Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality?
Concerned Women for America ^ | 11/1/05 | Warren Throckmorton, PhD

Posted on 11/01/2005 8:03:22 PM PST by tuesday afternoon

Many “gay” religionists insist that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality and thus could not have opposed it. Often conservatives counter that He taught against any form of sexual expression other than heterosexual marriage, so He did not need to specify every sexual act outside of marriage for condemnation. What is the correct position?

Certainly, Jesus did address the topic of sexual ethics and marriage. In Matthew 19:4b-9, Jesus said:

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wife, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Jesus’ disciples were nervous at this teaching. In fact, since Jesus made divorce much more difficult to attain than Moses did, they wondered aloud if marriage was such a good thing after all (“If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Matthew 19:10). Like many people today, the disciples thought the fidelity and permanence taught by Jesus might be too difficult for anyone to follow.

To the skepticism of the disciples, Jesus responded:

"All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” For years, I did not give much thought to who Jesus might have been referencing here by the use of the term “eunuchs.” I assumed that all eunuchs were males who were castrated or otherwise physically incapable to have sexual relations. Recently, however, I have begun to wonder if the Greek word eunouchoi (eunuchs) might also include someone without natural attraction to the opposite sex.

Could Jesus be referring here to male homosexuals as being among those who experience no other sex attraction, and if so, does this passage signal the blessing of Jesus on homosexuality?

A recent paper by a Norwegian theologian, Raghnild Schanke, asserts that Jesus was indeed referring to several categories of people including asexual persons and those who would fit the modern concept of homosexuality. She notes that many eunuchs in antiquity were capable of sexual relations but did not seem to have natural desire for women. She amasses an impressive array of ancient references to some eunuchs being disinterested in the opposite sex even though physically capable.

To address these questions, I turned to one of the top Biblical scholars in the world regarding sexuality, Dr. Robert Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Author of the encyclopedic The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Dr. Gagnon commented, “I think that the phrase ‘eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb’ [Matthew 19:12] is probably an inclusive group consisting of any man who lacks sexual interest in women. This group would include both men who have genital abnormalities that result in impotence and men whose genitals are still capable of begetting children. It would also include both asexual persons and persons who, in time, develop exclusive same-sex attractions.”

Regarding Jesus’ phrase “eunuchs who were born thus” Dr. Gagnon said, “The saying does suggest a recognition on the part of Jesus and early Christianity that some men are born in such a way that they do not develop, as adolescents and adults, other-sex attractions, for whatever reason.” Such men are not born gay, but rather without responsiveness to the opposite sex. Attractions to the same sex may or may not develop during the formative years via a combination of temperamental and environmental factors.

There is a modern-day, experiential validity to this interpretation. I have counseled individuals who from their earliest recollections have little or no attraction to the opposite sex. Also, the opposite-sex desire of some is hindered due to traumatic circumstances in life, whether physical injury or emotional trauma (“eunuchs made that way by men”). And still others choose celibacy for “the kingdom of heaven.” Note that Jesus does not condemn such persons for their situation.

So do homosexual relationships have the endorsement of Jesus? Not so, says Dr. Gagnon:

The implication of Jesus' saying is that all such “born eunuchs” have no option for engaging in sexual activity outside of a man-woman bond. Furthermore, fidelity to this teaching does not require that one become exclusively heterosexually responsive with no homosexual temptation. However, it does require abstinence from homosexual bonds.

For classical Christianity, the union of male and female is much more than a sociological convenience but provides imagery for some of its central teachings (e.g., Christ as the bridegroom and the church as his bride). The teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19 deepen this commitment to male-female unions by very specifically considering people who either are unable or choose not to form such sexual relationships.

Thus, if one supports same-sex relations or unions as sound ecclesiastical policy, one must do it with some other philosophical base than can be found in these teachings of Jesus.

Scriptures are taken from the New King James Version.

Warren Throckmorton, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy in the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City (Pennsylvania) College. Dr. Throckmorton is past-president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association and is the producer of the documentary, I Do Exist, about sexual identity formation. His columns have been published by over 70 newspapers nationwide. He can be contacted through his Web site at www.drthrockmorton.com.


