Was Sodom and Gomorrah Really about Homosexuality? | Mary Healy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2022
- The Bible has relatively few passages about homosexuality, and modern thinkers have found ways to explain some of them away. For example, is Genesis 19 really about homosexuality or is it really about a failure of hospitality? Dr. Mary Healy, a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, gives us a bracing Catholic Answer.
Fr Casey of “Breaking in the Habit” needs to view this.
I love that there is nothing distinctly catholic about this conversation. I am a Presbyterian and this discussion ministered to my spirit so much. Thank you for sharing.
May God bless you all!
Thank you for this. I’m going to look for more of Dr Healy on UA-cam
The Lady did a very good job but she missed one crucial thing. Strange flesh was not just a characterisation it means the people of Sodom and Gomorrah also did it with non-humans.
Yes!
Thank you for sharing this information! I keep seeing posts saying that if schools want to teach LGBT history to start with Sodom and Gamorrah. I have shared this and multiple other links that show what really happened there.
Really nice interview. Thanks 👍🏼
God bless you and stay safe too Chris Perez •.
The term sodomite is used in the epistles. Does the minister believe in a different definition of this word when it appears in the NT?
Ezekiel 16:50 “And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”
Ezekiel 16:58 “Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the LORD.”
It’s just interesting that the primary sins were being unhospitable, not to say that the sexual stuff going on wasn’t bad but that it wasn’t the primary sin.
There's is nothing inherently sinful about our disordered desires, but there is something sinful in forming a self-identity around them. So while expereincing same sex attraction is not a sin, believing one to be a LGBTQ2SAI+ person is a sin. You can't be LGBTQ and Catholic.
Pretty good explanation, but late Card Ratzinger as Prefect of CDF back in 1986 wrote .."Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion." ( Homosexualitatis Problema, Pastoral Letter about care of homosexual persons )..."THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE MORAL JUDGDMENT MADE THERE AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS." That sealed the case for good !
Lust only harms the individual, so it’s self harm that is the sin. , right?
Ok, please explain that when Jesus says, " If you so much as look at another person with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery. You don't "act" on it by having a physical sexual affair, but it is a sin.
Same thing if a same sex attracted person looks at a person with sexual feelings, etc. It is a sin, plain and simple.
will you be justified by your works of righteousness? Not even the Pharisees could keep God's marriage law. You just have to look upon someone with lust to become one flesh with a harlot. Besides will you marry someone for their flesh or because you love them? Which one do you think has God's true blessing that no one could separate?
@@dansaber4427 haha I like that one. pray always with a lowercase got quiet 🤭. Thanks Dan Saber.
No, this comment isn't true. To look at someone with lust is to actively lust after them, which is a sin. Lust is wrong no matter who lusts after who. However, simply having feelings and attractions to others is not sinful, these are temptations. Temptations are obviously and clearly not sinful and to say otherwise would mean deny a truth directly revealed by Scripture, which is that Jesus was tempted by Satan and Jesus was sinless. Denying one of those truths would be heretical, as heresy is the denial of a truth directly revealed in Scripture. If you look at a person and are attracted but not lustful, that isn't sinful and that is an equivalent comparison.
@@IM-tl7qv Logical, but when it comes to these types they will perform contortion acts to justify their predilections.
Jude 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these UNGODLY pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on CELESTIAL BEING aka "ANGELS" Ezekiel 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Isn't "abomination" also a word used to refer to eating shellfish in Deuteronomy 14:3? And isn't abomination also used in Isaiah 66:17 to refer to pigs and rats? Clearly it does NOT simply refer to homosexuality. How do you know that the abomination referred to in Ezekiel 16:50 wasn't a reference to the people in Sodom eating shrimp and pork? How did you connect it to homosexuality? You talked about him omitting the verse, but you omitted the fact that abomination can refer to things other than homosexuality. What is your explanation?
No, Deut.14:3 used "detestable," not abominable. It's unclear what abomination was eaten in Is. 66:17, so inappropriate to project.
I think she is very manipulative in her explanation for the word abomination. Because every time the word abomination is being used it doesn't automatically mean somebody was practicing homosexual acts. This would mean that every time the word abomination is being used you would have to add homosexuality to it which would make no sense 🤔
IN CONTEXT of the passage mentioned
King James was a homosexual 😂
Ad hominem fallacy
really ? please show proofs
The city was destroyed as it reads! You are adding the homosexual part to what it already written. ALL SINS are abominations, and I happen to believe that it was more about Man laying with ANGELS ...That is the greater sin~
Loyal Catholic viewer here, disappointed with Dr. Healy’s analysis. She successfully proved to me that the sin of Sodom was related to sexual misconduct. However, I did not hear any evidence that it was specifically *homosexual* contact that earned the condemnation, and that was the entire thesis of this episode. The most she proved was that it was due to forcible sexual contact, or rape, which just happened to be homosexual. Example: Suppose a white man murders a black man. One would just charge him with murder, not a hate crime, unless there is a positive and clear reason to believe the crime was racially motivated. It’s not that he’s not guilty at all - just not guilty of *a hate crime.* Significantly more, and very specific, evidence is needed to convict for that. With the evidence given, I see no reason to think that God couldn’t have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah simply for attempting to commit rape.
“Other flesh” might just mean somebody else’s body used for your gratification, rather than the flesh of the same sex. I would have liked more input on this.
I highly suggest that future analyses of this topic take into account responses like the one I outlined, that many LGBT authors and scholars use regularly.
Rape is always an act of cruelty and violence and is a mortal sin. The cause of this sin/crime is, in many cases, due to pornography.
@@michaelhaywood8262 I already agree with that. Now can you point me to something that shows Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was homosexuality, not merely rape? That was my original questions
"LGBT authors and scholars"
Lol
@@andrewbennett6089The only sexual intercourse allowed by God being between a man and a woman in the spousal relationship as God's plan is a given fact described in the creation chapters of Genesis, any other intercourse, like the homosexual act, is per se an abomination.Homosexual acts are the only sinns of the flesh described in the apisode of Sodoma and Gomorra, and it would have been so even if the request had been politely asked for a consensual intercourse. The violence just added sinn to sinn.
Many references to men having sex with men is evil to God
I know it's a poor excuse to stay in the closet
Matthew 7:15 - " Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
Psalms 118:8 - "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."
Even then, the Pope actually called it a sin but not a crime but this fact doesn't matter. The only thing that matters are the words of God.
You can be LGBT and Catholic 👬
Yes you can but you can't have an LGBT lifestyle and be Catholic. There's the rub. Also a Church that condones sin in the name of being more pc is no longer a Church. Acting on homosexual urges is very much a choice just as heterosexual sins of the flesh is a choice. Defend the faith don't dilute it because it makes the world uncomfortable.
Yes, but you must live celibate and you shouldn't live with a "partner". You cannot be in a union with another of the same sex.
@@row1landr please proofread this:
Paul is in a same sex relationship with Jesus the Bridegroom and plans to Marry him so that he may Know Him. Paul is talking about lovers of themselves and their fellowship. So are you concerned with yourself preservation or loving someone else? Because people are willing to do what would be unnatural for them for eternal life.
@@dansaber4427 Man sorry but your second comment was just stupid
No. You can have disordered attractions but you must not fall into temptation. That includes sexuality as well as any other aspect of our lives. Please, check Courage International and Theology of the Body Institute to rejoice in the beauty of our bodies. God bless you!