Posted on 04/18/2016 8:54:18 AM PDT by the_boy_who_got_lost
Today I want to address a popular argument made by those who try to reconcile homosexuality with Christianity. The argument is that Jesus Himself never said a word about homosexuality.
Those who make this argument grant that Paul condemned it as sinful (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:9–10). But the sentiment behind this objection is that Paul had corrupted the way of life and the ideology that Jesus came to propagate, and that Jesus would have been “loving” and “accepting” of homosexuals, just as they are.
But is it true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality?
Actually, like the other similar objections, there are several reasons why this argument does not hold up to biblical and logical scrutiny. Today I’d like to address five of them.
Argument from Silence
First, it must be noted that this is an argument from silence, and thus rests on a shaky rational foundation. Jesus also didn’t say a word about pedophilia, bestiality, or rape. But it would be absurd to seek to garner support for any of those abominable acts on the basis of such silence.
(Excerpt) Read more at tms.edu ...
Some hold to the belief that Jesus is “of the same stuff” as G-D and that there is some degree of separation. Not he Arianism heresy but that the exact nature and relationship of the trinity is....a mystery.
One can find support for that in the scriptures, where JC says that no one knows the time, not even the son, only the father or some such. Implies separation.
Also the 40 days of temptation: The old fallen angle could not have temped The Creator himself, the son...well he tried. Implies separation.
There are a couple of other saying which imply separation between Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
I’m a Catholic. We do believe in degrees of sin - venial and mortal to be exact.
I don’t support philandering, ok? It’s a mortal sin. But I’m a hell of lot more angry about gays helping to destroy American morals over the last 30 years in ways that heteros - especially those who live in the sticks - cannot possibly understand. And I speak for myself, not for God.
John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
He addressed it numerous times... Those who say otherwise are deceived.
I think i have seen that meme pic around that says something like my silence doesnt mean my acceptance....
Even if it was silent, it doesnt mean acceptance.
I place this instruction just so every one is on the same starting line.
Now IF Matthew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” applies to the heterosexual, then the same application applies to everyone... God is the ‘heart-knower’ and none can con Him.
I knew you were Catholic. It was evident from your argument.
But regardless - this verse applies to us all.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will
inherit the kingdom of God. “
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were
sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
and by the Spirit of our God. “
- 1Co 6:9-11
___________________________________________
Are gays destroying American morals? Sure they are. But so is a Catholic or Christian who remains a heterosexual fornicator.
Now, I don't agree with the idea of "separation" ("distinction", yes) but even if I did it doesn't matter. Whether the Scriptures are inspired by The Father or the Son (or the Holy Spirit, whom they sent), they both (by definition) agree on every speck of them.
In Matthew 19, Jesus also speaks of “female” and “wife” in the singular. A tacit rebuke (IMHO) to the polygamy of the Old Testament Patriarchs and the traditions of the times.
I get what you say.
Now I am married and have never cheated but I still check out women when they walk by and say: I’d hit that. It is inherent to the beast, it was the way I was made. Am I lusting...not sure, as at my age there is by no means the same visceral drive that I had as a young man but I am making a value judgment on if I would hit that or not. Lets just say that a cute young lady in a summer dress is eye candy and gives one the same good feeling as a sweet.
Sin....I suppose so, I should really be not thinking about a female as anything but a fellow soul in Christ...but if she has a nice ass and legs, I likely don’t get past that point, kind of like a non-maskable interrupt in code.... In any case it is like the approximate 1,000 sins a day that the average guy commits, we are not perfect nor can we be.
I seem to recall the origin of the word sin had to do with bow shooting and translates to being wide of the mark. So I miss the mark of the ideal person. Big deal, what else is new....we were made this way. Now if I act on thoughts that are not congruent with the will of the father...well that is a whole other issue and one I do try to take seriously.