TOPICS: Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: cwa; homosexualagenda; sin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
I thought this was an interesting exegesis.
1 posted on 11/01/2005 8:03:23 PM PST by tuesday afternoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

re: this string.... and they're off.....


2 posted on 11/01/2005 8:15:52 PM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

Wait and see, coming soon is some 'scholar' that will insist there is evidence that Jesus performed same-sex marriages!


3 posted on 11/01/2005 8:17:18 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon
Many “gay” religionists insist that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality and thus could not have opposed it.

What did Jesus say about nude lesbian jello wrestling?

4 posted on 11/01/2005 8:18:23 PM PST by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

Scripture should never be studied in isolation from the rest of the Bible. Compare scripture to scripture and you will find consistant treatment of homosexuality throughout the Bible. Practicing homosexuality is an abomination to God. Only by twisting a single passage or making unsupportable stretches of logic can you conclude that Jesus thought practicing homosexuality is acceptable.

However, no one should conclude that God/ Jesus does not bestow his love on homosexuals. Scripture tells us he died for us all. I cringed a few years ago when protesters in Montgomery, AL held up signs saying "God hates fags." That theology is absolutely incorrect. Any sin, including sexual immorality of any stripe, separates us from God, and God definitely hates that.


5 posted on 11/01/2005 8:38:01 PM PST by RatRipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

Jesus never mentioned "rape" either so that makes it all right, eh?


6 posted on 11/01/2005 8:39:30 PM PST by Sen Jack S. Fogbound (Hello, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon
"Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality?"

To believe that He did is heresy.
7 posted on 11/01/2005 8:42:13 PM PST by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smedley

What is the point in specifically restricting an "authoritative" voice to Jesus' words only, when in other parts of Scripture there is no ambiguity on this issue?

Among St. Paul's writings, Romans 1:24-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 make the issue clear enough. They, too, are part of sacred Scripture. They, too, are the word of God. Indeed, they are the word of the Word, Jesus Himself.

To ignore the obvious in St. Paul's writings and claim that, because Jesus doesn't specifically get into issues involving homosexuality in the Gospels, it therefore must be okay, is a ridiculous stance to take. The New Testament is a unified whole, all parts are equally inspired. Advocates of a "Jesus never condemned it" interpretation of Scripture are merely heaping coals on their own heads.


8 posted on 11/01/2005 8:47:00 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

9 posted on 11/02/2005 12:54:38 AM PST by Dan Lacey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon
All they have to do is look at Leviticus 18:22, and the first book of Romans. The work homosexual, and gay will not be found in the bible. But words such as immoral and unnatural( and a few others) will be found. Remember hate the sin, not the sinner. Homosexuality is an abomination.
10 posted on 11/02/2005 3:15:11 AM PST by navygal (Numbers 6:24-26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

Don't bring Jesus into this-He has enough mocking Him-

SIN IS SIN


11 posted on 11/02/2005 6:22:43 AM PST by Rosary (Pray the rosary daily,wear the Brown scapular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon
Great article by Warren Throckmorton, PhD & quotes by Dr. Robert Gagnon. This really opened my eyes to Christ's use of the word eunuch. I understand better that Christ realized there was homosexuality, saw there was different types and causes, but still called his redeemed people to honorable (non-cheating-or-divorcing) marriage or abstinence.

He calls us back to the beginning and gave us all his grace and the Holy Spirit to help. Only with God can we meet the challenge and call of Christ.
12 posted on 11/02/2005 6:37:48 AM PST by klossg (GK - God is good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

I thought about this issue last Sunday when the Gospel reading had Jesus telling people to do whatever the Pharisees say, but don't follow what they do (because they are hypocrites who don't practice what they preach). Obviously, since the Pharisees were for following the law of Moses to the letter, Jesus here is telling His followers to follow the sexual proscriptions in the Mosaic law.


13 posted on 11/02/2005 6:55:51 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
What is the point in specifically restricting an "authoritative" voice to Jesus' words only, when in other parts of Scripture there is no ambiguity on this issue?

