New Testament on homosexuality

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I think this would be an extremely strange statement if Jesus was a supporter of gay-rights.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said ...[text shortened]... n, whatever you take from it about homosexuality is purely an inference on your part.[/b]

So Jesus argues that God divided mankind into man and woman for the sole reason that they could marry. Are you seriously that thick that you cannot recognise the proper inference from this?


He was explicitly addressing the idea of not marrying as an option for heterosexuals. So the "list" is limited to not marrying as an option for heterosexuals. Why would Jesus bring up homosexuality when asked about not marrying as an alternative for heterosexuals?


If it is so explicit why can't I find Jesus explicitly say that this is an option for heterosexuals? As far as I see, Jesus does not make any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual. Let me guess, this is your inference?

Originally posted by Conrau K
So Jesus argues that God divided mankind into man and woman for the sole reason that they could marry. Are you seriously that thick that you cannot recognise the proper inference from this?

[b]
He was explicitly addressing the idea of not marrying as an option for heterosexuals. So the "list" is limited to not marrying as an option for heterosexuals. W distinction between heterosexual and homosexual. Let me guess, this is your inference?

[/b]Jesus was asked about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, and why THEY should not divorce. So, he explained it within the context of marriage between heterosexuals. Imagine that. You only think it "proper" to infer it as some sort of indictment on "gay-rights", because you want it to be one. I suppose if there is no explicit indictment, all there is to do is infer one. Talk about "thick".

Likewise, Jesus was responding to a statement about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, not marrying. If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus was asked about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, and why THEY should not divorce. So, he explained it within the context of marriage between heterosexuals. Imagine that. You only think it "proper" to infer it as some sort of indictment on "gay-rights", because you want it to be one. I suppose if there is no explicit indictment, all there is to ...[text shortened]... ing. If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?[/b]

Sex between men is mentionned in the OT.
Sex between women is not mentionned anywere in the bible.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus was asked about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, and why THEY should not divorce. So, he explained it within the context of marriage between heterosexuals. Imagine that. You only think it "proper" to infer it as some sort of indictment on "gay-rights", because you want it to be one. I suppose if there is no explicit indictment, all there is to ing. If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?[/b]

Jesus was asked about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, and why THEY should not divorce. So, he explained it within the context of marriage between heterosexuals. Imagine that. You only think it "proper" to infer it as some sort of indictment on "gay-rights", because you want it to be one. I suppose if there is no explicit indictment, all there is to do is infer one. Talk about "thick".[/b]

I quite understand that Jesus is talking in the context of divorce. But he steps quite beyond the moral exhortation 'a married man and woman should not divorce'. He quite explicitly says that mankind was created man and woman entirely for the purpose of marriage. This clearly excludes the possibility of marriage between a man and a man -- otherwise, God would have had no reason to create man and woman if there could alternative pairing and another way in which two bodies could become 'one flesh'.

Likewise, Jesus was responding to a statement about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, not marrying. If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?

This is quite false. Finishing his comments about divorce, Jesus then refers to people who are eunuchs from birth or made eunuchs or voluntarily chose to become eunuchs. These are people for whom marriage is entirely impossible and they need not be heterosexual. Again, Jesus presents only two options: heterosexual marriage or celibacy. If someone confronted you on the street and said that either Palestine must cede or Israel be destroyed, you would not suspect that they are covert supporters of a two-state policy.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus was asked about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, and why THEY should not divorce. So, he explained it within the context of marriage between heterosexuals. Imagine that. You only think it "proper" to infer it as some sort of indictment on "gay-rights", because you want it to be one. I suppose if there is no explicit indictment, all there is to ...[text shortened]... ing. If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?[/b]

If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?
But wasn't Jesus, a jew speaking in the context of the society of his time? So by the same argument he would have no need to make a specific indictment against homosexuality since it would have been a given that it was forbidden.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b] If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?
But wasn't Jesus, a jew speaking in the context of the society of his time? So by the same argument he would have no need to make a specific indictment against homosexuality since it would have been a given that it was forbidden.[/b]

Exactly. 1st century Judaism condemned homosexuality. Leviticus explicitly calls for the execution of homosexuals. If Jesus really was sympathetic to gay rights, his omission is outrageous. Jesus frankly challenged the Mosaic teaching on divorce; he questioned the legitimacy of the stringent Sabbath laws; he undermined the teachings of the Pharisees and Saducees without hesitation. So why, if he really would have supported homosexuality, did he not explicitly address it?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Jesus was asked about man and woman, i.e. heterosexuals, and why THEY should not divorce. So, he explained it within the context of marriage between heterosexuals. Imagine that. You only think it "proper" to infer it as some sort of indictment on "gay-rights", because you want it to be one. I suppose if there is no explicit indictment, all there is to do estroyed, you would not suspect that they are covert supporters of a two-state policy.

[/b]
I quite understand that Jesus is talking in the context of divorce. But he steps quite beyond the moral exhortation 'a married man and woman should not divorce'. He quite explicitly says that mankind was created man and woman entirely for the purpose of marriage. This clearly excludes the possibility of marriage between a man and a man -- otherwise, God would have had no reason to create man and woman if there could alternative pairing and another way in which two bodies could become 'one flesh'.

Jesus was answering not only within the context of divorce, but divorce between a man and his wife, i.e., a woman. His answer was framed within that specific context.

Let me try a different tack. Let's take the case of those born with ambiguous genitalia.

From http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003269.htm:
"If the process that causes this fetal tissue to become 'male'
or 'female' is disrupted, ambiguous genitalia can develop. This genitalia makes it difficult to classify the infant as male or female. The extent of the ambiguity varies. In very rare instances, the physical appearance may be fully developed as the opposite of the genetic sex. For example, a genetic male may have developed the appearance of a normal female."

To me, what Jesus said in Matthew 19 does not address those born with ambiguous genitalia just as it does not addresses homosexuals. I see Him as mute on both cases. Perhaps you infer Matthew 19 as an indictment of those born with ambiguous genitalia also?

This is quite false. Finishing his comments about divorce, Jesus then refers to people who are eunuchs from birth or made eunuchs or voluntarily chose to become eunuchs. These are people for whom marriage is entirely impossible and they need not be heterosexual. Again, Jesus presents only two options: heterosexual marriage or celibacy. If someone confronted you on the street and said that either Palestine must cede or Israel be destroyed, you would not suspect that they are covert supporters of a two-state policy.[

Jesus was not merely "finishing his comments about divorce." Once again, He was responding within the context of a specific statement:
"The disciples said to Him, 'If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.'"

His answer was framed within a specific context: that of a man and his wife, i.e., a woman. Jesus presented the only two options within the context given.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Marriage takes care of that. Granted people get horny before they get married but even the best of christians give in on that do you agree?

So fornicators who dont get married. Thats ok then, becuase its God that caused the sex drive ?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b] If the context has already been set, why would Jesus need to explicitly set it again?
But wasn't Jesus, a jew speaking in the context of the society of his time? So by the same argument he would have no need to make a specific indictment against homosexuality since it would have been a given that it was forbidden.[/b]

So far as I know, Jesus was mute on homosexuals and for that matter homosexuality. The fact is, no one knows His position on these matters. To try to infer it from Matthew 19 is ludicrous. However it is easy to determine the context in which Jesus framed His response since it was explicitly stated.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

I quite understand that Jesus is talking in the context of divorce. But he steps quite beyond the moral exhortation 'a married man and woman should not divorce'. He quite explicitly says that mankind was created man and woman entirely for the purpose of marriage. This clearly excludes the possibility of marriage between a man and a man -- otherwi ...[text shortened]... as framed within a specific context: that of a man and his wife, i.e., a woman.

actually no it wasn't, it was a direct quotation from the book of Genesis as Conrad has rightly shown. There was no creation of Adam and Steve, it was simply male and female, Adam and Eve. Your attempts to introduce those of ambiguous genitalia are perhaps a reflection of just how scant your case actually is.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]In prison it's rarely consensual when a man allows himself to be
dominated sexually by another. It's more about power and control.

Thats not true. Rape does happen of course but, there is a lot of genuine relationships where they have "weddings"in the yard, wear rings,move in together ,etc . One acts masculine the other feminine. This is a ...[text shortened]... o men having intercourse is a homosexual act.plain and simple. If it is not,what is it then?[/b]

Let me pull you up on your view that homosexuality is not natural. If homosexuality is not natural, it is therefore unnatural.

Dictionary definition of unnatural is as follows -

'not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events'

Here is a link to a rather large list of animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Homosexual behaviour in humans is therefore anything but unnatural, in fact it would be unnatural if humans didn't exhibit homosexual behaviour.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually no it wasn't, it was a direct quotation from the book of Genesis as Conrad has rightly shown. There was no creation of Adam and Steve, it was simply male and female, Adam and Eve. Your attempts to introduce those of ambiguous genitalia are perhaps a reflection of just how scant your case actually is.

Are you saying that this question didn't set the context for the response from Jesus?:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Are you saying that this question didn't set the context for the response from Jesus?:
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for [b]a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"[/b]

i am saying that Christs answer clearly demonstrated that it had a much wider inference than merely a question relating to divorce, as has already been pointed out by Conrad.

it was a direct quotation from the book of genesis that embraced not only the creation of Adam and Eve, but Gods purpose for them as well, as has already been pointed out.

how Adam and Steve would have fulfilled Gods purpose for the subjugation of the earth and the procreative processes to become many, is all but impossible, is it not.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let me pull you up on your view that homosexuality is not natural. If homosexuality is not natural, it is therefore unnatural.

Dictionary definition of unnatural is as follows -

'not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events'

Here is a link to a rather large list of animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour - ...[text shortened]... g but unnatural, in fact it would be unnatural if humans didn't exhibit homosexual behaviour.

it is completely and utterly unnatural, look at the plumbing for heavens sake!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So far as I know, Jesus was mute on homosexuals and for that matter homosexuality. The fact is, no one knows His position on these matters. To try to infer it from Matthew 19 is ludicrous. However it is easy to determine the context in which Jesus framed His response since it was explicitly stated.

Yes, we agree that Jesus was mute on homosexuality.

My view is that there are some diametrically opposed interpretations of what this silence on the matter means. Those who seek to reconcile homosexual behaviour with biblical teaching will want to make a case that Jesus' silence meant he was fine with it. Those who are prohibitionists with regard to homosexual activity will want to make the case that Jesus' silence on the matter is compatible with the explicit condemnation of such activity in the OT and NT.

I would further argue that each case argued depends upon a set of premises which are not agreed upon between these two sides. For example, I have seen an argument that reconciles Romans 1:27 with homosexual activity being fine. But it relies on certain ideas about teleology that conservative Christians don't share. So what I'm left with is the impression that this is an in-house matter. Each denomination is a club with some rules and I'll leave it to them to sort out. I'm not a member of any of these clubs, so I'm just arguing that from the outside I can't conclude that either Christianity is compatible or incompatible with homosexual activity.

Sorry that was a bit long but I hope it made sense.