New Testament on homosexuality

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

All I know is you made the following assertion:
"Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility .

To quote from "A Christmas Story", "Uncle uncle uncle UNCLE! UUUUUUNCLE!!!"

lol. Well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Is this how you react when you are proved wrong? You claim there is an imperative when there is not. Rather than concede the error, you simply throw a hissy fit and refuse to play.

You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that when something is only generally true, it may not be applicable in all cases.

I quite grasp the concept. I just do not see it applicable in this case. God's reasons for creating man and woman so that could marry are either true or false. Not both. And certainly not dependent on the sexual orientation of the audience.

You also seem not to be able to grasp the folly in "argument from ignorance".

And a very plausible argument too. When someone is silent about an issue, especially when they are vocal about other issues, we can justifiably infer the person's moral stance. Silence means approval -- isn't that something you once argued in regard to the Catholic Church's response to sexual abuse? Hypocrite.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
It seems to me then, that you accept the principle of using what Jesus explicitly endorsed or condemned in order to infer what he might endorse or condemn amongst the things he didn't mention.

No, it means that I use what Jesus explicitly endorsed or condemned to show what he explicitly
endorsed or condemned. When confronted with the exact question what one has to do to be saved,
he responded explicitly with an exact number of commandments. If not being homosexual was one
criteria, he would have included it.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Hey I just want to thank you for the work on this! I am going to check these sites out.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

I was going to post to post this...

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]lol. Well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Is this how you react when you are proved wrong? You claim there is an imperative when there is not. Rather than concede the error, you simply throw a hissy fit and refuse to play.

You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that when something is only generally true, it may not be applic g you once argued in regard to the Catholic Church's response to sexual abuse? Hypocrite.

[/b]And a very plausible argument too. When someone is silent about an issue, especially when they are vocal about other issues, we can justifiably infer the person's moral stance. Silence means approval -- isn't that something you once argued in regard to the Catholic Church's response to sexual abuse? Hypocrite.


Actually my argument with regard to the Catholic Church was that they were egregiously irresponsible in their handling of pedophile priests. Instead of immediately and permanently removing each offender from a position of authority where he could use that authority to continue to sexually abuse children, offending priests were often moved from parish to parish where the abuse continued, sometimes for decades. The overall problem spanned several decades, included thousands of priests and thousands of victims and spanned several countries. Furthermore, the Church allowed several dioceses to seek bankruptcy protection in order to attempt to avoid fully paying compensation to victims rather than accept full responsibility. You seemed not to be able to grasp how egregiously irresponsible the Church was in the handling of this problem.

You seem not to be able to grasp a number of things. Seems likely that you'll not be able to grasp the difference between these two situations. One is about "argument from ignorance". The other is about egregious irresponsibility.

Originally posted by Jigtie
No, it means that I use what Jesus explicitly endorsed or condemned to show what he explicitly
endorsed or condemned. When confronted with the exact question what one has to do to be saved,
he responded explicitly with an exact number of commandments. If not being homosexual was one
criteria, he would have included it.

Originally posted by Jigtie
No, it means that I use what Jesus explicitly endorsed or condemned to show what he explicitly endorsed or condemned.
But he didn't explicitly condemn car jacking and he didn't endorse medicinal practice. You used an inference for car jacking, namely:
1) car jacking is a kind of stealing,
2) Jesus condemns stealing
3) Jesus condemns car jacking (from (1) and (2))

I suspect you used even more general principles to pronounce on what Jesus thought of medicinal practice.

So don't wriggle, hold still, I'll make it quick.

As soon as you allow the principle of inference then, in order to be consistent, you allow that people can make a case that Jesus would have condemned homosexuality. You might think their case laughable, but they have breached your outer wall which represents your denial that to make any such case is legitimate because Jesus didn't mention homosexuality by name.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Jigtie
[b]No, it means that I use what Jesus explicitly endorsed or condemned to show what he explicitly endorsed or condemned.
But he didn't explicitly condemn car jacking and he didn't endorse medicinal practice. You used an inference for car jacking, namely:
1) car jacking is a kind of stealing,
2) Jesus condemns ste ...[text shortened]... hat to make any such case is legitimate because Jesus didn't mention homosexuality by name.[/b]

You're wrong! Wrong!

Uh...

* Puts the wig back in place *

Really, it's not the same thing at all. Jesus does say that stealing is wrong. Car jacking is by
definition an act of stealing. Jesus never says that homosexuality is wrong. Hence, to claim that
Jesus said such a thing is to put words in his mouth (whether you support it through the Old
Testament or Paul's letters).