You misunderstand. I wasn't restricting an "authoritative" voice to Jesus' words only. Quite the opposite. I was mostly making fun of the idea that the Bible had to quote Jesus on a specific issue to make it taboo.

14 posted on 11/02/2005 7:26:20 AM PST by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon
Could Jesus be referring here to male homosexuals as being among those who experience no other sex attraction, and if so, does this passage signal the blessing of Jesus on homosexuality?

Leaving aside whether homosexuals were referred to by Jesus, I don't see any blessing in it. All Jesus says here is that those who for one reason or another do not marry cannot be held to the rules of divorce.

15 posted on 11/02/2005 7:26:55 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smedley

I think you miss my point. When the homosexual lobby insists that they can find no condemnation of the lifestyle in Jesus' words, even while, at the same time, they ignore several *explicit* condemnations of it in other parts of the New Testament, then they are clearly indicating that only the authority of a direct quote by Christ can matter. Since He says nothing *directly* touching on the issue, they say that there is no prohibition. But, again, this can only be accomplished with even a slight degree of intellectual honesty by totally ignoring the *authority* of any parts of the NT outside of the Gospels.

Bottom-line: it DOESN'T MATTER that Jesus isn't quoted directly addressing this issue. Other parts of the NT (not to mention several instances in the OT) DO specifically address the matter, and they are ALL the inspired word of God. They adequately address the matter of homosexuality as if Jesus DID specifically condemn it in Gospel quotations of His words.

These folks need to get that straight. Unless, of course, they're trying to discount the inspired, canonical status of all of the writings of St. Paul in the NT...

it wouldn't be the first time people tried to chop things out of the Bible that they considered "inconvenient"!


16 posted on 11/02/2005 8:52:02 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Smedley

I think you miss my point. When the homosexual lobby insists that they can find no condemnation of the lifestyle in Jesus' words, even while, at the same time, they ignore several *explicit* condemnations of it in other parts of the New Testament, then they are clearly indicating that only the authority of a direct quote by Christ can matter. Since He says nothing *directly* touching on the issue, they say that there is no prohibition. But, again, this can only be accomplished with even a slight degree of intellectual honesty by totally ignoring the *authority* of any parts of the NT outside of the Gospels.

Bottom-line: it DOESN'T MATTER that Jesus isn't quoted directly addressing this issue. Other parts of the NT (not to mention several instances in the OT) DO specifically address the matter, and they are ALL the inspired word of God. They adequately address the matter of homosexuality as if Jesus DID specifically condemn it in Gospel quotations of His words.

These folks need to get that straight. Unless, of course, they're trying to discount the inspired, canonical status of all of the writings of St. Paul in the NT...

it wouldn't be the first time people tried to chop things out of the Bible that they considered "inconvenient"!


17 posted on 11/02/2005 8:53:13 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

There's a fine line between "blessing" homosexuality and "acknowledging" its existence. The Catholic Church accepts the POSSIBILITY that homosexulaity, in some circumstances (certainly not all) is an involuntary disposition. That's neither here nor there. That doesn't change the steadfast position of the church that sexual relations outside of marriage (whether you're straight or gay) is a mortal sin. Since the Church will never recognize homosexual marriage, it will never condone gay sex. Inferring that there is a "blessing" of homosexuality is an enormous stretch. The Church blesses the celibate homosexual for his/her faithfulness to the teachings of the magisterium.


18 posted on 11/02/2005 9:29:13 AM PST by Rutles4Ever (Stuck on Genius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: klossg

I cannot see how the reference to "eunuchs" translates to a reference to homsexuality. Eunuchs are rendered incapable of sex completely. That's the whole point to their existence, after all. Active homosexuals are *hardly* incapable of sex; they are merely undesirous of sex in the normal, God-sanctioned, heterosexual fashion.

The context of the passage in question, Matthew 19:10-12, is rendered senseless by both Dr. Gagnon and Dr. Throckmorton, where the article explains: "Regarding Jesus’ phrase “eunuchs who were born thus” Dr. Gagnon said, “The saying does suggest a recognition on the part of Jesus and early Christianity that some men are born in such a way that they do not develop, as adolescents and adults, other-sex attractions, for whatever reason.” Such men are not born gay, but rather without responsiveness to the opposite sex. Attractions to the same sex may or may not develop during the formative years via a combination of temperamental and environmental factors."

