O
oneofmany
Guest
Some people say Jesus never talked about homosexuality. Is this true? They usually say it in support of gays.
- Status
E
Estevao
Guest
Yes, Jesus said that sexual acts outside of marriage defile us (Matthew 15:17-20), and he affirmed that marriage is a lifelong, unbreakable union between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-7).
A
afthomercy
Guest
I think if Jesus had explicitly said something against homosexuality, the Pope would never have said what he said (about not judging gays).
M
marymary1975
Guest
This is not correct. In Matthew 19 Jesus is not talking procreation. You are grabbing the sentence and isolating from the entire text. In Matthew 19 (read the entire versicle) Jesus is specifically and directly being asked about marriage and divorce and jrsud is responding specifically that divorce is not allowed and he specifically defining what marriage is. He declares that in marriage man and woman become one flesh “therefore what god has joined together let no one separate”
Making babies is not the subject is marriage. If he was just talking about reproducing his last sentence makes no sense and then it would mean that Jesus is delusional because he is answering something that has no relevance to what he has been asked.
Finally Jesus did say follow the commandments. What the commandment says: do not fornicaye. Homosexual acts are fornication and given that Jesus specifically narrows marriage to one man and one woman (and note that Jesus nowhere overthrows the existing undisputed law as to homosexuality - forbidden) then right there is clear that homosexual acts are considered sinful by Jesus.
S
Stephen_says
Guest
I have a question, a real question with no malice.
He says “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 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’.”
Now, a lot of people would take that to mean that the ONLY legitimate union is between a male and female, because that is the only union that he spoke specifically of. How would you respond to that? If we only have what he said, is it appropriate for us to assume how he would teach about something he never taught specifically about? Also, do you think it’s fair to say he was speaking specifically about procreating, even though the question posed to him was about marriage?
Peace
Y
Yeoman
Guest
On this topic, a person should keep a couple of things in mind.
First of all, we have only a selection of what Christ said during his lifetime. There’s simply no way that everything Christ said would have been recorded, given the technology of the time.
Secondly, it’s extremely clear that at his time marriage was between men and women, no exceptions. This is the global human norm. Christ did address that relationship, going against the law of Moses by noting that divorce was not allowable under God’s law, but that God had tolerated due to the “hardness” of the hearts he had interacted with earlier. So, in looking at Christ’s statements, there’s no way that a person can presume any license in them for relations outside of marriage, nor for more than one marriage save one terminated by death.
Thirdly, if we accept that the Gospels are divinely inspired, and as Christians we do, St. Paul certainly had something to say on this topic. His words clearly demonstrate what the Apostles regarded as sinful conduct, and unless we are going to reduce the Gospels back out of divinely inspired texts, which would go completely against the Magesterium and which would further go against the Catholic statement that the books of the Bible have been infallibly determined, we can’t get around that.
Fourthly, we sometimes forget that Christ was merciful towards sinners, but he wasn’t accepting of sin. Something we should keep in mind.
Fifthly, we sometimes tend to make the mistake that our understanding of any condition, psychological or medical, has:
a. Always existed; and
b. At least is correct, as its our understanding.
If we consider this topic, however, we’ll tend to find that for the most part the concept that those with same gender attractions were a distinct class that could be defined by a name is erroneous. Rather, for most of human history in most places, people who acted in that fashion were not regarded as really being a separate class so much as they were regarded as regular folks who had given into an sinful and unnatural temptation.
A problem here is that even today our current understanding of this condition is really very poorly formed. We don’t really know what causes it now, and we don’t know if that’s the same thing that caused it for the most part back when. That it has always happened, we know. But the origin of the impulse, which actually occurs in a very small percentage of human beings, may have different origins, some of which may be much more common now compared to in the past, and others which may be less common now. We know, for example, that it was a problem associated with all male groups living and working in close contact for months on end, such as in sailing ships (which also gave rise to a lot of other vices). That sort of thing is probably less common now. It’s suspected by some that most of the cause now is a genetic predisposition that doesn’t give rise to the conduct until something goes wrong in a person’s early upbringing. That might be much more common now than in the past, given the pathetic state of the family today and the focus on materialism. My point here is that our current lumping of this behavior into one single group might be regarded as laughably off the mark at some point in the future, at which point people will be wondering why it was that we even spoke of the group as a group.
First of all, we have only a selection of what Christ said during his lifetime. There’s simply no way that everything Christ said would have been recorded, given the technology of the time.
Secondly, it’s extremely clear that at his time marriage was between men and women, no exceptions. This is the global human norm. Christ did address that relationship, going against the law of Moses by noting that divorce was not allowable under God’s law, but that God had tolerated due to the “hardness” of the hearts he had interacted with earlier. So, in looking at Christ’s statements, there’s no way that a person can presume any license in them for relations outside of marriage, nor for more than one marriage save one terminated by death.
