Posted on 11/01/2005 8:03:22 PM PST by tuesday afternoon
re: this string.... and they're off.....
Wait and see, coming soon is some 'scholar' that will insist there is evidence that Jesus performed same-sex marriages!
What did Jesus say about nude lesbian jello wrestling?
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.
Jesus never mentioned "rape" either so that makes it all right, eh?
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.
Don't bring Jesus into this-He has enough mocking Him-
SIN IS SIN
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.
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.
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.
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"!
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"!
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.
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.
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.
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.