Immediately prior to the issue about eunuchs, Jesus is being questioned about divorce, and the difficulties to be faced in the future Christian realm where divorce is not authorized, per Jesus' command. All of this, clearly, puts the context of what follows in a heterosexual light. The disciples, upon hearing Jesus speak of a condemnation of divorce, said: " if such is the case of a man with his wife, it is expedient not to marry." Jesus replied: "Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Clearly, Dr. Gagnon (and Dr. Throckmorton) is engaging in pro-homosexual eisegesis, rather than an honest, Christian exegesis. Nothing here even remotely looks like what he is talking about. The second category of eunuchs cited by Jesus is self-explanatory. The first category, given the context of marriage and divorce of *heterosexuals*, doesn't appeal to homosexual tendencies (for they do not behave as eunuchs) but to the fairly rare instances where a male's sexual organs are insufficiently developed, and/or a mental state where the man acts like a eunuch in that he is totally uninterested in sex of any kind - "asexuality."

The third category Jesus cites has nothing to do with homosexuality either: those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. Here, He is NOT talking literally about physical castration (He cannot possibly be endorsing the *sin* of self-mutilation for any reason, much less for the sake of the kingdom), but He is talking figuratively, where a man forsakes marriage and family to better serve God. He is talking about celibacy, as recommended by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 (note the last verse especially, as it applies the unmarried state to the total service of God). That's ALL He is doing.

I'm beginning to think that most of these wacky, "Jesus Seminar-type" theologians must read all of Scripture with thick Gnostic glasses. They see so many hyper-esoteric nuances that no one else can see in the often plain wording of the text, presumably because they, 2000 years removed from the writers, presume to "know" far more than anyone from the time of the inspiration of the books themselves right down to the present moment. And THIS, mind you, while they have a REAL agenda of deconstructing and rendering irrelevant the entire Bible right out of existence, as it is a stumbling block to the materialist, hedonistic, utilitarian pseudo-Christianity universally espoused by the likes of Dr. Gagnon and facilitators like Dr. Throckmorton.

There are many passages in Scripture that take a lot of study to comprehend. The ones cited in this article do not fall into that grouping. Their context makes them pretty darn self-explanatory. Obfuscators like the ones involved in this article need to make a simple decision: take up the cross and follow Christ, or reject Him and His word to follow the world. Gutting and rationalizing Scripture to the point of uselessness as a moral arbiter just doesn't cut it.


19 posted on 11/02/2005 9:51:08 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon
Many “gay” religionists insist that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality and thus could not have opposed it.

He also never mentioned bestiality, but somehow I don't see that as a ringing endorsement.

The root of this problem is this: to arrive at this conclusion you first must deny the Devine Inspiration of Scripture. Once you do that you can relegate anything not in red print as just being man's opinion based on a cultural bias.

20 posted on 11/02/2005 10:25:38 AM PST by Gamecock (Eternity is a long time to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

Look, I think that we're saying the same thing. I agree with you as my sarcastic comment was meant to convey the idea that it "DOESN'T MATTER that Jesus isn't quoted directly addressing this issue."


21 posted on 11/02/2005 11:03:29 AM PST by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

Those claiming Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality always omit his repeated references to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of what awaits those who do not repent. Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:23-24, Luke 10:12, Luke 17:29.

The apostle Peter, who no doubt heard Jesus' teaching, says virtually the same thing in one of his epistles. 2 Peter 2:5-7

And no, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for the sin of "inhospitality." Everyone in Jesus' time knew what Sodom and Gomorrah were about:

". . .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." Jude 1:7


22 posted on 11/02/2005 11:21:46 AM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Lacey

Dennis Prager

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html#

Has a good exposition. It seems that Moses was the original "homophobe."because a new sexual morality based on heterosexuality was part and parcel of worship of Yahweh, a sexless god altogether different from the bisexual gods of the Canaanites and Egyptions.


