Ship of Fools: Homosexuals

Thread: Homosexuals Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030179

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

Does anybody know why Jesus may have felt it unnecessary to mention homosexuals at all?
Or why any comments he did make about them be considered not relevant enough to make it into the bible ?

I have been having this debate elsewhere and thought it a good topic to raise here.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Rational people will assume that it wasn't as much a fuss for him as it is for some of his contemporary followers.
Others will say that it was already covered and he did not address a variety of topics.
Still others will be betting on how fast this gets moved to Dead Horses.

[ 29. July 2016, 14:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

I take it this subject has been done already then.

Hopefully get a few more responses before it is moved if that is the what the future holds.

"Rational people" more of those generally would solve allot of problems.

What other issues did he not mention that were important?
I was pretty sure he covered everything albeit generally in some cases.
.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Maybe he did and no one wrote it down.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Not really. Off the top of my head, important issues Jesus didn't deal with:

1. contraception
2. embryonic stem-cell research
3. nuclear disarmament
4. global warming
5. slavery
6. Donald Trump

That's because the NT Is not intended to be used as a magic-8 ball, much as we might wish it was. It's just not the purpose of the Bible, and it's not the purpose of Christ's incarnation. Jesus came to show us the Father. We look to Jesus to know who God is and what God's character is like and where God's heart lies.

When we do that, when we see what God's heart and character is like, we begin to change. Our heart and our character is changed. Then we can begin to understand what God wants in regards to these and other Dead Horse issues.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The term did not exist in the Classical world. The very concept was kind of loosey-goosey; people did not sort themselves that way until the 19th century or so. If you were a Roman sometimes you had sex with guys, sometimes with girls; the proportion was up to you. Cross-dressing was mildly scandalous (I forget which Roman emperor was condemned for it) but it had nothing to do with tab A into slot B, but more with the damage to your manly Roman gravitas.

So yes, to ask why Jesus had nothing to say about it is to ask why He said nothing about Pokemon.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

Hi Cliffdweller

What denomination you are?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It isn't that Purgatory forbids topics that have been done, but those that have a fundamental divide as does homosexuality, are discussed in Dead Horses. And Dead Horses doesn't mean dead topic.
As for why the record of Jesus' words don't contain certain subjects, we shall likely never know.
However, if one examines his main messages, one can reasonably infer priority if not exact position.
And that damns a lot of anti-homosexual campaigners in my book.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

This is indeed a Dead Horse. Please read the Dead Horse Guidelines to check what this does and doesn't mean - specifically, it doesn't mean we don't think this isn't worth talking about.

There is a not-too-old and not-too-long (by DH standards) thread to hand that covers similar ground to be found here, so I'm closing this one and directing y'all over there.

/hosting

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0