Posted on 11/04/2004 6:26:10 PM PST by Nice50BMG
Simple. Jesus is the WORD. The WORD is the Bible. The Bible says no to homosexuals.
Patricia Ireland is a lost soul precious to God...pray for her.
Exactly.
Sadly, many Catholics and "Catholics" - such as Geraldine - either don't understand, or intentionally misstate, the Church's position. Abortion is OBJECTIVELY wrong; it is murder and is NEVER acceptable under ANY circumstance.
Capital punishment, however, is SUBJECTIVE under Church teaching. It is permitted under certain circumstances and whether those circumstances exist is a subjective call.
In other words, a Catholic or "Catholic" who supports abortion is committing a grave sin and is ALWAYS and AUTOMATICALLY wrong. A Catholic who supports capital punishment is NEVER automatically wrong and thus NEVER automatically sinful.
I wonder if Two-Faced-Tommie Daschle, his liberal political career most likely over, will now "migrate" to the pro-life position.
Sheesh.
This is the stupidest argument ever...what do you expect from a self-serving lesbian?
Exactly! And I forgot about the Luke reference to the Sin of Sodom. I'd call that condemnation in the highest form.
Well, no, Jesus didn't mention homosexuality per se, but He did mention sexual immorality. See Mark 7:21-23.
Her argument is bogus.
sin is sin. it is just as bad in Gods eyes for heterosexuals to have sex before marriage. I guess the whole worlds going to hell then.
The church has eased it`s stance on premarital sex over the last 20 years with the number of divorces on the rise. In general I don`t like to point out other people`s sins, the whole "let him cast the first stone" implication, someone asked about the passages so I posted them.
Clint, wash out your hard drive, right now and stay off those funky sites!!
You guess correctly.
Gospel of John
Chapter Three
17. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
As Dan put it:
The Bible is best viewed as one long, long sentence; and there is, in that sentence, nothing but condemnation for homosexual sex. This fact is unclear only to those who wish it to be unclear.
By Joseph Farah
Patricia Ireland, former president of the National Organization of Women, raised what probably sounded like a good question to some recently.
She asked during a debate on the Fox News Channel: "If ... lesbian and gay rights issues were such a serious kind of value, a core value, why did Jesus never talk about them?"
Of course, the answer is that homosexuals have no special rights that distinguish what they do and who they are. They have only the same rights the rest of humanity has. The question should be more appropriately asked of people like Ireland, who pretend to be Christians, while asserting values that are contrary to the Christian faith and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
That was her question. And that is the appropriate answer to the question she asked. But I'm not sure she was asking the right question. Let me see if I can more properly frame the question to help her out.
If the institution of marriage as we know it between one man and one woman is such an important value, a core value of the Christian faith, why did Jesus never talk about it?
The answer to that question, of course, is that He did. He did so explicitly. He defined it clearly. And His definition leaves no room for same-sex unions.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
– Matthew 19:4-6
That's what Jesus Himself said about marriage. It's also a very strong statement about the fact that men and women were made for each other. There's no talk here of civil unions. There's no suggestion here of domestic partnerships. There's no hint here that men should fool around with men and that women should fool around with women.
It's a straightforward statement that alone should clarify any misconceptions about what Jesus thought and believed and commanded insofar as sexual unions.
But the Bible and the Christian faith are based on much more than the words spoken by Jesus, who explained that He did not come to overturn the law but to fulfill it. That means the basic commandments of the Hebrew Scriptures didn't change when Jesus came along. And those laws are crystal clear in condemning homosexuality as an abomination in the sight of God – as they are in the inspired teachings of Paul in the New Testament.
Jesus Himself was referring to the law as laid out in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
My point is that people like Patricia Ireland, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton like to pretend they are operating under the same value system that led to Western Civilization, the same value system that resulted in the founding of America, the same value system that was taught by Jesus and the Hebrew prophets before Him.
They are not. They are operating under different values. They are only pretending to have a different interpretation of those values. That is why they are so uncomfortable talking about values. Because they are in constant fear you will find them out – that you will discover they are operating under a completely different worldview.
But it's important to recognize what their game is.
It doesn't matter to them what Jesus taught. But they know it still matters to enough Americans. And if enough Americans see through their charade, then they can't win elections. And if they can't win elections, they can't impose their different morality on you.