23 posted on 11/02/2005 11:44:46 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

What it does is to reject the Bible as a revelation, the acceptance of which is to enter into a covenent with God altogether different from the gods of Egypt and Babylon.


24 posted on 11/02/2005 11:47:41 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
Wait and see, coming soon is some 'scholar' that will insist there is evidence that Jesus performed same-sex marriages!

The latest argument making the rounds in the LGBT community is along the following lines: "Jesus, when he accepted St. Veronica's veil, didn't first ask her if she was a Lesbian, ergo, charity, not homosexuality was the most important thing to Jesus. Therefore, there's no question He would have approved of gay marriage"

25 posted on 11/02/2005 1:35:46 PM PST by Antioch (Benedikt Gott Geschickt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
When discussing various aspects of religious matters with some antireligous folks I know, who insist there is some tacit racism in the bible, I like the looks in their faces when I bring up the fact that there is scriptural evidence that Moses married a black woman, an Ethiopian ('Kushite').
26 posted on 11/02/2005 1:52:08 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Antioch

Doesn't surprise me.


27 posted on 11/02/2005 2:02:37 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Antioch

Doesn't surprise me.


28 posted on 11/02/2005 2:02:53 PM PST by HitmanLV (Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

Let me guess the authors "orientation" .


29 posted on 11/02/2005 2:46:34 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Sola Scriptura,Sola Christus,Sola Gratia,Sola Fide,Soli Deo Gloria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Among the consequences of the unchanneled sex drive is the sexualization of everything — including religion. A super analysis by Mr. Prager. Thanks for sending it to me.
30 posted on 11/02/2005 7:35:52 PM PST by Dan Lacey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dan Lacey

I found it quite revealing. Ironic that the first "homophobe" was Moses.


31 posted on 11/02/2005 8:07:32 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

Liberals, gay activists, and feminists seem to have a problem with Paul. In general, they seem to think that Jesus is an OK guy that would be a pleasant comrade for toking up with. Paul is seen by them as, well, you or I might be, only more so. Paul hijacked Christianity and totally distorted it for 2000 years. According to them.


32 posted on 11/03/2005 12:44:21 PM PST by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Quite true. Perhaps we can use this to shoehorn them into irrelevancy. If they *won't* accept St. Paul's writings as canonical Scripture, then they are heretics. If they are heretics, then they can simply be totally ignored in the same way that a Hindu pontificating to Christians about the canon of Scripture can be ignored.

Let's prepare them for their potential sendoff with the words of Joshua 24:15, "Choose this day whom you will serve..."

When they have left (of their own choice) then no one, however squishy, will need to cater to them and feel constrained to make concessions. Then perhaps we can get on with the retroactively needed catechesis of the multitude.


33 posted on 11/03/2005 2:19:30 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

The direct answer to the question in the headline is "NO!".


34 posted on 11/03/2005 2:20:24 PM PST by Whitewasher (Would u like America to be a goat nation in the millennium to come? Keep pushing the "Roadmap" bull!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
The problem is, they won't leave. Look at the Epicopal church. Notice how they want to come to an "understanding", how they want want for us to be "inclusive". Oh, and remember to send your tithes and offerings.

Just part of the liberal's "long March" through the institutions.
35 posted on 11/03/2005 6:08:09 PM PST by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Well, it might not be easy to throw 'em all out individually, in the literal sense. But, if Church leaders would simply realize that these people, by (among other things) excising St. Paul from the scriptural canon, have excised themselves from the Body of Christ, they may yet see that they do not have to appease and coddle them, and can get on with authentically ministering to the rest of their flock.


36 posted on 11/03/2005 7:39:50 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon; DirtyHarryY2K

Later pingout!! (whoever gets to it first; I know you're busy and if I can't do it tonight I'll do it tomorrow.)


37 posted on 11/03/2005 7:43:49 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

I think it a good plan. Now we only need the church leaders (lay & clerical) to make it work.


38 posted on 11/03/2005 9:10:28 PM PST by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon; EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Throckmorton is always good.

Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.


