No, he didn’t say anything about the practice. It is just that O’Reilly is wrong to imply that therefore we should damp down on the issue. The Didache sums up the Christian moral code pretty well, and this rules out the Grecian lifestyle that Bill finds so easy to tolerate. Paul says it best in his letter to the Corinthians: he says: CUT IT OUT! If you want to be Christians, you can’t behave like pagans.
It includes homosexuality and bestiality.
Some of this comes because O’Reilly seems to think that what the Church says is not authoritative. The Church has always said these things are bad, and that what he thinks is merely his opinion, which is worth no more than yours or mine. Know your place, Bill.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.
It doesn’t have anything to do with homosexuality in particular, simply all sexual acts outside of marriage. And the context wasn’t to address homosexuals in the first place.
This is clearly not the Church’s position. The Church defines was Onan did as contraception, thus contraception was around well before Christ’s physical presence on Earth.
From the best information I’ve seen (not limited to religious sources, but also academic), it appears to include all sexual acts outside of marriage, which covers a lot of ground. Plus the statements are not from Christ directly, so it’s irrelevant in the context of what Mr. O’Reilly claims.
Some of us get it. Others have to morph it into a discussion about morality, which is not the point of all this, which is the reason they’re not seeing the forest through the trees.
You wouldn’t be one of the ones who “get it,” because:a statement by anyone – CAF poster, TV commentator, whomever, that “Jesus never said anything about homosexual marriage…” has no relevancy in fact, because the entire concept is an extremely modern concept, alien to that ancient culture. He would have no sooner spoken of something so incompatible with that culture than we would be making pronouncements about people marrying their pets in formal cerremonies and drawing up contracts with them. (The poster Tantum Ergo also discusses anachronisms, above.)
hat’
What it does have to do with is what should be going on between a man and a woman. Jesus tells us the reason a man and a woman were created, if you know that, you can see that homosexuality doesn’t fit into any picture.
He does not need such a level. He only needs common sense and authenticity.
It is irrelevant regardless of his reference point. No serious person could claim the bible is silent on the topic or that the bible approves of such immoral conduct. No serious person would claim because our Lord did not mention some specific sin therefore it must not be a sin. In fact, the word preposterous fits here very well.
No one is imposing their beliefs on anyone. People are pointing out the silliness of superficial statements that serve no good end.
It IS the point. If your understanding of a subject is compromised, you will be speaking in error about the subject when you go beyond your understaniding.
Different art form. I’m a musician myself. One needn’t understand music theory to be affected powerfully by music as a listener. For that matter, one need not understand all of the words in scripture to read and receive many of its words appreciatively, spiritually, poetically. However, scripture, unlike instrumental music, contains explicit and implicit moral meaning. Therefore, if one is ignorant of the meaning of the words, one has zero understanding of the accurate moral meaning.
Wrong. We’re “judging him” as pretending to be an authority on a matter which demands expertise which he does not have. It has nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with Scriptural meaning. Merely Jesus’ words and Jesus’ meaning.
It has nothing to do with “belief.” It has to do with accurate interpretation of words written twenty centuries ago, and the appropriate background for understanding the meaning of those words.
The Church always corrects error. Objective error.
I would say that Jesus didn’t cover it because it was well covered in the OT which wasn’t invalidated by the NT. Perhaps he did cover it but it wasn’t recorded because the OT covered it pretty clearly.
Is see that, and you realize that if you’ve been reading my posts.
This are words from Matthew, not Christ.
It’s not about what Christ would say, but what Christ did say.
A very general statement that includes an incredibly large number of things does not imply that one is directly speaking on a particular topic. If I say I need to cut fat out of my diet, someone can imply that I am against eats nuts…which wouldn’t be true because they contain essential fatty acids.
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.
Once again, your forcing your belief system on what he said. It’s isn’t Bill O’Reilly’s point, and as much as you wish it was, it won’t change anything.
Finally, someone else sees the obvious. The statement doesn’t exist.
Matthew 19:4-6
What “incredibly large number of things” can be taken from** “for this reason”** a man goes to his wife after leaving his mom and dad in addition to being made specifically for that purpose?
It is the same thing isn’t it. He said what marriage is, to presume anything else can be marriage just because he didn’t say it is wrong. For one thing, why would Jesus address something that didn’t exist in the First Century? Would he say, “oh, by the way, Matthew, John, a few decades from now you will write about everything that has happened here. So please take this down or at least remember this for that time. 2000 years from now people will think that two men and two women can get married. No, that is wrong. But for the next 2000 years people wouldn’t even think about it, but write it down now because someone 2000 years from now will think about it and say I never said anything about it because in First Century Palestine nor anywhere on this planet did anyone think about two men or two women getting married.”
No. It is YOU who does not see the obvious: the “statement” “does not exist” because “the statement” is as anachronistic as earthly beings in the 21st century discussing a future paradigm not in their current or foreseeable experience.
Ya, and if you read my post you would realize that I said that homosexual marriage didn’t exist during that time so that is why he didn’t directly address it. You aren’t really reading my posts or conviently ignoring parts of my posts to change what I am saying. Please read my posts and stop making it sound like I am saying things that I am not.
