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

[ValPal]

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

Can you provide a reference? I am aware of the Apostles using that word (e.g., Matthew), but am not aware of Christ actually using that word.

It should be noted, though, that the word does not refer to homosexuality, but rather unnatural sex acts which can also be between man and woman and other situations.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Can you provide a reference? I am aware of the Apostles using that word (e.g., Matthew), but am not aware of Christ actually using that word.

It should be noted, though, that the word does not refer to homosexuality, but rather unnatural sex acts which can also be between man and woman and other situations.

Oh wait, so homosexual actions are NOT unnatural sex acts? I don’t THINK so. . .

 

[johnnyjones]

Jesus said from the beginning God made them male and female, FOR THIS REASON a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife.

Jesus didn’t need to talk about homosexuality when he gave us the correct purpose.

 

[doormouse73]

Jesus said from the beginning God made them male and female, FOR THIS REASON a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife.

Jesus didn’t need to talk about homosexuality when he gave us the correct purpose.

 

[ValPal]

Oh wait, so homosexual actions are NOT unnatural sex acts? I don’t THINK so. . .

Technically, it is possibly immoral, not unnatural, since it occurs in nature. Furthermore, they are not necessarily immoral as foreplay between a man and a woman. The are only immoral between unmarried individuals, regardless of sex. And it is general statement does not mean one is talking about a specific subject. And lastly, it’s attributable to Matthew, not Christ.

 

[ValPal]

Jesus didn’t need to talk about homosexuality when he gave us the correct purpose.

Another person concurs with Bill O’Reilly’s statement.

Once again, it’s about whether Christ the man made a statement…not what the Church’s opinion is on the matter.

 

[johnnyjones]

Another person concurs with Bill O’Reilly’s statement.

Once again, it’s about whether Christ the man made a statement…not what the Church’s opinion is on the matter.

I’m going by the OP question, otherwise I’m not sure what your saying.

 

[ValPal]

The heading of this thread is:

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

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well we certainly have no evidence that Christ said anything on either.

Jesus clearly said marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[johnnyjones]

The heading of this thread is:

And O’Reilly would be right, but I haven’t heard all of his words… He (Jesus) did however put forth reasonably constructed sentences that show the actual purpose of a man and woman, making the argument FOR homosexuality ridiculous. Contraception didn’t exist, unless one counts the “rhythm method”.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Jesus clearly said marriage is between one man and one woman.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Please read my posts. If you read them in context you can clearly see that I am not saying that Christ didn’t mention marriage between a man and woman. I was saying that he did not directly say, “same-sex marriage is wrong,” He addressed the issue more indirectly. Man, I hate when people take my words out of context.

 

[johnnyjones]

Please read my posts. If you read them in context you can clearly see that I am not saying that Christ didn’t mention marriage between a man and woman. I was saying that he did not directly say, “same-sex marriage is wrong,” He addressed the issue more indirectly. Man, I hate when people take my words out of context.

Did Jesus give some alternative to a man and woman marrying? He said “for this reason” a man should leave father and mother and cling to his wife . No other reason.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Did Jesus give some alternative to a man and woman marrying? He said “for this reason” a man should leave father and mother and cling to his wife . No other reason.

No, he didn’t. I am saying that he did not say directly that two men or two women should not marry. That is direct. Indirect would be more along the lines of what Jesus said. It seems like people are purposefully misunderstanding me.

Not sure why people are fighting me when I am agreeing with Church teaching.

 

[johnnyjones]

No, he didn’t. I am saying that he did not say directly that two men or two women should not marry. That is direct. Indirect would be more along the lines of what Jesus said. It seems like people are purposefully misunderstanding me.

Not sure why people are fighting me when I am agreeing with Church teaching.

I don’t want to fight with you. I don’t see why it is much of an issue though when whether He said it directly or indirectly, the outcome was exactly the same. Maybe I stepped into your postings without seeing that you were debating an indirect version versus a direct version. If that’s the case I apologize.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

No, he didn’t. I am saying that he did not say directly that two men or two women should not marry. That is direct. Indirect would be more along the lines of what Jesus said. It seems like people are purposefully misunderstanding me.

Not sure why people are fighting me when I am agreeing with Church teaching.

