Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality [Obama Sez HE is smarter than Jesus, Moses, St. Paul]

Stand To Reason ^ | 2/9/12 | Alan Shlemon

[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.

[kearnyirish2]

“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”.

[Mrs. Don-o]

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?