39 posted on 11/03/2005 11:33:29 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Bottom-line: it DOESN'T MATTER that Jesus isn't quoted directly addressing this issue. Other parts of the NT (not to mention several instances in the OT) DO specifically address the matter, and they are ALL the inspired word of God. They adequately address the matter of homosexuality as if Jesus DID specifically condemn it in Gospel quotations of His words.

Christ did not quote specifically all of OT law regarding what God divinely revealed moral but He sure did endorse all it!

New Testament: Sacred Scripture on subject of homosexuality:

  • Matthew 5:1-48

    17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

    18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.

    19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


40 posted on 11/04/2005 12:22:40 AM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

My Opinion of Homo's and Liberals is best said in the text below:

Romans 1:21-31

1:21 Because, though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were they thankful; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1:23 And exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

1:24 Therefore God gave them up, through the lusts of their own hearts, to sexual impurity, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves:

1:25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women exchanged natural relations for that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise the men, leaving their natural relations with woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men doing that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1:28 And as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

1:29 They were filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malevolence; whisperers,

1:30 Slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31 Without understanding, untrustworthy, without natural affection, unmerciful:


41 posted on 11/04/2005 2:07:06 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing
Those claiming Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality always omit his repeated references to Sodom and Gomorrah

Jesus mentions this fate more often than just Matt and Luke. He advises that this fate, for those who won't receive His Word, in Mark and John and numerous other books, as a fate worse than the homosexuals received, as a fate worse than death.

42 posted on 11/04/2005 5:12:10 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks (If you don't like Jesus, you can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon
This is an article by Dennis Prager, Jewish conservative: Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
43 posted on 11/04/2005 5:48:47 AM PST by BizzeeMom (Member TTGC, Ladies Auxiliary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality..."
Here's just one of the problems in this question: using a Bible that was written to allow a king to marry as many times as he wanted to. Jesus didn't say the part about
" .. except for sexual immorality..".
This is like finding a right to abortion in the Constitution,but it aint in there!


44 posted on 11/04/2005 12:39:38 PM PST by jmaroneps37 (Everything points to it so why not call them the Whigs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine
Many people look at Galatians and Paul's fulmination against THE Law, and take this as their text against ALL law. But Romans leaves no doubt that he prized his heritage as a Jew and by no means repudiated the ethical code of his people who were, as the gays would say. "homophobic."
45 posted on 11/04/2005 1:00:08 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BizzeeMom

Thanks for spreading this around. To me this is the last word against the Christian and Jewish apologists for homosexuality.


46 posted on 11/04/2005 1:02:34 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

It is an awesome piece, I like to post it whenever I can! :)


47 posted on 11/04/2005 4:11:22 PM PST by BizzeeMom (Member TTGC, Ladies Auxiliary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper

Precisely.

That is why I detest people who call themselves "New Testament Christians". Jesus was no "New Testament Christian". He constantly and continually presented himself as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He was constantly quoting the Old Testament. The parable about the vineyard giving only wild grapes came from Isaiah.

"Then, starting with Moses, He explained what pointed to Him in all of scripture."

Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews. They all knew the laws of God. No one needed to have it repeated to them what "abomination" meant.


48 posted on 11/04/2005 5:21:57 PM PST by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chesley

I keep thinking of Ezekiel 9 where God showed Ezekiel the Babylonian exile a vision of His temple filled with worshippers of Asherah and Tammuz.

That didn't happen overnight. Doubtless "open minded" priests explained that in the modern world they should be more inclusive and tolerant towards other faith traditions. Asherah, Yahweh. What's the difference ? It would be so judgemental to limit worship to just worshippers of God.


49 posted on 11/04/2005 5:25:15 PM PST by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tuesday afternoon

"I have begun to wonder if the Greek word eunouchoi (eunuchs) might also include someone without natural attraction to the opposite sex."

I hardly think so, especially when you read the rest of that verse: "...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake."

KEY WORDS: "for the kingdom of heaven's sake." I don't think people were "born" homosexual for the sake of the Kingdom of God.


50 posted on 11/04/2005 5:38:22 PM PST by no dems (43 muscles to smile, 17 to frown, two to pull a trigger; I'm lazy and tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson