Is homosexuality worse than heterosexual infidelity?

[Moses Yoder]

I don't normally copy and paste an article but this is great stuff. At the end I have a question.

The morning after Chick-fil-A day
AUGUST 2, 2012 BY MIKE PATZ 1 COMMENT

Its the morning after the Chick-fil-A drama and Im still chewing.

I remember the day I was sitting next to an incredibly nice gay guy, enjoying a really good conversation when he dropped the ultimate conversation-killer.

What do you do for a living?

I hate that question. I hate that question because people cant help but size you up when they hear the answer. I hate that question because were already prone to think of ourselves as human doings instead of human beings. I hate that question because of what it does to people when they find out what I do.

Ive often tried to find ways around the question. Ive told people I work with non-profit organizations (this is true). Ive told people that I write (this is true). Ive even told people that I am a spiritual guru that assists people in opening their third eye (I really like this one). For whatever reason, on that day, I just cut to the chase. I work as a pastor of a church.

Everything changed. His next words went something like this:

Listen, Im gay and Im content with who I am. Im sure you are going to say that I was not born this way, and I wont argue the point. For a significant part of my childhood I was violated by a neighbor and then an uncle. Did that play a role in my sexual orientation? Possibly. I also know many people that had a trouble-free childhood and they turned out very happily gay. Regardless of how it occurred, this is who I am now and I make no apologies for the man I have become. If God has a problem with a man who tries to be true to himself, then I have a problem with a God that allows these kinds of things to happen to kids like me in the first place.

I kept thinking how much easier it would have been if I said I was a writer.


Fortunately, Jesus has a way of showing up in the middle of conversations just like these, and on that day He did not disappoint. My friend shared his heart, and I shared mine. Ive never seen people change via argument, which is why I prefer to help people taste and see that the Lord is good.

This is where Christians tend to blow it.

They taste really bad. They serve up some really Biblical truth in some really nauseating ways. They major on minors and minor on majors. They tend to be extremely unaware of their pride, and pride is like bad breath " everybody knows you have it, except for you. Its always easy to scream the loudest about sins you do not personally struggle with.

So why are we yelling?

Im still not sure why Christians are so militant in their opposition of homosexual immorality while they seem to go so mild with their opposition of heterosexual immorality. I hear the concern about homosexuality and the catch phrase is often family values: Imagine how much it will mess up a child who is being raised by two women, the reasoning goes. A kid needs both a father and a mother, we say. Yet the gays I speak with often wonder how the church can talk about family values when 50-60% of Christian couples divorce. Talk about family values. So a community of people that do not stay married is trying to talk to us about marital morality. How ironic.

In light of the fact that Christians have just as much pre-marital sex and watch just as much porn and divorce just as frequently why arent we more embarrassed to speak out on the issue of homosexual sin? Good question.

One guy said, Its funny how you can claim the grace of God to cover heterosexual sin while saying that homosexual sin is beyond the reach of Gods grace.

That brings me to all the Chick"fil-A drama.

I get why Chick-fil-A day looked so annoying to so many people yesterday. I understand why people have planned a kiss-in this Friday. And I can see why people shake their heads when they read yet another homophobic Facebook post.

Church people ask, why wont our culture repent? My answer: because repentance is a learned behavior. Someone has to model it. I tell parents that its silly to expect a child to repent when they have never seen a parent repent. And its futile to wait for a culture to repent when a culture has never seen the Church repent.

Is the real problem with our culture the unrepentant gay community? No. Its an unrepentant Church.

I am so sorry today for all the hatred that Christians have dished out toward gays. I am so sorry for all of the homophobic sarcasm that has come from the pulpits of Christian ministers. I am so sorry for the way we pick and choose which sins to condemn. I am so sorry that we have claimed to follow Jesus while we neglected widows and orphans, and then engaged in gossip and gluttony. I am so sorry that we have provided such a bad example for the rest of society to follow. Im embarrassed, Im ashamed, and I repent. Im serious. I repent.

Yet Im also concerned that when our culture most needs to hear truth, Christians dont know how to tell it.

Weve come to a dangerous moment in culture, and Christians are ill-equipped to handle it. We have reached the point where disagreement is now seen as hatred. I read an article today where a woman was appealing to Christians to recognize their hateful crimes against the homosexual community. I nodded in agreement, but decided to keep reading to see how she itemized these crimes. Paragraph after paragraph described the hurt and rejection resulting from these offenses, but it took a while to get to the actual crime: Christians claim that homosexuality is a sin. I was stunned. Disagreement was equated with hate.

Christians have a substantial challenge on their hands because every generation and every culture is going to disagree with Gods truth at some point. How interesting that our USAmerican culture considers Christianity to be closed-minded on the issue of sexual morality, while the majority of world religions are in agreement in opposition to the USA position on sexuality. Is USA culture not closed-minded for claiming that all these other religions are wrong? Is it not hypocrisy to say that we will be tolerant with everybody " except the people we consider intolerant. Closed-mindedness is not just a religious thing, its a human thing.

If ever Christians needed some good breath, it is now.

Because we have to kiss this world with the truth of God.

The problem is, no matter how good your kiss, your breath can ruin the whole experience. And no matter how much truth we bring, if it does not drip with grace and humility, it always falls flat.

Im not asking Christians to stop telling the truth, Im asking them to brush their teeth.

What does that look like? The apostle Paul said to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy towards all people. (Titus 3:2)

Can you imagine what would happen if an entire chunk of Christians decided to embrace the Titus 3:2 approach? Will people be staging protests and kiss-ins to protest Chick-fil-A? Maybe. But the way of Jesus is to speak evil of no one. Has Chick-fil-A been bullied? Yes. But the kingdom of Jesus response is to avoid quarreling. Is there more drama to come as our culture becomes increasingly polarized? Of course. But if God is our Father, then we have to start showing the family resemblance, being gentle and showing perfect courtesy. This should have an effect on the way we post our thoughts on Facebook. Or talk to angry people at work. Or wait in line at Chick-fil-A.

You see, we cant shrink back on truth-telling or we dishonor the very Gospel. But when we bring the truth of Jesus we have to do it in the Spirit of Jesus.

Or stop being surprised when our culture doesnt want a kiss.

Is homosexuality worse than heterosexual infidelity? If not, why do Christians hate gay people so much? If the two are equally bad, why do so many Christians who would never be gay cheat on their wife?

[KCKID]

My standard of living derives from the teachings of Christ. This information is found in scripture, specifically the NT.

Many, many people who don't believe in Christ live the same standards that you claim to.

With regard to sexual sins, the NT refers to adultery, fornication, and homosexuality as being contrary to the doctrine of Christ,

But, once again, Christ HIMSELF never said anything about homosexuality. How come it took the writings of someone who never even knew Jesus to tell us what Jesus' beliefs were with regard to homosexuality? And, how come you came to regard this particular author as being the divine mouthpiece for Jesus? My eternal question: since homosexuality is purported by some to be such a dividing and devastating influence within the Christian Church (I personally have not witnessed this) do you not think that Jesus would have alluded to homosexuality at least a teeny weeny bit? I mean, He DID give His views with regard to divorce and remarriage (a definite no-no) which is all but ignored by the Christian Church.

and thus against the will of God. As I mentioned, Romans 1:27 is one such passage.

*sigh* How many times does one need to say this before people catch on ...? Romans 1:27 is referring to the lewd and pagan sexual rituals that were connected to idolatry. These rituals included both homosexual and heterosexual practices that were performed in public and were therefore seen to be not only humanly disgusting but also - and more importantly - an affront to God. Most of us would feel the same way today if we were to witness such practices.

I agree with the "lewd" notation you've provided. You emphasis on whether it was done in "private" versus "public" seems to be misguided. God does not say it is ok to engage in "lewd" behavior privately.

Well, to be honest, God never said anything ...the Bible writers did. Furthermore, I can find no text where these writers allude to anything other than the practice of idolatry whenever they reference sexual immorality. That said, I've little doubt that these writers would certainly have been against homosexuality simply by virtue of the fact that a man seen to be taking the passive role of a female (property of the male) would most certainly have met with their disapproval. These people and their ancient and tribal mindsets cannot be used as a reliable guide for we of today. Remember, God did not write the Bible. Nor is the Bible God. It seems a lot of people don't realize this.

Sin is sin whether done publicly or privately.

And we ALL sin whether publicly or privately. It's called 'being human'.

Romans 1:27 is a prohibition against homosexual sex as well as other "lewd" acts. This is fact.

So, you DO equate Paul, a mere man, with God ...? Kinda blasphemous, don't you think? Okay, have it your way.

[Allahakbar]

New International Version (NIV)
Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Please show us the prohibition you claim is contained within this passage. Or did I use the wrong bible.

[noshameinChrist]

[Replying to post 45 by noshameinChrist]

And what was it Jesus said about homosexuality?

If you are asking whether Jesus said anything directly about homosexuality, no he did not. He also never said anything about Beastiality, yet it is a sin. Both are sins based on teaching originally found in the Old Testament.

So is eating shellfish then and wearing a linen/wool blend, are you serious?

Yeah he's shifting like crazy.
At first, noshameinChrist, when confronted with the other directions in Leviticus, you said you knew the difference between the OT and the NT and you agree with the teaching of Jesus. Fair enough.
But when asked where Jesus made claims about homosexuality, you then shifted back to the OT.
So ehm, you really need to be honest here.
The same text you use to judge gay people with, specifically says wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish are forbidden, amongst many other weird or misogynistic things.
So again the question, do you also obey these things ?
If not, why not ?

I don't believe I am "shifting" at all. If you would like to share the OT scriptures you are referring to then maybe I can respond with more clarity. As it stands, based on my knowledge of scripture, NT does not prohibit or otherwise speak against "linen" and "shellfish". However, the doctrine of Christ DOES mention prohibitions against sexual immorality of which adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are a part.

To be pleasing to God a person must be willing to let these things go.

Perhaps you could supply the appropriate passages quoting Jesus?

Quid pro quo? Ok. In Matthew 28:18-20 says: "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen"

This passage is one that establishes Jesus' authority.

your turn for the OT passage.

Not just yet.
This is your claim

However, the doctrine of Christ DOES mention prohibitions against sexual immorality of which adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are a part.

The passage you posted made no mention of any of that. Please try again.
Perhaps you could supply the appropriate passages quoting Jesus?

Oh, I see. Let's try this again. After this, please provide the OT scripture you promised:

First, allow me to say that the "doctrine" of Christ is not limited to the words Jesus spoke while on earth. The witnesses of Jesus, of which Paul was included, were commissioned to spread Jesus words. This is what Jesus directed in Matthew 28:18-20, as well as Mark 16:15-16. In fact, in John 17:17-21 Jesus specifically prays on this matter.

Hence, the passage in Romans 1:27 derives from an apostle (witness) of Jesus, and is therefore a part of the "doctrine" of Christ.

Your turn.

[Allahakbar]

[Replying to post 45 by noshameinChrist]

And what was it Jesus said about homosexuality?

If you are asking whether Jesus said anything directly about homosexuality, no he did not. He also never said anything about Beastiality, yet it is a sin. Both are sins based on teaching originally found in the Old Testament.

So is eating shellfish then and wearing a linen/wool blend, are you serious?

Yeah he's shifting like crazy.
At first, noshameinChrist, when confronted with the other directions in Leviticus, you said you knew the difference between the OT and the NT and you agree with the teaching of Jesus. Fair enough.
But when asked where Jesus made claims about homosexuality, you then shifted back to the OT.
So ehm, you really need to be honest here.
The same text you use to judge gay people with, specifically says wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish are forbidden, amongst many other weird or misogynistic things.
So again the question, do you also obey these things ?
If not, why not ?