>But yea verily, a Fury definitely qualifies, as does Knute's Accord in post 105, I looked it up in my Mopar Concord..ia.
WWJD? (What would Jesus drive?)
WWJD? Well, He did drive a Moneychanger from the temple.
Wayne Jackson said it all:
Patricia Ireland on the Teaching of Jesus
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Penpoints
Monday, November 22, 2004
During a recent television interview, in a desperate attempt to suggest that true Christian teaching is not adverse to homosexuality, Patricia Ireland argued that Jesus “never mentioned homosexuality.” The implication clearly was that Christ would have condemned this lifestyle explicitly, had he disapproved of it.
For more than a decade, Patricia Ireland has been one of radical feminism’s most vocal leaders. From 1991-2001 she led the National Organization for Women (NOW). In addition to her well-known struggle for the “right” of women to extinguish the lives of their unborn children, Ireland has been a vigilant defender of various issues pertaining to the homosexual agenda. As a lawyer, she has been a moving force in promoting lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues.
What has not been publicized is her apparent claim of being an expert in biblical matters.
In a television interview on November 11, while attempting to justify the “pro-gay” doctrine of her political party, Ms. Ireland boasted that she was raised a “Christian,” and that she knows the Bible quite well. Her parting shot, as the interview concluded, was to this effect. “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.”
One can reasonably surmise that this was intended to buttress the notion that if Christ never condemned homosexual activity expressly, he must have approved of it. Presumably, then, if he were on earth today he would be promoting the “gay rights” movement!
Quite frankly, this distorted claim with reference to Christ is ludicrous; it reveals a void of biblical knowledge, to say nothing of a deficit in reasoning skill. The celebrated feminist carelessly and conveniently overlooked the following evidentiary facts.
Any elementary Bible student knows that Jesus Christ did not mention, by name, every sin of which human beings are capable. Nor did he need to. Christ never specifically addressed shoplifting, credit card fraud, or income tax evasion. Is one free, therefore, to conclude that Jesus condoned dishonesty? When the Lord condemned “theft” (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21) were not the varieties mentioned above included – in principle?
With regard to sexual matters, where did Jesus ever specifically speak out regarding the perversions of bestiality, pedophilia, prostitution, and rape? Is one to assume that the Son of God would have endorsed these deviate practices, and led a parade in support of their “rights”?
The reality of the matter is this. Jesus Christ did censure homosexual activity – when he condemned “fornication.”
First, the Lord made “fornication” the only cause for divorce (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and, thus, by implication denounced this evil. In a graphic rebuke of moral transgressions, Jesus characterized “fornication” as a defiling act, under the same condemnation as theft and murder (Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:21-23).
Second, every serious student of the biblical languages is aware that homosexual activity is but a sub-category of the more generic term porneia (generally rendered “fornication” in the better translations – KJV, ASV). In the world of the ancient Greeks, from the time of Demosthenes onward, the term porneia was applied to a wide variety of sexual sins, including homosexuality (see: Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, Vol. I, pp. 497-501; see also: Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 854).
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the responsible student must conclude that the word carries the same meaning in the literature of the New Testament.
Jude, an inspired New Testament writer, explicitly identified homosexual conduct as a form of “fornication.” Regarding the antique cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the sacred author notes that the men of Sodom, etc., gave themselves over to “fornication” (ekporneuo – intensive sexual activity), pursuing “strange [heteros] flesh” (v. 7).
Those ancient deviants “were interested in sexual relations with men,” hence they “perverted the created order of natural intercourse” (Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987, p. 381). Professor Ralph Earle declared that the term “fornication” in this context “obviously suggests homosexuality” (Word Meanings in the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000, p. 455).
The gross sin of these cities in the region of the Dead Sea (cf. Genesis 19:4-9) became the infamy of antiquity. For example, sometime prior to the destruction of Pompey (A.D. 79), someone had scrawled on a wall of that wicked city, “Sodoma Gomorra” (E.M. Blaiklock, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill Tenney, ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967, p. 800).
Finally, Jesus stated that anyone who rejects the teaching of his appointed representatives, rejects him as well. To the seventy disciples he said: “He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
If such was the case with reference to that group, it certainly was no less true of the Lord’s apostles.
In this regard, Paul, the apostle of Christ, unequivocally condemned homosexual activity as one of the most heinous of sins of which humankind is capable (see: Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10).
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.