a wife and they'll hope one of the one's sons will marry one of the other's daughters. A bit too late for the son and daughter of Jonas and Mark in Sweden (most famous gay couple, would have applauded your reading, both are in Christian denominations). They grew up as siblings, even if physically they aren't.
But that act which is in and of itself unfruitful, it is an abomination to God. As Ezechiel says.
[I tried adding, but above was censored, so this couldn't be posted under it:]
Not Mark and Jonas, but the son of Jonas and the daughter of Mark.
8:45 Love may indeed be a wonderful thing, but that's not an exact quote.
If you go to "greater love hath no man" that's not about eros. It's agape. I looked it up in John 15:13 in the interlinear.
If you go to "what God has joined, let no man separate" that's very explicitly about "one man and one woman" (Mark 10:6). In the context, it is foremost about forbidding divorce and remarriage. But en passant it defines what marriage is.
9:52 I happen to think God sometimes converts people from thieving, from manslaughter, from adultery, from drunkenness, and yes, active and passive participation in sodomy was on the list as well, when St. Paul finishes with "such were some of you" ...
I'm not begrudging Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere to have successfully made penance for the adultery, and I'm not begrudging any sodomite from getting out of that sin in the way most agreeable to him. Whether his reluctance against women primes his desire for sex or his desire for sex primes his reluctance to women, and same for her.
________________________
I'm giving the First Pope the Last Word:
et justum Lot oppressum a nefandorum injuria, ac luxuriosa conversatione eripuit
[2 Peter 2:7]
When Lot offered up his daughters, he was just. When the men of Sodom refused, their conversation was not just an injustice to his hospitality, but also luxuriosa, lewd.
No comments:
Post a Comment