O Reilly just said Jesus never said anything about homosexual marriage or contraception

[Seeker1961]

That letter in particular was addressed to the Romans. Are you going to imply that the French or the Brazilians could be exempted from these teachings?

Please note St. Paul is very clearly saying “man” “women” I doubt that his admonishments can be construed to be applied just to the particular recipients.

On the contrary I would submit to you he sent that letter precisely because the Romans were indulging in those practices. What other possible reason could he have?

Unfortunately it seems that in 2000 years we have changed very little.

Paul was writing to churches…all of his letters were to established churches that he founded. This is basic theology taught in any Catholic college, we even learned that in theology in high school. Therefore, he is giving instruction to those who have made, or who are interested in making a commitment to Jesus.

Those of us who have chosen to commit their lives to Christ live under a different set of rules than secular society. Our commission is not to force secular society to obey those rules but to lead people to Jesus so He can change their lives. I say this as one He changed-no earthly power could have done what He did. No amount of “fraternal correction” could have done what He did, and I heard plenty of it. I was fortunate enough to have a decent number of Catholics in my life that understood that His power was greater and to let Him do the work. It is because of their witness that I am not one of the “nones” today.

 

[ValPal]

And that “frame of reference,” as I mentioned earlier, is 100% irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant to Mr. O’Reilly, because that’s what he meant. I’ll place a bet that if he was specifically asked if it were possible that Jesus spoke on the subject, yet wasn’t recorded, you’d get a different answer. Mr. O’Reilly, unlike many other talking heads on TV, isn’t an unreasonable human being.

Furthermore, not everyone thinks from a Catholic mindset, including Catholics. Many Catholics don’t even have an inkling of what Tradition is, and thus don’t even consider it when discussing Catholicism. To many, “What Jesus Says” means just that; what specific words came out of Christ’s mouth, not what the Apostles said or what the Church said.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All one has to do to prove Mr. O’Reilly wrong is point to exactly where Christ directly stated otherwise. Not through the Church, or the opinion of an Apostle, but where Christ actually stated otherwise. Otherwise, it’s just a battle of personal opinions.

I did, you just aren’t accepting it.

Jesus spoke of marriage and He said that God created MAN and WOMAN and that the two would be ONE flesh.

Now, by stating man and woman and that the two would be one, He is automatically stating that marriage is exactly that formula. Not two men, one woman. . .two women, one man. . .not one man and another man, not one woman and another woman.

For Pete’s sake, how much clearer does He have to be?

He doesn’t then or ever say, 'for God created people, and two people who LOVE each other, no matter what their sex, can marry.

To say that because Jesus never said, "thou shalt not have homosexual marriage’ is ignoring the point that in DELINEATING what marriage IS (one man and one woman), He was saying that anything BUT that was simply not thinkable, not acceptable, not correct, and NOT POSSIBLE.

 

[livingwordunity]

He said this tonight on The Factor.

How does he know Jesus never spoke on it?

He needs some emails I think…

Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman (Adam and Eve) so would therefore be against so-called “same-sex marriage”.

 

[ValPal]

I did, you just aren’t accepting it.

Jesus spoke of marriage and He said that God created MAN and WOMAN and that the two would be ONE flesh.

Now, by stating man and woman and that the two would be one, He is automatically stating that marriage is exactly that formula. Not two men, one woman. . .two women, one man. . .not one man and another man, not one woman and another woman.

For Pete’s sake, how much clearer does He have to be?

Your attempting to prove something by implication. Mr. O’Reilly is clearly relying on explicit statements. And in that frame of reference, which is the frame of reference he is clearly using, he would be correct.

Part of the problem in having debates is having a common frame of reference. If two people are debating from two frames of reference, neither will ever understand each other. That’s exactly what is going on in this thread.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Your attempting to prove something by implication. Mr. O’Reilly is clearly relying on explicit statements. And in that frame of reference, which is the frame of reference he is clearly using, he would be correct.

No, he is not “correct,” because the “frame of reference” he is using is entirely irrelevant for the genre, the anthropology, the linguistic base, and the historical time frame which are in question.

 

[Brendan]

O’Reilly erred.

Christ is the same God who gave us the Old Testament. Those are His Words, recorded by Moses and the Prophets; just as much as anything recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

 

[fix]

Your attempting to prove something by implication. Mr. O’Reilly is clearly relying on explicit statements. And in that frame of reference, which is the frame of reference he is clearly using, he would be correct.

