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

[buffalo]

Op - u have the link of O’reilly saying that?

Not yet - it was on tonight. Catch it on the rerun tonight - towards the end.

 

[fix]

The question is who invented that list? How is “sodomy” infinitely worse than oppression of the poor? Than bestiality, or pedophilia? Sodomy only causes harm to two people- and that’s the two people who commit the act. Oppression of the poor, defraudiing workers of wages, and murder affects everybody.

The yardstick is Christ not our weak minds. Kinda like saying we are good people because we have not killed like a mafia hit man. Not really Catholic reasoning.

 

[fix]

Last time I checked, that was never in my catechism- and they don’t mention Sodomy on that list in the catechism, either. While I’m not denying homosexuality is, to use the words of the Catechism, “gravely disordered,” I cannot logically, using reason, imagine a sexual, private sin to affect everybody and be worse than things that are true injustices. Plus, it is statistically impossible for an entire city to be homosexual, knowing what we have learned from modern science. It is not, however, imposible for an entire city to be arrogant, and hate strangers enough to rape them.

And need I quote again: “The Lord executed his judgement on Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Zeboim, and all the regions of the Jordan and he burned them with fire and brimstone, and destroyed them until this day, even as I have declared unto thee all their works, that they are wicked and sinners exceedingly, and that they defile themselves and commit fornication in their flesh…”

Need I remind you that fornication is listed explicitly as a **man-woman **sin?

There is no “private” sin does not effect all in the Body of Christ.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One cannot claim He never spoke on it. A suitable claim is there is no record of the Authors of the Gospels recording it.

An even more suitable claim is that the Authors of the Gospels selected what was the News that Jesus brought and proclaimed --which included very much, of course, but would not have included what was a continuation of the Mosaic Code, since that was certainly not news and considerably predated Jesus’ ministry.

An equally suitable claim is that there would have been, most likely, no “Christianity” which survived if Jesus had turned the Mosaic Code completely on its head when it came to what was universally perceived by Jews as essential to that code. Notice how often he reinforced that code. He reinforced it much more often than taking issue with it, and when he does take issue with it it is never about the core morality of interpersonal behavior, but rather technical aspecs of dietary & Sabbath regulations (which were later additions imposed by Pharisees trying to establish their own legitimacy vs. the Levites). Jesus’ interpretation of Jewish sexual morality is rigorous, as is his interpretation of the rest of the Law relating to behavior. His proclamations were in no way “Jewish light.” They could be described as “Jewish deep.”

Had he invalidated Jewish Law, he would have had an insignificant following and an lukewarm level of commitment from disciples and apostles, probably also resulting in much fewer martyrdoms, which in themselves energized the Faith.

(It helps to know not only how Scripture works, but how history works. )

Funny how information trumps ignorance all the time.

 

[ValPal]

He said this tonight on The Factor.

How does he know Jesus never spoke on it?

He needs some emails I think…

I think people are misinterpreting what he said and drawing all the wrong conclusions. What he means, and most other people when they say such things, is that there is no written record of Jesus speaking on the subject. And from that frame of reference he’s 100% correct.

 

[buffalo]

I think people are misinterpreting what he said and drawing all the wrong conclusions. What he means, and most other people when they say such things, is that there is no written record of Jesus speaking on the subject. And from that frame of reference he’s 100% correct.

He used the word never.

 

[exnihilo]

I always enjoy this kind of argument, that Jesus never said it. It really reminds me of the child who says the exact same thing to the parent. For the wayward child the parent not spelling out details is an excuse. This is the heart of Pharisaical thinking, drawing distinctions wherever one can to find a way out.

I think people are misinterpreting what he said and drawing all the wrong conclusions. What he means, and most other people when they say such things, is that there is no written record of Jesus speaking on the subject. And from that frame of reference he’s 100% correct.

I disagree. I think they mean Jesus never said anything about it. That is after all the thrust of the argument they are making. If they do not mean that why even say it? Even if they do mean what you say words have meaning and repeatedly using this style of speech can lead to bad thinking. We do not know all the Jesus said and if we are Christians who accept the Bible we know with certainty that not all he said was recorded as the Gospel of John says as much.

 

[fix]

I think people are misinterpreting what he said and drawing all the wrong conclusions. What he means, and most other people when they say such things, is that there is no written record of Jesus speaking on the subject. And from that frame of reference he’s 100% correct.