I don’t know, He did say man and woman should marry. No alternative. And since homosexuals cannot get married I think it pretty much goes without saying (excuse the pun) that homosexual activities are sinful and wrong.

In fact so sinful and wrong God the Father destroyed two cities because of it. Sodom & Gomorrah.

If that doesn’t tell you directly God’s feelings on the matter, I don’t know what will.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

I don’t know, He did say man and woman should marry. No alternative. And since homosexuals cannot get married I think it pretty much goes without saying (excuse the pun) that homosexual activities are sinful and wrong.

In fact so sinful and wrong God the Father destroyed two cities because of it. Sodom & Gomorrah.

If that doesn’t tell you directly God’s feelings on the matter, I don’t know what will.

How many times do I have to say, I am not saying that the Church or scripture is not clear on the matter of homosexuality. I am just saying he did not directly say that two same people of the same sex should not marry. He described marriage as between a man and a woman which indirectly is against homosexual marriage. Man, I don’t know how many times I have to say the same thing. Forget it, I’m done with this ridiculousness.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

How many times do I have to say, I am not saying that the Church or scripture is not clear on the matter of homosexuality. I am just saying he did not directly say that two same people of the same sex should not marry. He described marriage as between a man and a woman which indirectly is against homosexual marriage. Man, I don’t know how many times I have to say the same thing. Forget it, I’m done with this ridiculousness.

God destroying two cities because of sodomy is pretty direct.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

God destroying two cities because of sodomy is pretty direct.

That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am talking about words physically coming out of Jesus’ mouth. Please actually read my posts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jesus didn’t say specifically that people should not clone humans, or that people should not engage in phone sex, or that people should or should not fly to the moon, develop trains, autos, planes, computers, phones, television, split the atom, develop flush toilets, wear makeup, use forks, and a host of other things.

If a person were to live his or her life purely based on the ‘red words’ that Jesus said in the Bible, and ONLY on those words, that person would be living a very crazy life.

First, they would have to ‘sell all they have and give to the poor.’ (That’s what Jesus says). He also says they will have to hate their parents and their spouses and children. He says that they can have a spare tunic and sandals and carry a staff. (no phones, no lights, no motor cars. . .)

They will of course be able to have candles and lamps. They can attend marriage feasts and funerals and of course go to the temple (as Jesus did). They will, naturally, speak only Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, along with some Latin, just as Jesus did.

They can be carpenters as He was; since He permitted his disciples to be fishermen and tax collectors those are also permitted. He also mentioned, with implicit approval, sowers, publicans, respectable inn keepers, and merchants who seek a pearl of great price. Also, “Shepherd” is high on the approval rating. Also they can be prostitutes and sinners, because those were the people He hung around with. Positions of "scribe’ and "Pharisee’ are also open but not very eagerly sought.

You will recline at table, as He did, and you will eat only what He is known to have eaten --the foods of the passover supper, and also fish. No figs, because He cursed the fig tree.

Because Jesus said so, you will embrace the lepers, you will handle snakes, you will speak in tongues, and you’ll drink poison without harm.

Remember, you will, as He said, 'give the person who asks your shirt as well as your cloak, and if you are struck, turn the other cheek." You will spread the gospel by preaching --orally.

So --good luck! Let us know how you’re doing. . . I’m sure there will be somebody at the CA site who is knowledgeable enough to translate your Aramaic scroll detailing how it goes living according to “what Jesus said” and ONLY what He said. . .

p.s. Trixie, this is NOT directed at you; this is directed with tongue firmly in cheek at anybody who is implying that Christians need only be concerned with what Christ ‘said’ in the Bible.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Jesus was speaking to Jews, and Jews at that time rejected both both abortion and homosexual sex as pagan practices. In the pagan world at the time,population was shrinking. August even had edicts against it, but this did not good. The century of war that ended with the establishment of his dictatorship had totally corrupted Roman morality. His own family gave bad example, and Caligula and Nero being monsters who made Hitler and Stalin seem tame by comparison. The crisis of the empire in the 3rd century was (maybe) caused by depopulation. Only the Jews and the Christians continued to increase in number owing to their strict moral codes. Constantine might have picked either as the religion of the Church, except for circumcision.