Part of the problem in having debates is having a common frame of reference. If two people are debating from two frames of reference, neither will ever understand each other. That’s exactly what is going on in this thread.

His frame of reference and question are not meaningful.

 

[ValPal]

His frame of reference and question are not meaningful.

Is there any recorded instance of Jesus using the word homosexual? The answer is a flat-out no. It really isn’t that difficult to understand, and it’s pointless to argue.

That’s an entirely different matter than where the Church stands on the matter. O’Reilly obviously doesn’t equate Church with Christ. Forcing “Church equals Christ” onto O’Reilly’s statement is to entirely misunderstand what he is saying.

I’m of the opinion that people should attempt to understand what others are saying, not misunderstand what they are saying. The former can created greater understanding between people, while the latter divides.

 

[fix]

Is there any recorded instance of Jesus using the word homosexual? The answer is a flat-out no.

I have read that scholars say Jesus used a term that was used to cover all sexual sin that included homosexual acts. Jesus did not say airplane either. So what?

It really isn’t that difficult to understand, and it’s pointless to argue.

It is pointless that he mentioned it. It had no value.

That’s an entirely different matter than where the Church stands on the matter. O’Reilly obviously doesn’t equate Church with Christ. Forcing “Church equals Christ” onto O’Reilly’s statement is to entirely misunderstand what he is saying.

If that is his point then I repeat what I said above. His point has no meaning.

I’m of the opinion that people should attempt to understand what others are saying, not misunderstand what they are saying. The former can created greater understanding between people, while the latter divides.

Your position makes little sense. It would be like saying Jesus never mentions nuclear war. So what?

 

[ValPal]

I have read that scholars say Jesus used a term that was used to cover all sexual sin that included homosexual acts. Jesus did not say airplane either. So what?

Did airplanes exists in Jesus’ time?

Please, let’s have a discussion as adults.

It is pointless that he mentioned it. It had no value.

Pointless things are stated everyday by you, me, and everyone else; there is not prohibition against it.

If that is his point then I repeat what I said above. His point has no meaning.

Do you really expect every person that speaks on Catholic matters to be a Catholic theologian?

Why not just send him an email and state what he says is pointless? I’m sure that will be really helpful in him understanding your POV, and I’m sure he’ll change his mind.

Your position makes little sense. It would be like saying Jesus never mentions nuclear war. So what?

Once again, let’s have a discussion as adults. Your forcing something someone said into a different scenario and calling what someone said wrong.

The statements Jesus stated as recorded in the Bible are referring to men and women, not homosexuals. Various logic conclusions can come from those statements, but it is incorrect to state the he was referring to homosexuals in those statements.

 

[bri89]

Are there a lot of people on here that are devotees of Fox news?? That’s disconcerting. He is a paid propagandist like Glenn beck, Sean hannity, Rush limbaugh. Rupert Murdoch extends his empire by buying up numerous media outlets in the U.S and does nothing but disseminate right wing propaganda 24/7 which appeals to the lowest common denominator. The level of journalistic integrity on Fox news is so low, and I realize the same could be said of the “liberal” news networks. All major news outlets are purely profit driven, they aren’t really liberal or conservative, that’s just a ploy, they serve money only , and the format and featuring of their shows is all designed to keep their target audience watching, none of them seriously reports the news. Why should anything O’reilly says carry any weight with Catholics. SImply because he claims to be Catholic?

 

[djames99]

He said this tonight on The Factor.

How does he know Jesus never spoke on it?

He needs some emails I think…

Jesus not speaking of it is not an indicator he doesn’t agree with his Father’s laws.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The statements Jesus stated as recorded in the Bible are referring to men and women, not homosexuals. Various logic conclusions can come from those statements, but it is incorrect to state the he was referring to homosexuals in those statements.

You seriously do not understand how Scripture works, and what the reference points were for both Jesus Himself and the writers of the Gospels. The reference points, when He discussed sexuality, referred to traditional, legitimate sexuality between men and women, not between men and men or women and women. He didn’t “mention” homosexuality because it was understood that it was forbidden. Forbidden by Mosaic Code. Forbidden by the Jews contemporary with Jesus, whom Jesus repeatedly acknowledged harmony with. (The only difference being that He drew His own authority, confirming the Judaic Code, directly from His Father, The Source of Truth and Natural Law.) Jesus reinforced that Mosaic Code, which itself was built on Natural Law and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, referred to in the OT as the Shekinah.