What is the point of mentioning it? Is the point that because it is not recorded it must not be that bad a sin?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

He said this tonight on The Factor.

How does he know Jesus never spoke on it?

He needs some emails I think…

Jesus ‘didn’t speak about homosexual marriage’ says O’Reilly? But He did, didn’t He?

Matthew 16:2And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there. [3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Right there Jesus clearly stated that marriage is strictly for one man and one woman, not two men or two women.

He didn’t say, “God created people, and if two men, or two women looooove each other, they should be allowed to marry.”

 

[buffalo]

Jesus ‘didn’t speak about homosexual marriage’ says O’Reilly? But He did, didn’t He?

Matthew 16:2And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there. [3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Right there Jesus clearly stated that marriage is strictly for one man and one woman, not two men or two women.

He didn’t say, “God created people, and if two men, or two women looooove each other, they should be allowed to marry.”

Send him the email. Maybe he will read it on the air.

 

[JerryZ]

Well we certainly have no evidence that Christ said anything on either. Contraception existed at the time in some forms (although not widely used) and I am not sure about gay marriage, maybe in some cultures. The Church and scripture have verses that indirectly talk about these issues, though. Also Church teaching is clear on it. Honestly though I really doubt that Jesus spoke on either, since I don’t think they were as big of issues then as they are now.

Uhm some thoughts on the indirect scripture you are noting there may be you should consider these verses from the letter to the Romans from St Paul:

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Looks like a pretty strong enditment on these practices doesn’t it?

 

[Seeker1961]

Who did Paul address his letters to?

 

[JerryZ]

Who did Paul address his letters to?

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.

 

[ValPal]

He used the word never./QUOTE

Did he specifically state that he included what Jesus may have state outside of what is recorded in Scripture?

While people may criticize what Mr. O’Reilly stated, nobody of course can prove him wrong either, since the proof they need to prove him wrong is not recorded as coming directly from the mouth of Christ.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Uhm some thoughts on the indirect scripture you are noting there may be you should consider these verses from the letter to the Romans from St Paul:

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Looks like a pretty strong enditment on these practices doesn’t it?

I don’t think you know what indirect means. I never said the Church or scripture isn’t clear on it’s teachings or beliefs about homosexual behavior. Just scripture doesn’t directly say, no homosexual marriage. That is direct. Indirect evidence proving that would be the case though would be verses condemning homosexual behavior. Plus it seems you didn’t read my post all the way through. I know the Church and scripture are clear in its teachings on homosexuality. I don’t know why you are “correcting” me when I said nothing condoning homosexual marriage or homosexual acts.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Well though they certainly did not have our modern day devices and drugs to contracept but they did know perfectly well the process by which a man and a woman reproduce.

Now in the book of Genesis 38:8 we have a guy that decided to contracept by using the method of spilling his seed on the ground and GOD took his life for it.
That seems a pretty strong statement on Do Not Contracept me thinks.

You make it sound like in my post I somehow condoned contraception or said that scripture or the Church did, none of which is the case. I am well aware of the story of Onan. I was trying to point out that there isn’t a quote from Jesus in the Bible condemning contraception. Now the Church is very clear on its teachings on contraception. I think you misread or misunderstood my post.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

It seems to me that some are so touchy on these subjects that they will twist the words of anyone who even slightly appear to maybe oppose Church teaching. When it may be the case they do not. Read posts carefully folks. Don’t make assumptions.

 

[ValPal]

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.

 

[fix]

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.

All you have to do is prove the question is germane?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think people are misinterpreting what he said and drawing all the wrong conclusions. What he means, and most other people when they say such things, is that there is no written record of Jesus speaking on the subject. And from that frame of reference he’s 100% correct.

And that “frame of reference,” as I mentioned earlier, is 100% irrelevant. Scripture, like other literature (and Scripture is, among many other things, literature) is not an exhaustive compendium of factual records. Scripture proclaims the Big Story, a big story which complements (“completes”) the journey of God’s People, recorded in Hebrew scriptures. That big story’s message is not a boring repetition of the unchanged aspects of Mosaic Law, but the Divine Sonship of Jesus made present on earth, his restatement of the essence of that code (which included prohibitions on behavior like homosexuality), the accessibility of salvation, the invitation and exhortation to believe and follow, like Jesus and through Jesus, a life in union with God the Father.

The fact that any TV commentator may be ignorant of the way Scripture works does not merit a discussion which requires anyone to defend the moral positions of the Church, based on such ignorance or misunderstanding.