How do I defend the Catholic Faith on issues such as abortion, same sex marriage or LGBT when some claim it’s acceptable because Jesus never mentioned those particular issues by name?
Second, we know how a good Jewish rabbi of the first century would address the issues of LGBT, abortion, gay marriage, etc. It would be based on “the Law and the Prophets” and on the collective moral tradition of the Jewish people. The Law of Moses is unambiguous on matters of sexuality and life.
Third, as an example, let a contemporary 1st century Jewish rabbi speak to the issue in a wider context and not just the Jews in Judea and Galilee. Rabbi St. Paul was out among the pagan Romans and did confront these issues, and therefore he addresses them. He writes,
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Rom 1:26–27)
“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality … will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9)
Fourth, Jesus DID speak out against sins practiced in his own Jewish milieu such as adultery, divorce and remarriage. He did tell the adulterous woman to go and sin no more. He did say “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another.” (Mk 10:11–12). Notice he uses male and female pronouns.
He mentioned a list of sins and evil conduct concurrent with his times. He did criticize “evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” (Matt 15:19)
Summary, Jesus did not mention a lot of modern sins and vices. He was addressing his own particular society and would not have confronted things unfamiliar with the religious Jews of his time. Remember, he said he came to his own people and they were his target audience.
There was no need to mention homosexuality, abortion, contraception or gender dysphoria since in the Jewish society at the time, there were no such practices, or at least it was not a prevalent problem that needed addressing.
Stop trying to justify sinful conduct by a supposed and ignorant claim that Jesus condoned them by his “silence”.
For my longer article on this read,
This Post Has 4 Comments
Everything I write is being rejected. I guess the author fears comments.
STEVE RAY HERE: Nothing you wrote was rejected. These comments are monitored and I am not just sitting here WAITING for you to comment. And I did allow your earlier post with comments in reply. Don’t be so edgy.
According to the New American Bible, the current English edition of the Catholic bible, "homosexual" was translated from the Greek word 'catamite." A "catamite" was an adult male who paid pre-pubescent boys for sex – very different from two men or two women living together as spouses.
STEVE RAY HERE: In the New American Bible, Revised Edition (more liberal than the old edition) it reads, ” 1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Sodomites IS the Greek word “catamite” but the Greek lexicons define it as “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.” (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 771.)
And,
“Of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship” (William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 613.)
And,
“Homosexual, passive partner in male-to-male sex act.: male prostitute (NIV), effeminate (NASB, ASV, KJV), homosexual (NKJV), (homo)sexual pervert.” (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).)
And this is only one word you try to say does not condemn the act of homosexuality whether promiscuously or in a committed relations. Either one is homosexuality and prohibited by Scripture and the CHristians and Jewish traditions.
“A “catamite” was an adult male who paid pre-pubescent boys for sex – very different from two men or two women living together as spouses.”
You know, jj, I have been frankly shocked over the past 30 years by the number of excuses to “justify” same-sex relationships. Or the behaviors associated with those relationships.. Whether it’s lesbian, gay, queer, trans-sexual, non-binary, or something else, I’ve been amazed by how people will wrangle a bible, a thesaurus, and a dictionary, trying to prove the Christ didn’t mean what He meant. As Mr. Ray further elaborated, Christ was pretty explicit about condemning the various forms of male/female relationship abuses. It’d be ludicrous to declare that Christ didn’t condemn same-sex marriages.
He didn’t make any comment about the vice of driving your donkey and cart recklessly either, yet we still know–by prudence–that reckless driving is a defininte no-no.
I’m still amazed at the mental gymnastics some will use to justify acts that are abominable.
🤷🏻♀️
In order to allow ss “marriage “, you had to undo the Christian foundation. When you did that, here comes everyone else and those in ss “marriage” are complaining that the pedophiles and furries want room not only at the table, but in schools (ss marriage became a common “good” unless SCOTUS overturns it).
But those who were in the fight in the very beginning remember the goal was to do away w the family as we know it.
I think at the root it is envy.
What God intended to be between a man and woman is pretty clear.
Comments are closed.