I can spend hours discussing things in the OT that were permitted that are no longer permitted: Divorce, Polygamy, Taking the Deceased Brother’s wife (a duty, regardless of one’s marital state), the slaughter of children, etc.That’s dishonest at the least. As I’ve noted multiple times, Jesus said the OT is valid:
The OT Says:
O’Reilly didn’t state OT or NT, he stated Jesus. Is it really that difficult to understand the incredibly obvious.Even in the NT:
The point may be in error, but the statement is obviously correct, proven repeatedly since nobody has provided a direct source.That is clearly not true, therefore, O’Reilly’s point is in error.
Correct.I am just pointing out that we don’t have records of Jesus directly saying, “No homosexual marriage,” or, “Don’t use contraception.”
Correct.The Church is clear on it’s teaching though.
Correct.O’Reilly doesn’t understand that just because Jesus didn’t say these things precisely, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a true teaching.
And correct yet again.People expect him to have the understanding of a Catholic Theologian, which isn’t reasonable.
Not only that, it chases people from the faith, which, IMHO, is sinful action. The Church certainly does not approach others with a lack of understanding in this manner. What one is saying must be understand before one can have an insightful and educational discussion with others.If people approach him (through letters) in the way I have been approached in this forum or how some people have responded in this thread, then it would weaken our point of view substantially.
By saying what marriage is, he is speaking indirectly about it. Directly speaking would be saying “homosexual marriage is wrong.” That is direct, to be condemning gay marriage by approving of straight marriage and offering no alternative would be speaking about it indirectly. I think some have trouble grasping this.If Jesus were to say something like:
“Eating only fish is permissible.”
Then that means, everything else, without having to specify it means that it is forbidden. He doesnt have to go through every article of food and say “Nope!” That one statement pretty much excludes everything else that is not fish.
By saying and defining what marriage is, He is directly speaking about it. That means if homosexuality doesn’t fit the bill between a man and a woman, it ain’t marriage. Very exclusive statement and very direct.
They came from Christ’s mouth.I
This are words from Matthew, not Christ.
He said porneia. That includes homosexual acts.It’s not about what Christ would say, but what Christ did say.
Huh? The point is he is making a silly statement.That would be false. Don’t forget that the U.S. is not a Catholic-majority country. Sola Sciptura is very common here, and to assume that a non-Sola Scriptura is common sense.
It’s from Matthew, and we don’t know how Matthew came to know this.They came from Christ’s mouth.
Matthew said this, and the statement was not actually addressing homosexuality. It’s an implication, at best.He said porneia. That includes homosexual acts.
Silliness is not a standard for determining whether or not a statement is correct in its context.Huh? The point is he is making a silly statement.
You can say that about any statement in Scripture. None of it was written by Jesus with His hand.It’s from Matthew, and we don’t know how Matthew came to know this.
Jesus said it recorded by Matthew. You are using 21st century standards that do not apply.Matthew said this, and the statement was not actually addressing homosexuality. It’s an implication, at best.
His statement is silly. His statement is not meaningful. His statement is equivalent to saying Jesus never mentioned child pornography.Silliness is not a standard for determining whether or not a statement is correct in its context.
No, it’s not my standards, it’s Mr. O’Reilly’s standards. Please keep your facts straight; it’s a great big problem in this thread. You’re arguing from one POV; Mr. O’Reilly is arguing from another…that should be very obvious by now.You are using 21st century standards that do not apply.
Silly and not meaningful are different from factual. We all state things that are silly, and are not meaningful to others. That has less than nothing to do with whether they are factual.His statement is silly. His statement is not meaningful.
That would be true, but there are plenty of quotes directly attributed to Christ that talk about children.Jesus never mentioned child pornography.