Said another way, I accept your definition of sin, but do not feel particularly guilty about a lot of “thought” sin. It is common, mundane and if constrained by the will and mind, serves a purpose (no children without a wee bit of lust)
I groke the first quote of yours. It does give one pause. So too I seem to recall when the entire doctrine of the trinity was being worked out by the early church fathers (~323 AD) were more or less saying...well it isn’t this and it isn’t that so it lies somewhere between here and there.
Trinity is a mystery and exactly what it means is a mystery. But the old Catholic idea “ of the same stuff” somehow covers it for me (not a catholic though). Call it what you will, I seem to recall support being in the very words of genesis for the trinity from the very beginning of time (begotten not made).
Jesus certainly addressed marriage, FWIW. In every instance, it ALWAYS consisted of one man and one woman. Never man-man or woman-woman. See, for example, Mark 10:6-7:
“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.’”
Male, female. Man, wife.
Some conversation is recorded in Matthew 19.
That too. :-D
Good point, I do not think I ever saw that, but I do agree with your comment.
That said I have never seen a condemnation of polygamy in the bible, other than indirectly: the frequent examples of how it does not work out very well for the families involved:
aka: Abraham and David for starters.
But as it is not specifically condemned, I think you could make a better argument for it than homo marriage. Not that I am, but it seems that if a fornicator would just marry the object of his desire it would be O.K.
Except that the 1st wife would likely not take to it very kindly. Unless you believe in a patriarchy, in which case who cares what she thinks. Which does not seem to match what G-D would want of a man trying to follow his will.
Kind of why I am big on the Holy spirit, if you ask you can get guidance.
I am not into the judging of others ‘hearts’ (thoughts)... However, I do believe it is relevant for those that seek instruction as to what God said, they be instructed from Him. Christianity is like conservatism, personal individual responsibility... And the ignorant are not according to His WORD judged the same as those who know and willfully ignore. And those that do know, and teach/preach otherwise will have the worst day on Judgment Day. Peter says those that claim to speak for God will get judgment first.
The only one that I have control over is me, come Judgment Day. But I do not mind pointing out what God said.
My understanding of ‘lust’ is the mind devising methods of fulfilling the desire. Some use porno others become extremely deceptive to others. I do not consider it against God to admire His creation... ‘lust’ leads to deceptive action.
Homosexuality involves unnatural acts which are inherently dangerous. Heterosexual adultery, etc., is wrong but not against the laws of nature.
Now I think I begin to get what you were saying (at least I think).
what you said here:
“My understanding of ‘lust’ is the mind devising methods of fulfilling the desire. Some use porno others become extremely deceptive to others. I do not consider it against God to admire His creation... ‘lust’ leads to deceptive action.”
Is useful. Admiring something without wanting to take that which is not rightfully yours is O.K. Wanting to have it when it is not according to the will of the father and making mental plans to do so is sinful.
I would mention this: for the poor chap or girl who has the wrong sexual inclination they may have to struggle against bad thoughts their entire lives. I would not condemn such a person, I give thanks I was not subject to that particular defect or sinful nature. I do feel for those persons and wonder how severe their sinful thoughts actually are if they manage to resist them or find a substitute that does not involve acting out on those desires. That is beyond my paygrade, I leave all that to G-d
At the same time one must accurately say what we understand to be sinful and not adulterate the message.
I think we agree pretty completely.
Do you know the Biblical answer? Do you understand what is an ‘abomination’ in the sight of God?
“You’re saying there are different degrees of sin? Some sins are less sinful than others?”
Yes, in fact you can test this by committing one or more sins in each category and then observing how these are dealt with in the afterlife (or what post-worldly existence you are stuck with). Don’t believe heresies that say otherwise.
It is one thing to “sin” and seek forgiveness.
It is quite another thing to “sin” and declare it Holy.
Gay marriage is nothing less than the latter... make no mistake about that.
***particularly for “marriage” is a fad and a fever ****
Back in 1968, the Hippie movement declared marriage dead! Old hat! Outdated! The license was just a piece of paper and not needed if you truly loved someone!
Now those same old hippies and their kids have found marriage to be the most important thing two people can engage in, BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE GAY!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.