I don't believe I am "shifting" at all. If you would like to share the OT scriptures you are referring to then maybe I can respond with more clarity. As it stands, based on my knowledge of scripture, NT does not prohibit or otherwise speak against "linen" and "shellfish". However, the doctrine of Christ DOES mention prohibitions against sexual immorality of which adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are a part.

To be pleasing to God a person must be willing to let these things go.

Perhaps you could supply the appropriate passages quoting Jesus?

Quid pro quo? Ok. In Matthew 28:18-20 says: "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen"

This passage is one that establishes Jesus' authority.

your turn for the OT passage.

Not just yet.
This is your claim

However, the doctrine of Christ DOES mention prohibitions against sexual immorality of which adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are a part.

The passage you posted made no mention of any of that. Please try again.
Perhaps you could supply the appropriate passages quoting Jesus?

Oh, I see. Let's try this again. After this, please provide the OT scripture you promised:

First, allow me to say that the "doctrine" of Christ is not limited to the words Jesus spoke while on earth. The witnesses of Jesus, of which Paul was included, were commissioned to spread Jesus words. This is what Jesus directed in Matthew 28:18-20, as well as Mark 16:15-16. In fact, in John 17:17-21 Jesus specifically prays on this matter.

Hence, the passage in Romans 1:27 derives from an apostle (witness) of Jesus, and is therefore a part of the "doctrine" of Christ.

Your turn.

Not a SINGLE word about

However, the doctrine of Christ DOES mention prohibitions against sexual immorality of which adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are a part.

Not a single word of the NT is a witness statement.
Dantalion posted the appropriate OT passages.
My grandsons would be amused at your attempts. Jesus never said a word abot homosexuality, not a single word.
Unfortunately for you and 99 and every religious person on here who has claimed their right to bigotry based upon the teachings of Jesus, YOU FAILED.

[Dantalion]

Here's my post again

The OT scriptures I refer to, well, basically Leviticus, the same place christian fundies get their gay hatred from.

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Deuteronomy also has some crazy stuff.

Now then, noshameinchrist, we want to know what Jesus said on homosexuality
(well, we already know, he didn't say anything about it, but we'll give you the chance to show us we're wrong).

[Cewakiyelo]

If we are looking at this from a Christian standpoint than sin is sin. Whether, a person is gay or a pedophile,or addicted to porn, or an alcoholic, etc.. The things that take us away from our service to God is sin. It matters not how normal it seems for any of us. Regardless how we feel that it is part of our being, and is who we are, it matters not.

Being human pretty well equates to 'sin'. If only Jesus is purported to be perfect then how can we be expected to be anything other than sinful? By the way, what IS 'our service' to God that you speak of?

Our nature was altered when we ate of the tree of knowledge, and not in a good way. It makes us see these things that urge us as to do things that seem normal. And they are, they are a part of our beings now. But that does not change a thing. It has nothing to do with how normal our desires seem. It has everything with acting upon our sinful desires.

You actually take the Genesis story as being literal?

We can say that we don't have a choice in who we are and the desires we have, and that is true. However, we do have a choice in how we choose to respond to those desires. We can choose to accommodate and act upon them or we can turn away from them, how ever difficult it may be.

And, it's because we're human that we so often act on those desires. Why is it somehow considered to be wrong being human? We're told that only one person was perfect so as long as we are imperfect we will therefore continue to 'sin'. Why this preoccupation with the word 'sin' that is no less a part of our humanness? When does one consider themselves in a position to condemn other sinners?

The purpose of intercourse is to bring life into the world. If it is done for any other reason than it is for the sole purpose of personal gratification.

Oh dear. That rocks the boat somewhat. We all suddenly became guilty of performing illicit sex. No birth control. No condoms. No recreational sex. Do you realize what you just said?

Those things which are for the purpose of personal gratification are not being done to please God.

May I ask for a show of hands from those who don't perform sex for personal gratification but from obligation? May I ask for a show of hands from all of those who perform sex merely to please God?

So regardless if it is adultery, or porn addiction, or alcoholism, drug addiction, or homosexuality, if it is not done for the purpose of raising God up, than it is tearing God down.

Again ...may I ask for a show of hands from those who perform sex for the purpose of raising up God? What does that even mean . . .?

When we cater to our sins, what ever they are, we are being selfish and God wants that we should be selfless. We are not to live for our ways and our will we are to live for His ways and by the will of His Spirit.

Sounds little more than religious rhetoric to me.

And your stance on the matter sounds like a kid that does not want to grow up but is insistent to do as he pleases. Back in the day the black man was held as slaves. A poll of hand would have yielded the popular vote of acceptance for the practice. Just because something is popular does not make it appropriate.

As for Genesis, I do believe it to a great degree. It is pretty obvious when looking at the world that something occurred to change a portion of mankind to believe much differently than the rest of mankind. We can see that European descent has a very different way of looking at the world. We see it as something to be controlled and we take take take claiming it as our own. We then demand that others give us tribute if they should want some of what we have gathered up. Where as the majority of the other cultures in the world do not have the same sort of beliefs. The do not see the world as something to own. The do not seek to control it. They see them selves as a part of the natural world, needing to work with it rather than against it. Genesis claims that this occurred because of the tree of knowledge. The scriptures say that the knowledge was false. So man is acting upon understanding that is not natural. It goes against nature.

You cry foul that you should have to restrain your desires because it is part of the natural human experience. But if a rapist were to follow their desire and raped you, you would again cry foul and claim they had no right. Your argue for the freedom to do as one pleases so long as it does not adversely effect you. It matters not if your actions adversely effects others. Now you might like to believe that your actions do not adversely effect others but you would be wrong. If others are able to see or hear your actions or beliefs they are affected and can learn from that. If those lessons yield to following suit you have effected those people. Our acceptance of infidelity, porn, drug addictions, prostitution, homosexuality, greed, etc... teaches the next generation that it is all appropriate. So if you want to argue that everything goes because it is human nature than don't cry and just accept it when your family or friends are killed because it was what someone else had desired to do. If that is how they get their kicks so it must be OK. Don't make yourself out to be a hypocrite in seeking justice for their crimes, instead fight for their rights to follow their desires and applaud them for having done so.

You mentioned to noshameinChrist that Jesus did not mention homosexuality. Indirectly he actually did. He taught what marriage was intended to be.

Matthew 19:Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?

Jesus lays out the understanding of marriage to be between a man and a woman and they shall become one flesh. A man and a man can not become one flesh nor can a woman and a woman become one flesh. So while Jesus does not speak directly about homosexuality he did speak directly to the issue of what a union between two people should consist of and what its purpose is.

Even if Jesus had directly stated that homosexuality is wrong, it is pretty clear by your words that, you would not care. You want to do as you please not as any other, including God, should have you do. Well, you do have free will. It's your party and you can die if you want to, so die if you want to.

[Allahakbar]

You mentioned to noshameinChrist that Jesus did not mention homosexuality. Indirectly he actually did. He taught what marriage was intended to be.

Matthew 19:Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?

Ooh not good sorry, mentions absolutely nothing about homosexuality and it concerns DIVORCE. Maybe not exactly helpful to your argument.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 3 by KCKID]:

I've raised this particular argument a number of times on this forum. The best that

the anti-gays

can come up with is a hurried and not too convincing "two wrongs don't make a right" after which they proceed to condemn gays.

The two wrongs making a right slogan is the only foundation of the anti-Christians and their offering up of gay marriage because Christians sin here and there "too."

That "affirms" sin and sinning and nothing else.