I agree about the medicinal practices though. That was a bit of a leap. I shall repent.

Originally posted by Jigtie
You're wrong! Wrong!

Uh...
Not bad. The tactical retreat on medicinal practices was a good move, potentially tempting me to go on the offensive which might leave me vulnerable to counters.

Here, let me try and soften you up by beating you about the pate with a dead haddock:

Really, it's not the same thing at all. Jesus does say that stealing is wrong. Car jacking is by
definition an act of stealing.
That's called an inference
Jesus never says that homosexuality is wrong. Hence, to claim that Jesus said such a thing is to put words in his mouth
Nobody is claiming that. They are claiming he would have if asked directly, by inference. By the same argument Jesus never says that car jacking is wrong. Hence, to claim that Jesus said such a thing is to put words in his mouth, which is exactly what you did. You can't have it both ways.

Your go.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Jigtie
[b]You're wrong! Wrong!

Uh...
Not bad. The tactical retreat on medicinal practices was a good move, potentially tempting me to go on the offensive which might leave me vulnerable to counters.

Here, let me try and soften you up by beating you about the pate with a dead haddock:

Really, it's not the same ...[text shortened]... in his mouth, which is exactly what you did. You can't have it both ways.

Your go.[/b][/b]

LOL! You are one stubborn son of a mother. Ok, so yes, I infer that Jesus wouldn't have liked car
jacking from something Jesus actually said. I also infer that Jesus wasn't against homosexuality
because Jesus failed to mention it when confronted with the most important of questions: "how do
I get saved?". Nowhere in his answer is he even implying that you must not be attracted to people
of the same sex, nor is he anywhere else saying anything of the sorts. To infer that he was against
homosexuality, you have to present me with passages where he explicitly speaks about it. I found
a passage where he deals with the ever important topic on salvation, and he fails to mention it.

I think it's more likely that just about anyone can be saved, regardless of their sexual inclination,
simply by following the commandments Jesus brings up. If you can be saved, regardless of being
gay, surely Jesus has no problem with people being gay. See? My logic is supported by the very
words of Jesus. The opposite position is not.

Your point on inference notwithstanding.

Originally posted by Jigtie
LOL! You are one stubborn son of a mother. Ok, so yes, I infer that Jesus wouldn't have liked car
jacking from something Jesus actually said. I also infer that Jesus wasn't against homosexuality
because Jesus failed to mention it when confronted with the most important of questions: "how do
I get saved?". Nowhere in his answer is he even implying that y ...[text shortened]...
words of Jesus. The opposite position is not.

Your point on inference notwithstanding.

Stubborn me? Ok it's a fair cop.

So it seems to me that you have now conceded that inference is permitted, but that you want to argue that your inference is better than those that want to argue that they can infer condemnation.

Which is where I came in, all we need do is look at Conrau K vs Thinkofone to see that people can and indeed do make the case in both directions. It is stalemate isn't it?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Stubborn me? Ok it's a fair cop.

So it seems to me that you have now conceded that inference is permitted, but that you want to argue that your inference is better than those that want to argue that they can infer condemnation.

Which is where I came in, all we need do is look at Conrau K vs Thinkofone to see that people can and indeed do make the case in both directions. It is stalemate isn't it?

Actually ThinkOfOne is saying that it does not make sense to infer what CK did based on Matthew 19:1-12.

This was CK's original post:
Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility that a man may wish to marry a man, or some other alternative pairing. Perhaps the Bible is not a very reliable source of moral wisdom.

This was my original reponse:
In Matthew 19:1-12 Jesus is asked the following question:
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

Consider the following:
1) Jesus is asked about divorce between a man and a woman. He is asked about this specific pairing. Why would Jesus bring up "some other alternate pairing" when asked about divorce between a man and a woman?

2) In the culture of the audience Jesus is addressing, marriage and therefore divorce can only be between a man and a woman. Why would Jesus bring up "some other alternate pairing" in a culture where marriage and therefore divorce can only be between a man and a woman?

To infer what you did from this passage makes no sense. Hopefully you'll recognize how weak an argument you have made.

The fact that CK has doggedly stuck to his weak argument does not make a case.

If you think you can support CK's assertions based on Matthew 19, let's hear it.

Originally posted by Jigtie
I'm sure it's been noted before.