Thirdly, if we accept that the Gospels are divinely inspired, and as Christians we do, St. Paul certainly had something to say on this topic. His words clearly demonstrate what the Apostles regarded as sinful conduct, and unless we are going to reduce the Gospels back out of divinely inspired texts, which would go completely against the Magesterium and which would further go against the Catholic statement that the books of the Bible have been infallibly determined, we can’t get around that.
Fourthly, we sometimes forget that Christ was merciful towards sinners, but he wasn’t accepting of sin. Something we should keep in mind.
Fifthly, we sometimes tend to make the mistake that our understanding of any condition, psychological or medical, has:
a. Always existed; and
b. At least is correct, as its our understanding.
If we consider this topic, however, we’ll tend to find that for the most part the concept that those with same gender attractions were a distinct class that could be defined by a name is erroneous. Rather, for most of human history in most places, people who acted in that fashion were not regarded as really being a separate class so much as they were regarded as regular folks who had given into an sinful and unnatural temptation.
A problem here is that even today our current understanding of this condition is really very poorly formed. We don’t really know what causes it now, and we don’t know if that’s the same thing that caused it for the most part back when. That it has always happened, we know. But the origin of the impulse, which actually occurs in a very small percentage of human beings, may have different origins, some of which may be much more common now compared to in the past, and others which may be less common now. We know, for example, that it was a problem associated with all male groups living and working in close contact for months on end, such as in sailing ships (which also gave rise to a lot of other vices). That sort of thing is probably less common now. It’s suspected by some that most of the cause now is a genetic predisposition that doesn’t give rise to the conduct until something goes wrong in a person’s early upbringing. That might be much more common now than in the past, given the pathetic state of the family today and the focus on materialism. My point here is that our current lumping of this behavior into one single group might be regarded as laughably off the mark at some point in the future, at which point people will be wondering why it was that we even spoke of the group as a group.
C
chero23
Guest
But if Jesus said that “procreating”, two men cannot do that or 2 women. At the same time Jesus could of if he wanted and go back and say you know homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testament but I tell it’s ok. Remember I believe that it’s in Matthew were he says, the law states that you separate your spouse but I tell you anybody who does commits adultery. Jesus is God and he could of corrected anything.
Plus he gave the authority to the Church about decisions, St. Paul, St, John, and St. Jude all condemn homosexuality.
F
foofydo
Guest
Leviticus 18:22 you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
F
foofydo
Guest
1 corithians 7:2
romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with woman and were consumed with passion for oneanother men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves their due penalty of their error
romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with woman and were consumed with passion for oneanother men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves their due penalty of their error
E
EasterJoy
Guest
“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
Matt. 19:12
So, he said that marriage is not for everyone, but some are born incapable of marriage. This means that the argument that everyone is entitled to marry according to the inclination they were born with is wrong.
Also, in the context of a discourse about lust, he said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.”** Matt 5:29-30** In other words, this is another caution that you do not have a right to violate morality because of your natural bodily inclination.
He did not specifically forbid any of a long list of sexual sins, but instead assumed (as his audience did) that sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is forbidden. He was not preaching to Greeks, but to Jews, so there was no need to argue about whether homosexual acts were forbidden. It was accepted that they were. Had he meant to challenge that traditional teaching, he would have had to have been very explicit about it. As it was, he condemned lust and acting on lust very broadly. What he explicitly suggested was what his audience would not have immediately accepted: that is, that not everyone in the Kingdom of God is going to seek a spouse, but that some will renounce marriage in order to dedicate themselves to the Kingdom. This is something our contemporaries think is entirely unreasonable, but as Our Lord said: “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
Matt. 19:12
So, he said that marriage is not for everyone, but some are born incapable of marriage. This means that the argument that everyone is entitled to marry according to the inclination they were born with is wrong.
Also, in the context of a discourse about lust, he said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.”** Matt 5:29-30** In other words, this is another caution that you do not have a right to violate morality because of your natural bodily inclination.
He did not specifically forbid any of a long list of sexual sins, but instead assumed (as his audience did) that sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is forbidden. He was not preaching to Greeks, but to Jews, so there was no need to argue about whether homosexual acts were forbidden. It was accepted that they were. Had he meant to challenge that traditional teaching, he would have had to have been very explicit about it. As it was, he condemned lust and acting on lust very broadly. What he explicitly suggested was what his audience would not have immediately accepted: that is, that not everyone in the Kingdom of God is going to seek a spouse, but that some will renounce marriage in order to dedicate themselves to the Kingdom. This is something our contemporaries think is entirely unreasonable, but as Our Lord said: “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
T
truetofaith
Guest
If we believe that the whole Bible is inspired by God, then not only the things Jesus talked about but also what is stated in the Old Testament & the other books of the New is true!
Read : Romans 1 :24 -30. Specifically, "men also abandoned natural relations with women & were inflamed with lust for one another, committing indecent acts with other men, & received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
A
anon98328916
Guest
Exactly well put. Homosexuality when acted upon is a mortal sin and offends God greatly.
