Guest

Did Jesus ever say anything regarding homosexuality?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think it depends on how one reads the creation narrative, and the devil can be in the details. Perhaps I allow too much secular influence, but the frequently disputed secular consensus seems to be that there is a biological/genetic/embryonic element to homosexuality. If God created mankind, did his creation include these biologic/genetic/embryonic factors that predispose one towards homosexuality? I also recognize that there is a significant discussion to be had around some of the problems with the "God made me this way" philosophy. For example, this thread:

I expressed some of my difficulties with discerning how this applies to homosexuality there. I'm still wrestling with the questions around deciding which parts of human sexuality are good, bad, and neutral, and I find that the creation narrative does not really help me understand.

I think the creation narrative only establishes the covenant of marriage, and that it is structured only between a man a woman, no matter where on the spectrum of human sexuality each individual may find themselves. I believe sexuality for the sake of covenant-making and keeping doesn't matter.

Sexuality is only the capacity for sexual feelings, which can manifest in many ways and to many degrees in a fallen world. It can entail any kind of preference or be oriented in any way. The key to happiness is in making the right choices and the right covenants with integrity, to the best of our ability and faith, at the right time and place. Sexuality can be made a trial and roadblock, but for the faithful and the repentant, their hope and obedience rests in the Lord. In exaltation, the capacity for sexual feelings, along with all godly feelings, will be perfected and exercised only according to godly principles.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Anyone who questions the role of lust/desire in marriage ought to listen closely next time they do an endowment session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our sexual organs are to be used for both reproduction and to liven, uplift, and gratify/please the soul of ourselves and our spouse. The power of sex as it applies to binding two together is ordained of God. We were not made to be nonsensual creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think it depends on how one reads the creation narrative, and the devil can be in the details. Perhaps I allow too much secular influence, but the frequently disputed secular consensus seems to be that there is a biological/genetic/embryonic element to homosexuality. If God created mankind, did his creation include these biologic/genetic/embryonic factors that predispose one towards homosexuality? I also recognize that there is a significant discussion to be had around some of the problems with the "God made me this way" philosophy.

If a "gay gene" is discovered, would it not be part of the Fall. God cursed nature. Weeds, hurricanes, diseases and mutations developed, because of the curse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If a "gay gene" is discovered, would it not be part of the Fall. God cursed nature. Weeds, hurricanes, diseases and mutations developed, because of the curse.

If there were a "gay gene" could it be argued that their is also an "adulterer gene", a "liar gene", a "thief gene", a "murder gene", etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If there were a "gay gene" could it be argued that their is also an "adulterer gene", a "liar gene", a "thief gene", a "murder gene", etc?

Perhaps. I recall reading something by an endocrinologist somewhere who claimed that he could give you any personality he wanted by manipulating your hormones (all of your hormones, not just the sex hormones). I recall from an endocrinology class that there are some interesting conditions, including inherited conditions, that are caused by endocrine problems. I do not recall specifis, but it seems that there were certain conditions in men in particular that caused testosterone to be higher than normal, and that was correlated with higher aggression and violent behavior, so that there was a statistically significant occurence of these genetic conditions among criminals. If we really want to get into the genetics and endocrinology and such, there are probably cases to be made for a genetic component to some of these immoral and criminal elements that you describe, and I am sure that some of them have tried to use them to excuse some very bad behavior. I am not knowledgeable enough to make any strong cases one way or another. But, is that really the direction that we want the discussion to go? I'm not sure I see any value in that line of discussion.

As I understand the currently lines of research, the simplistic idea of searching for a single, dominant-recessive gene for homosexuality has long been mostly abandoned. The current lines of thought suggest that the genetic/inherited tendencies towards homosexuality are complex, and may include the interactions of multiple genes and embryonic/gestational factors, along with the impacts of early development. I think that if we are going to maintain relevance in this discussion, we need to get away from this idea of a "gay gene".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If a "gay gene" is discovered, would it not be part of the Fall. God cursed nature. Weeds, hurricanes, diseases and mutations developed, because of the curse.

As I described in some detail in my post in the "this is how God made me" thread, I think this is a particularly tricky part of discerning right and wrong here. How much of my genetic and developmental makeup is a result of God's perfect creation, and how much of it is a result of Adam's fall. It is certainly possible that the genetic/embryonic elements that predispose to homosexuality are a result of the fall, and that the genetic/embryonic elements that lead to controlled heterosexual tendencies within marriage are part of God's creation (whichever tendencies those are, I had an interesting discussion once around whether this ideal sexual orientation was that tiny subdivision of asexuality that would be labeled demi-heterosexual). The challenge, IMO, is trying to understand how creation and fall interact to make us who we are, and then discerning what God wants us to do with that conglomeration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If there were a "gay gene" could it be argued that their is also an "adulterer gene", a "liar gene", a "thief gene", a "murder gene", etc?

And if so, are we still going to buy the lie that our highest need is Self-actualization?  :rolleyes:  We need God!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

And if so, are we still going to buy the lie that our highest need is Self-actualization?  :rolleyes:  We need God!

I am not completely sure what you mean by self-actualization. If I guess at what you mean, I hope that we don't idolize self-actualization and that we seek God's will over our own will. The challenge is still one of discernment, I think. The ideas of growth and development -- of becoming "perfect, even as [our] Father who is in Heaven is perfect" -- is fairly central to our theology. From Dr. Schnarch, and more recently Laura Brotherson from her new book, I see the introduction of "sexual growth" as a possible concept to add to this idea of eternal progression. Is our sexuality, like other aspects of our personalities, something to be grown and developed along the way to becoming perfect, or is it a "necessary evil" that is merely tolerated in this life? How does this idea of "self-actualization" compare and contrast with the concept of "becoming perfect"? When is it right and good to seek to better ourselves, and when is it wrong and contrary to God's will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If there were a "gay gene" could it be argued that their is also an "adulterer gene", a "liar gene", a "thief gene", a "murder gene", etc?

If there is a "gay gene" (if it is truly a matter of being born that way) then there is a very simple and permeate cure once it is actually identified to be so.   But it would seem (from my experience) that many would be even more unhappy with a cure than they are the “genetic” condition.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, theSQUIDSTER said:

Concerning lusts of the flesh... These are more than just sexual desires..  These are what we refer to as "the natural man."  The natural man came about as a consequence of the fall of Adam exercising his agency.  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/natural-man?lang=eng

In my understanding this means that everything the flesh desires which is contrary to God's plan is abomination and can lead to spiritual death if/when acted upon... Not only homosexual desires/attraction, but heterosexual desires outside of covenants, desires for vengeance rather than to forgive, worldly desires for power/influence/recognition, lack of gratitude for God's blessings... Etc.. So many things, so diverse and abundant that we can hardly name them all...  

I think I will basically agree with you -- that "lust" and the "natural man" are much more involved than merely parts of our sexual nature. The problem I see with trying to see "the natural man as everything the flesh desires which is contrary to God's plan" is that the logic in my head becomes circular very quickly -- without some outside source to define "God's plan" clearly enough that I can see what is truly contrary to that plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sexuality is only the capacity for sexual feelings, which can manifest in many ways and to many degrees in a fallen world. It can entail any kind of preference or be oriented in any way. The key to happiness is in making the right choices and the right covenants with integrity, to the best of our ability and faith, at the right time and place. Sexuality can be made a trial and roadblock, but for the faithful and the repentant, their hope and obedience rests in the Lord. In exaltation, the capacity for sexual feelings, along with all godly feelings, will be perfected and exercised only according to godly principles.

I agree with this in principle, but I don't see why this line of thinking cannot apply to homosexual "marriage" -- making careful choice of spouse and making proper covenants with that person for as long as they both shall live. PC mentions some statistics about the higher "failure" rate of gay unions, but just because some in that population fail to live up to monogamous covenants. What is it about these covenants that makes the heterosexual version "right" and the homosexual version "wrong"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

When is it right and good to seek to better ourselves, and when is it wrong and contrary to God's will?

By definition, to better ourselves is God's will (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man).  But "better" must be understood as how God has defined it, not how mortals define it.

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with this in principle, but I don't see why this line of thinking cannot apply to homosexual "marriage" .... What is it about these covenants that makes the heterosexual version "right" and the homosexual version "wrong"?

Because heterosexual union can continue God's work (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man - over and over, worlds without end), and homosexual union cannot.  The family is central to God's plan - not the couple, not the individual, the family.

About here, someone might ask about couples who cannot have children.  That condition need only last for mortality, and if anyone takes the long-term view, surely it's God.  It seems perfectly clear to me that in eternity, whatever that looks like, children result from the union of a man and a woman.  Given that this only happens when they have been exalted, and are immortal, adoption will no longer be an option.  Surrogacy or artificial insemination are preposterous in such an environment.  Thus, homosexual union is, literally, fruitless.  Such a thing makes no sense in a world where continuing the work of God is the entire purpose of existence.

Next will come the modern science and adoption refutation.  If God found this acceptable, He would tell us so.  He could have started this planet with "modern technology" if He'd wanted.  He didn't.  Clearly there is something about the combination of man, woman, and children which forms the ideal - which defines "perfection" (hence, it is necessary for exaltation - because it is exaltation).  We are meant here to reach toward that perfection and not do anything which cannot work its way into perfection, and it is my belief (and I believe it is well-founded in doctrine) that in eternity, creation of children requires a man and a woman.  That we cannot understand or explain this further does not mean it is not understandable or explainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with this in principle, but I don't see why this line of thinking cannot apply to homosexual "marriage" -- making careful choice of spouse and making proper covenants with that person for as long as they both shall live. PC mentions some statistics about the higher "failure" rate of gay unions, but just because some in that population fail to live up to monogamous covenants. What is it about these covenants that makes the heterosexual version "right" and the homosexual version "wrong"?