There is nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality, is there? Not a single word being said
about homosexuality, except for that passage Paul wrote (which more or less quotes the Old
Testament - which in turn contradicts the New Testament repeatedly).

So, basically, Jesus (a man who lived with twelve other men ...[text shortened]... Christians" of the past are now burning in Hell for
putting words in the mouth of Jesus?

I've never understood the fascination with this subject. Jesus never expressly condemns homosexuality. He never condemns witches or soothsayers either, to the best of my recollection, but that doesn't imply that He condoned these practices.
Jesus was about forgiveness. He told a woman who was a proven and admitted adulterer and fornicator "Neither do I condemn you.Now, go and sin no more." Sin does NOT "send people to hell" The lack of forgiveness of sin does. THAT is the point.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
And a very plausible argument too. When someone is silent about an issue, especially when they are vocal about other issues, we can justifiably infer the person's moral stance. Silence means approval -- isn't that something you once argued in regard to the Catholic Church's response to sexual abuse? Hypocrite.


Actually my argument with reg ...[text shortened]... ns. One is about "argument from ignorance". The other is about egregious irresponsibility.[/b]

You seem not to be able to grasp a number of things. Seems likely that you'll not be able to grasp the difference between these two situations. One is about "argument from ignorance". The other is about egregious irresponsibility.

Perhaps I just confused you with Rajk. I apologise that I made that mistake. But at least I have the decency to admit when I have made a mistake.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually ThinkOfOne is saying that it does not make sense to infer what CK did based on Matthew 19:1-12.

This was CK's original post:
[i]Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There i e.

If you think you can support CK's assertions based on Matthew 19, let's hear it.

The fact that CK has doggedly stuck to his weak argument does not make a case.[/i]

But I have strengthened the case to include two other points:

1. Jesus makes a statement about the purpose of God's creation of gender -- that a man willl leave his father and mother and marry. This is not a statement that can relativised. You cannot say "it was true for heterosexuals but false for homosexuals'. That would be incoherent. Your only attempt at a refutation was to say that it was actually an imperative -- which is absurd. No counterargument from you stands at the moment.
2. We often make accurate judgements about someone's belief when they are silent. So for example, people often accuse Pope Pius XII of sympathy for the Nazis and anti-Semitisim because of his lack of explicit condemnation. Now if it were true that Pope Pius XII did not at all criticise the Nazis and was completely inactive in helping the Jews, that would be a very powerful argument. The fact is that Jesus voices his moral teachings very frequently, so his silence on the treatment of homosexuals and the institution of slavery is astonishing. Call it argument from ignorance, but it is a good argument.

Thinkofone,
Thanks for the summary of your respective positions but I have been following your debate closely.

This latest post of yours merely reasserts your view that you are right and CK is wrong.

I am neutral. Both of you have made a case. It is no surprise that you think you have made one and your opponent hasn't.

If you think you can support CK's assertions based on Matthew 19, let's hear it.
I've even seen a credible case made that reconciles homosexual activity with Romans 1:27. But making a credible case is not my concern, since from my point of view, the whole thing is incredible.

As the bible states, Jesus is Son of the living God, whom He calls "the Father" and whom called Him "my Son."

If we are to presume one way or the other, we should presume that Jesus sides with His Father on the issue of homosexual acts. If He for some reason wanted to refute His Father's teachings, He clearly would have made it a point to do so.

His Father's thoughts on homosexual acts are clearly stated in the Old Testament as noted in prior posts in this thread. The Father groups homosexual acts and incestuous acts together, labeling them "detestable."

Now, notice I continue to say "homosexual acts." That's because the state of being a homosexual, or, having a tendency to commit homosexual acts, is not the sin.

We all have tendencies toward sin, whatever it may be. Adultery, lying, stealing, whatever. Homosexual acts are no better or worse than adultery or lying or stealing. It's all sin.

Not referring to any particular post here, but generally speaking, this notion that the bible says "homosexuals will burn in hell," is completely inaccurate. A homosexual person is no different (regarding sin) than someone who is capable of committing adultery or someone who is capable of lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting someone... in other words, all the rest of us.

All kinds of tendencies and temptations exist, but it's the non-indulgence of those things, that separates the act of sin and the triump over it.

If you ask me, homosexuals are in a position to earn a higher place in heaven than many others. Why, because if the homosexual person is capable of and successful at triumphing over that temptation which I'm sure is as powerful a temptation as anything if not more, then that person will earn a far greater reward than many others who may not have faced such a strong temptation.