Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality [Obama Sez HE is smarter than Jesus, Moses, St. Paul]
Stand To Reason ^ | 2/9/12 | Alan Shlemon

Posted on 05/10/2012 2:19:06 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper

If you’ve ever said that homosexuality is a sin, there’s a good chance that someone tried to correct you with, “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.” It doesn’t matter what Bible verse you believe bolsters your claim, they believe that Jesus’ silence on the matter trumps all other considerations. But there are a number of reasons why this objection doesn’t work.

First, it’s not certain that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. The Gospel writers didn’t record everything that Jesus said – only what they thought was important to their audience. Indeed, most of what Jesus said (and did) was never written down. John 21:25 says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” It’s possible Jesus did talk about homosexuality, but the Gospel writers didn’t feel it was necessary to include it in their accounts.

Second, it’s clear what Jesus would say about homosexuality if asked. Jesus was an observant Jew who, like all Jews living under the Old Covenant, was bound by the Mosaic Law. That’s why He often referenced it (e.g. Jesus references the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22:37, 39). Therefore, if He was asked what He thought about homosexuality, He would have cited the Levitical prohibitions (Leviticus 18:20 and 20:13) that unequivocally state that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Third, Jesus did not speak about every immoral behavior. Should we infer that drunkenness, child sacrifice, and neglecting the elderly are appropriate since Jesus never said anything about them either? That’s absurd. Jesus addressed moral issues as they arose in conversation with His disciples and opponents. And even then, not every discussion was documented by the Gospel writers.

Fourth, the argument that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality presumes that the words of Jesus are more authoritative than the words of Scripture elsewhere. But it is the Holy Spirit – God Himself – who inspired all of the Bible, including epistles like Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy where homosexuality is addressed. Moreover, Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead and have been in perfect and eternal communion from eternity past. Therefore, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with what the Holy Spirit revealed about moral issues in the Bible.

Jesus’ scriptural silence on homosexuality is not relevant to the moral question. It seems like people are unwilling to accept what the Bible teaches when it conflicts with their own sensibilities.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexuality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last
To: altura
I’m not a literalist. It’s impossible. It can be refuted on the first three pages of Genesis.

Only when you presume you know the full scope of what is being said.

I'm reminded of the supercilious atheist who insisted the Bible is refuted by God referring to bats as a form of "bird" ... as if our modern taxonomy and nomenclature is some absolute fabric of universe.

When guys who design and build nuclear weapons for a living write books on the validity of Genesis (Gerald Schroeder), the wise student is cautious to conclude the matter settled.

51 posted on 05/10/2012 12:17:34 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: altura
Why would anyone CHOOSE a lifestyle that, until very recently was not only hated but dangerous?

Because people are wicked and perverse by nature.

Unlike a lot of people, I am pretty tolerant of God and don’t pretend to know what he thinks of things.

Funny. "A lot of people" are tolerant of those who pretend not to know what God thinks, even after He's made His divine opinion quite clear.

52 posted on 05/10/2012 12:26:43 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Youre welcome; somebody pointed that out to me years ago, and it left an impression. It is just a thought, though if someone considers His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well (about her adultery) there is no reason to deduce that Jesus would support a “homosexual lifestyle” by any means.


53 posted on 05/10/2012 2:27:09 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I don’t see how straights invented “gay marriage”; homosexuality is an obvious mental illness with no rational explanation for the bizarre behavior. Straights invented contraception thousands of years after Spartans (or Sodom & Gmorrah) did the “gay thing”.


54 posted on 05/10/2012 2:30:20 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Maybe not, but ‘Dad’ sure made his opinoins known to the Sodomites.

What makes you think this was God the Father who appeared to Moses at Sinai?

Jesus said:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)
Paul writes in Colossians 1:15:
[Jesus]..Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every create:

"No man has seen", "invisible"... God (the Father) cannot be seen. So, who have we seen? Either the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ. Consequently, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, spake all these words to Moses.

55 posted on 05/10/2012 3:00:34 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
Homosexual acts and contraceptive acts both involve a rejection of, or preference against, sex which is physiologically normal.