A
anon98328916
Guest
Matthew 19, Jesus is asked whether a man can divorce his wife for “any cause.” Jesus replies:
Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female [Genesis 1:27], 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” [Genesis 2:24]? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
Jesus firstly makes it clear that we are only meant to marry once and when a man and woman marry they become “one flesh”, this also makes it clear that ONLY a man and woman are meant to marry and be together. Jesus didn’t say two men or the latter did He? God created us, men and women to be together to become one flesh. The last part Jesus makes very clear.
T
truetofaith
Guest
EasterJoy said : "not everyone in the Kingdom of God is going to seek a spouse, but that some will renounce marriage in order to dedicate themselves to the Kingdom. This is something our contemporaries think is entirely unreasonable, but as Our Lord said: “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” "
St. Paul devoted his life to furthering the spread of the gospel and didn’t marry but he didn’t recommend the single life to everyone. That’s why Catholic priests must be sure before they accept the vow of celibacy.
Homosexuality is condemned in both old & new testaments as was quoted in earlier posts.
St. Paul devoted his life to furthering the spread of the gospel and didn’t marry but he didn’t recommend the single life to everyone. That’s why Catholic priests must be sure before they accept the vow of celibacy.
Homosexuality is condemned in both old & new testaments as was quoted in earlier posts.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Here is the main thing: The evidence of the Gospels is that Our Lord not only did not loosen the sexual laws of the Jews, but in fact cautioned them against re-writing the law of God to fit their hardness of heart. Instead, he preached compassion to those who committed sexual sin, bidding those who fall to repent, seek pardon, and amend their lives.
Homosexual acts were strictly forbidden to Jews. By reading the Epistles (which are earlier documents than the Gospels) and Acts, it is clear that although the Gentiles did have customs abhorrent to Jews that the Apostles believed unnecessary for them to renounce in order to become Christians, permissive sexual practices were not among the practices that Christianity was willing to accept. In the Council of Jerusalem, the Gentiles were told: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’ Acts 15:28-29
The sexual practices of the Greeks, which permitted sexual consort outside of a man-woman marriage, were not ever accepted as a teaching of the Lord. Had he made such a teaching, it would have been made clear in the preaching of the Church, just as the teaching about laws of kashrut and circumcision were clearly identified as not being binding on Christian converts.
Homosexual acts were strictly forbidden to Jews. By reading the Epistles (which are earlier documents than the Gospels) and Acts, it is clear that although the Gentiles did have customs abhorrent to Jews that the Apostles believed unnecessary for them to renounce in order to become Christians, permissive sexual practices were not among the practices that Christianity was willing to accept. In the Council of Jerusalem, the Gentiles were told: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’ Acts 15:28-29
The sexual practices of the Greeks, which permitted sexual consort outside of a man-woman marriage, were not ever accepted as a teaching of the Lord. Had he made such a teaching, it would have been made clear in the preaching of the Church, just as the teaching about laws of kashrut and circumcision were clearly identified as not being binding on Christian converts.
E
Eternal_One
Guest
Remember that Jesus came to reaffirm and fulfill the Law.
So Jesus would’ve naturally upheld this teaching too.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Great answer, one I hadn’t seen before.One could argue what “incapable” means, but I like the answer.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Certainly the Gospels do not imply that there is a right to marry or that marriage ought to bend to how you were born, rather than how you are born bending to the reality of what marriage is.
One could argue what “incapable” means, but I like the answer.
John the Baptist condemned Herod for marrying his brother’s ex-wife. Our Lord taught that the woman who was divorced and re-married was “forced to commit adultery.” He did not say she might not feel forced to find a husband, and yet he characterized the resulting marriage as inherently adulterous. The idea that charity that follows Our Lord’s teachings has ever implied that all marriages anyone can think up are equally good an moral is totally from out in left field. It is just made up.
Our Lord did not find the willingness of Moses to let people divorce and re-marry to be a form of compassion, either. He condemned it as an accommodation made to hardness of heart. Yet how are Catholics who say that divorce and remarriage are immoral characterized?
M
marymary1975
Guest
Also let’s not forget that Jesus expressly overthrew entire sections of Leviticus however he did overthrew the sections regarding homosexuality. Jesus knew the law perfectly and he knew what should remain as doctrine and what should had been overthrew. Whatever needed to be overthrew he specifically said so (dietary laws for example.) But he never overthrew laws on fornication or made exceptions to it. Which means that the prohibition coming from the old testament as to homosexual acts remains.
Also for example, we can mention that Jesus never mentioned nothing expressly as to burglary being a sin. Should we then say that burglary should be accepted because Jesus never specifically said that burglary is sinful?
Also for example, we can mention that Jesus never mentioned nothing expressly as to burglary being a sin. Should we then say that burglary should be accepted because Jesus never specifically said that burglary is sinful?
C
chero23
Guest
That’s right. Your post reflects my post, where Jesus said, in the past they told you to hate your enemies but I tell you to love them. Jesus is God and he could of fixed the homosexuality issue but he didn’t bc he knew that it was wrong.
- Status