Replies

"Jesus NEVER engaged in graphic descriptions of sexual immorality...and in fact never even spoke of homosexuality..because it was unnecessary."

Jesus NEVER had to.

My point exactly.

He did discuss those who sacrificed their children to foreign gods by burning them to death. That's not something we have to deal with in this day and age. We have to deal with people who engage in fisting, and who try to teach school children how to do the same. If you're sitting around thinking that queer love is just like straight love, you might need some graphic descriptions to help you make the distinction.

You actually think homosexuality is some modern activity that Jesus didn't have to talk about back in his day?

The fact is homosexuality is acknowledged in the OLD Testament..long before Jesus. The Bible speaks of drag queens and cross dressers in the Old Testament.
Jesus didn't mention incest and bestiality either.

The idea that people now need graphic descriptions of things that have gone on for 1,000s of years is silly.

Jesus didn't talk about things that were simply unspeakable and anybody who had any sense knew it.

Those who broadcast this sort of vulgar garbage on these boards are clearly not doing so in the name of holiness...but out of their desire to throw mud at those they have personal hatred for.

Jesus did know how to call a spade a spade. See Matthew 23.

You read Matthew 23. And then show me where Jesus described filthy vile acts of sexual perversion in any of His sermons.
You can't. Because He didn't.

"You actually think homosexuality is some modern activity that Jesus didn't have to talk about back in his day?"

No, no more than I think that *every* comment of His is recorded in the Scriptures.

"The idea that people now need graphic descriptions of things that have gone on for 1,000s of years is silly."

No, not in a lot of cases. Many people don't bother to think about such things until it's brought to their attention. Is it silly when foes of baby killing use photographs to demonstrate the reality of that atrocity?

"Jesus didn't talk about things that were simply unspeakable and anybody who had any sense knew it."

And we know that...how?

"Those who broadcast this sort of vulgar garbage on these boards are clearly not doing so in the name of holiness...but out of their desire to throw mud at those they have personal hatred for"

Charity requires that I assume you believe that statement, as offensive and false as it is. Accordingly, I'm going to do the best I can to explain why it isn't true.

As I stated above, many people don't think about such things until they're right in their faces. They are as a consequence often led by social pressures and the sophistry of activists to support positions that they would oppose if they thought the matter through with a full understanding of exactly what is involved.

It is therefore desirable, even a duty, to see to it that the full, explicit, ugly details are not hidden or glossed over, to help our fellow man avoid being flim-flammed.

It's interesting that so many accept the deceit involved in referring to abortion as the disposal of a clump of cells, or at best a "fetus," and in the aversion to the display of explicit photographs of early-term babies in the womb and of babies killed by abortionists (in collusion with their own mothers)--and yet we are here faced with opposition to exactly the same phenomenon (the presentation of accurate information) on the grounds that it is "vulgar garbage."

Well, yes, homosexual behavior is vulgar, and descriptions of it can be difficult to endure. Not, for me, as difficult as photographs of babies killed by abortionists or a description of partial-birth abortion, but difficult. But surely we have a duty to know the thing for what it is, to inform ourselves if we are to participate responsibly in society's decisions on such matters.

The pro-aborts often criticize the pro-life activists for the offensiveness and vulgarity of their (entirely accurate and truthful) photographs, and here we have people criticizing those who oppose the legitimization of SSAD for the offensiveness and vulgarity of their descriptions of homosexual acts.

Makes you go, "Hmmm."

Jesus didn't talk about things that were simply unspeakable and anybody who had any sense knew it.

If there had been homosexuals doing those unspakable things in "pride" parades or attempting to teach them to children in the schools, I believe Jesus would have spoken.

Until we see Him on That Day we may have to agree to disagree on this.

I gave you Matthew 23 as an example that Jesus didn't pull any punches when necessary. I never suggested He was discussing sex.

Shalom.