It's not true that straights invented contraception thousands of years after Spartans (or Sodom & Gmorrah) did the “gay thing”. The first recorded act of contraception was in Genesis 38, an episode which originated the term "Onanism," which means turning away from the natural procreative function of sex.

Contraception is condemned in the Didache, an early Christian document which was written probably even before the Gosepl of John, in the late first century.(Link.)

Natural marriage is man/woman, creates a marital bond, and typically results in childbearing if the people are physically healthy. Contraception, on the other hand, facilitates promiscuity and adultery, undermines marriage, and deliberately avoids a normal union and its natural results.

That vitiates marriage to the point where is is disappearing among straight people (half of the children born to women under 30 in 2011 were born out of wedlock). It also tends to redefine marriage as something which essentially "about" the gratification of adult desires, rather than something that is essentially "about" creating a family by begetting and raising children. That redefinition suits the ideology of gay marriage to a T.

56 posted on 05/10/2012 3:01:05 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
And He didn't 'appear' to the Sodomites, either--He SMOTE them!
57 posted on 05/10/2012 3:13:39 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
Now, I didn't say God The Father appeared to Moses at Sinai.

What is in my little KJV Exodus 24:15-18 is as follows:

15 And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount.

16 And the glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

17 And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud and gat him up into the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

But what it doesn't say is that Moses actually saw God.

However, that has little to do with the issue at hand.

Thumb through to Leviticus 18:22 Where the Lord was speaking to Moses: 22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abombination.

That is a pretty clear statement of disapproval.

But back in Genesis 19:24, the ultimate 'statement' is made: Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

Seems like a pretty clear sign the Lord didn't approve of the goings on there.

58 posted on 05/10/2012 3:41:51 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
But what it doesn't say is that Moses actually saw God.

You need to read ahead to chapter 33 which preceeds the second tables of stone:

And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:22,23)

However, that has little to do with the issue at hand

I think it is precisely the issue. People do not recognize that Jesus Christ is God; and that it was he who spoke the Law to Moses; and that he will judge the unbelieving at the great white throne using his law which is eternal.

59 posted on 05/10/2012 4:23:45 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting

You make a good point: The three are one, therefore Jesus did speak to the issue. Thank you for your patience.


60 posted on 05/10/2012 9:35:26 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“That vitiates marriage to the point where is is disappearing among straight people (half of the children born to women under 30 in 2011 were born out of wedlock).”

Laws & attorneys destroyed marriage between straight people; when T-shirts are sold asking: “Why get married? Find a nasty lady and buy her a house.” that says about all we need to know about the state of marriage today. Till boredom or the slightest setback do we part (with the financials stacked against the guy).

“It also tends to redefine marriage as something which essentially “about” the gratification of adult desires, rather than something that is essentially “about” creating a family by begetting and raising children. That redefinition suits the ideology of gay marriage to a T.”

Separating the sexual act from procreation isn’t the root of “homosexual marriage” (though they come to the same conclusion - no children); it is simply another symptom of the post-Christianity period of our history. “Homosexual couples” often like to buy children to “play family”.


61 posted on 05/11/2012 3:43:50 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
Granted there's a lot of factors here, and some of them form continuous feedback loops. I still say the big enabling technology was contraception. Enabling what? Enabling the redefinition of sex. Now instead of being "something that generates and sustains families and societies across the two genders and the 10,000 generations," it's "something we two want." Once 98% of the heterosexuals bought into the redefinition, it was easy, and in fact inevitable, for the 2% of homosexuals to say "Yeah, now that it's basically about twosiness, that's for us. That's exactly for us."

You refer to the fact that some gay couples like to acquire children and "play family" as a kind of accessory, an expensive luxury like raising prize dogs. But before the triumph of the contraceptive mentality, having children wasn't just a lifestyle option: it was a physical fact, one of the central facts of sexual commitment. That's why the urgency of "commitment" was there at all.

If it weren't for small dependent human beings being generated from sex, nobody would have ever thought of marriage. It would never have been invented. Why would people ask for religious solemnities or civil licensure or social approbation, for doing sterile jiggity with their excitable bits?

62 posted on 05/11/2012 8:47:26 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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