Even the Jesus text that they often quote concerning marriage being between a man and woman (Mark 10:2-12) they either miss or totally ignore the context of Jesus' remark (divorce) and instead deceivingly apply the text to homosexuaity.

The S T O P sign is your teacher. It is not that other people run the STOP sign that gets a person a ticket for failure to yield . . . it is because STOP means what it says. Christian marriage means man and woman/husband and wife. There is no other configuration.

Jesus in the debate he was having with the Sanhedrin members about "divorce" proved what a divorce seperates: A marriage between a man and his wife. There is no other configuration.

And if you are saying that Jesus and those other religigious scholars could entertain that a man's "wife" is another man, well, then there is nothing that can convine you on any Biblical orthodoxy.

There is so much deception within Christianity that, these days, I'm rather reluctant to refer to myself as a Christian.

I don't see where you claim to be a Christian at all. You assert that the Bible is just old writings by people that lived and died and doesn't have any grip on our reality now. Which of course is OK, but you can't mix Biblical orthodoxy with some new wierd personal vendetta of a secualr movement that demands that Christians become like them. But if you say you are a Christian, here at this website you get to apply that label with all definition.

I am an atheist. I believe in Jesus as God and Creator "too."

The sin of homosexuality is outside of forgveness not because the anti-Christians think that Christians are bigots and homophobes . . . it exists completely in the otherworldy venue of secualr life and secular moralit., Simply put, it is because it demands that authority over Christians that are believing now as the Christians did in the first century that brought us Christian life from the Gospels to Jude. There is no indication anywhere in Biblical Church history that marriage is ever going you see a redefintion because some people like homosexuality.

Is homesexual infidelity worse than heterosexual infidelity? of course it is. Heterosexual infidelity is supposed to rerepented of and homosexuals define their sin behavior as not a sin and refuse to repent of it. Nothing is worse than "staying in your sins." Except of course encouraging others to stay in theirs.

. . . they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

- Romans 1

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that Gods judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape Gods judgment?

Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that Gods kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

- Romans 2

Anti-Christians do not repent, nor do they encourage repentance do they KCKID?

[99percentatheism]

You mentioned to noshameinChrist that Jesus did not mention homosexuality. Indirectly he actually did. He taught what marriage was intended to be.

Matthew 19:Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?

Ooh not good sorry, mentions absolutely nothing about homosexuality and it concerns DIVORCE. Maybe not exactly helpful to your argument.

It's a perfect aspect for assertion that marriage is immutably man and woman - husband and wife in "Christian truth."

What does the conversation define as a married couple? A man and his wife.

You aren't seriously saying that Orthodox Jews would agree that a marriage in their world and worldview is same gender I hope? There is no rationale for inserting gay activism anywhere in the Bible. It is absurd to evenattempt it. "Love" does not mean permissiveness, and certainly not lascivious licentiousness. All the gay perspective has to its demands is two or more wrongs can make gay activism a right. And all that does is just show yet one more wrong added to the list of wrongs.

That marriage as man and woman is denied as immutable in Biblical reality is quite alarming to the type of adversaries that Christians must know they are dealing with now.

As Jesus, Peter and Jude highlight.

[Cewakiyelo]

[Replying to post 76 by Allahakbar]

Wrong. It speaks of marriage. Jesus spoke of marriage when asked about divorce. Jesus pointed to what God established as marriage and what that purpose was intended for, that being to bring life into the world. He mentions it as the example of what God intended marriage to be and is saying that when God intends for something to be a certain way than that way is intended for ever. So when Moses allowed divorce it was Moses's doing not God's. God's way demands the responsible parties be held responsible for the life that they create, not that they should be allowed to separate themselves from the responsibility.

It is as I said, Jesus is not speaking directly or specifically about homosexuality. He is speaking specifically about what marriage is and what God's intent for marriage is. That description excludes same sex marriage because they can not bring life into the world. Thus indirectly it does speak to some extent about homosexuality, at least to the extent of exclusion of marriage when considering the intent of marriage.