Logic stems from premises. Your premises (as you seem to state & repeat them over and over), and Bill Reilly’s premises, are wrong.

 

[ValPal]

You seriously do not understand how Scripture works,

You seriously are incorrect (you know that I concur with the Church’s teaching on the matter…correct?), seriously do not understand what I am saying, and seriously do not understand Bill O’Reilly or what he was saying. I am not imposing my frame of reference on Mr. O’Reilly’s frame of reference, because what that results in is not being able to see the elephant in the room.

He didn’t “mention” homosexuality

You just paraphrased what Mr. O’Reilly stated. In other words, you concur with Mr. O’Reilly.

Logic stems from premises. Your premises (as you seem to state & repeat them over and over), and Bill Reilly’s premises, are wrong.

It’s not about logic. This is an entirely separate issue, which people are failing to get. Remember that nearly all non-Catholics, and many Catholics, simply do not understand the connection between Christ, Church, and Tradition. From what I’ve seen from Mr. O’Reilly, he probably doesn’t. Don’t assume he does.

If the OP’s question was “Did Mr. O’Reilly’s Statements Concur with The Church’s Position on Homosexuality,” I wouldn’t be having this discussion. That’s not what the heading states, contrary to the beliefs of many.

 

[aragonjohn1]

In Palestine, amongst the Jews during the time of Christ, homosexuality was such an abomination that the existing Jewish homosexuals were literally under the floor of the closet. A homosexual could be stoned to death for his/her actions at that time. It was considered by the masses to be something that only pagans, such as the Romans did. Thus, it was never a subject for discussion, as was marriage or sexual acts outside of marriage.
It wan’t until St. Paul started dealing with gentiles in what is now Syria that homosexual acts were written about and soundly condemned by him.
The fact that Christ did not specifically speak of it doesn’t lessen the fact that these actions were considered grievious sins.

this

also they presumably got it from greeks and they may have got it from sodomites or a similer culture.

Shalom
God Bless you on you’re journey

 

[fix]

Did airplanes exists in Jesus’ time?

Please, let’s have a discussion as adults.

Pointless things are stated everyday by you, me, and everyone else; there is not prohibition against it.

Do you really expect every person that speaks on Catholic matters to be a Catholic theologian?

Why not just send him an email and state what he says is pointless? I’m sure that will be really helpful in him understanding your POV, and I’m sure he’ll change his mind.

Once again, let’s have a discussion as adults. Your forcing something someone said into a different scenario and calling what someone said wrong.

The statements Jesus stated as recorded in the Bible are referring to men and women, not homosexuals. Various logic conclusions can come from those statements, but it is incorrect to state the he was referring to homosexuals in those statements.

What is unadult about pointing such an erroneous position? When some person says Jesus never mentioned homosexuals what is the point? Is it just an observation? If so then my point stands. He never mentioned many things or at least they are not recorded. So? What is the implication of stating such a thing?

 

[exnihilo]

Are there a lot of people on here that are devotees of Fox news?? That’s disconcerting. He is a paid propagandist like Glenn beck, Sean hannity, Rush limbaugh. Rupert Murdoch extends his empire by buying up numerous media outlets in the U.S and does nothing but disseminate right wing propaganda 24/7 which appeals to the lowest common denominator. The level of journalistic integrity on Fox news is so low, and I realize the same could be said of the “liberal” news networks. All major news outlets are purely profit driven, they aren’t really liberal or conservative, that’s just a ploy, they serve money only , and the format and featuring of their shows is all designed to keep their target audience watching, none of them seriously reports the news.

Amen. I think realizing this was one of the keys to helping free my mind and realizing greater peace. The news is designed to be outrageous to attract viewers. Why are self described conservatives always complaining about the liberal news? If they don’t like it don’t buy it and it will wither away. The same Fox News that is supposedly conservative is always making sure to show the long legs of its female news hosts. The same Fox News that is supposedly conservative is part of the Fox network that shows the most immoral shows on network TV. What Thomas Jefferson said over two hundred years ago is just as true today: ‘the man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers’.

 

[buffalo]

Important to remember - the word homosexual was not coined until recently.

 

[fix]

Important to remember - the word homosexual was not coined until recently.

Yep, but Jesus did use the word Porneia which included all sexual impurity including homosexual acts. So it was mentioned.