No covenant is contingent on the sexuality of the individual making and keeping them. Emphasizing the covenant-maker and -keeper’s sexuality is a type of reliance upon the arm of flesh, and changing the covenant to accommodate one’s sexuality is an abomination.

There is no such thing as a sexual version of any covenant any more than there is a musical version. There is no separate baptism, sacrament, priesthood, or temple endowment for people based on their sexuality. Gender in some cases, but sexuality, no.

Marriage as ordained of God is not a heterosexual version. It is the only version. Neither is it gender-specific, for it unites the male and the female into one kingdom under the same power.

Any healthy male and female in their reproductive years possesses the capacity to multiply and replenish the earth, and under God’s law they must be married to do that. If they cannot make a go of marriage, they should wait until the can, and sometimes this requires arrangements to be made in the next life. Any difficulty can be overcome through faith in Christ.

Because mortality is a probationary state, and a fallen state, there are many factors that can influence and infringe upon our various capacities (sexuality being one of thousands), most especially the capacity to return to God’s presence and live with Him. That is why we need and have a Savior.

The question, What is it about these covenants that makes the heterosexual version "right" and the homosexual version "wrong"? assumes there are two versions. But God has only one covenant and has not structured it in terms of sexuality. Societies have supported this concept for millennia both religiously and civilly. Civilly-speaking, some jurisdictions around the world have allowed the civil covenant to accommodate people of the same sex as religious mores have taken less prominence in people's lives and as a community have reversed their moral sense of right and wrong based on secular rather than religious standards. That is when they began to identify marriage covenants in terms of sexuality (same-sex or gay marriage for homosexuals, and traditional marriage for heterosexuals, though I think that is actually an incredibly naive assumption).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I sometimes wish I understood our doctrines and theology around sex with as much certainty as you do. After years of trying to understand it -- perhaps because much of my own journey has involved unlearning the "good girl syndrome" things (as they apply to boys and men), I still find myself confused by our rhetoric and dialog around sexuality and continue to see things like this that I find contradictory. Perhaps part of the reason I am "pushing back" on this topic is an effort to find more clarity on this and similar topics.

This is how I see it.

Marriage is the foundation of families.  Families - Father, mother, and children - is the foundation of God's Kingdom (it is also the foundation of mortal societies).  Therefore, we call God, Father.  Christ, we call his Son.  We (LDS) believe in Heavenly Mother as well.  We believe that we, humans, go through mortality by exercising our free agency as it is exposed to nature and nurture.  God, since the beginning, established covenants with an elect people to raise generations under the covenant teaching their kin and the gentiles to bring to pass the mortality and eternal life of man. 

In this covenant of marriage which is the incubator for covenant children, the Male and the Female are not interchangeable.  They each carry their own genetic code necessary in the task of bringing to pass the mortality and eternal life of man.

Marriage, therefore, is the ultimate act of Love of God as it is the first step - whether sealed by priesthood power or not - towards the fulfillment in bringing to pass the eternal life of man.  Love God is the first commandment.  Love others as you love yourself is the second commandment.  Loving others is that deep, honest, and humble desire to bring somebody closer to Christ.  Marriage, then, comes first, sex comes second.  Sex is the ultimate expression of Love of God and one's spouse as one brings his spouse with him closer to Christ.  Sex is not solely self-gratification.  Rather, it needs to conform to the great commandment of loving others as one's self by gratifying both yourself and your spouse.

So, what about sex outside of marriage?  Sex outside of the Covenant of Marriage is not Love.  Sex outside of Marriage does not bring you or your sexual partner closer to God as it is a deviation from God's plan to bring to pass the eternal life of man through the foundation of families.

So, what about same sex marriage?  Male and Female is not interchangeable.  You can't take out the female in the foundation of families and replace her with another male.  Similarly, you can't take out the male in the foundation of families and replace him with another female.  Marriage, therefore, is not designed with interchangeable genders.  As same sex marriage is not possible in God's Kingdom, same sex intercourse is not Love.

So, what about the statement by gay and lesbian folks that they are discriminated against because they are not allowed to marry the person they love?  That has an easy answer.  Love is not who you want to have sex with.  Rather, love is that deep, burning, honest, and humble desire to bring someone closer to Christ.  Love comes first.  Then you can express that love through sexual intercourse.  Not the other way around - sexual intercourse first, bringing someone closer to Christ second.  This is not just applicable to homosexuals.  This goes the same for heterosexuals.  Marrying the person you want to have sex with is NOT a good foundation of marriage and families.  Rather, marrying the person you desire to bring closer to Christ is THE good foundation for families.  Sexual expression of that Godly desire comes in due course.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think I will basically agree with you -- that "lust" and the "natural man" are much more involved than merely parts of our sexual nature. The problem I see with trying to see "the natural man as everything the flesh desires which is contrary to God's plan" is that the logic in my head becomes circular very quickly -- without some outside source to define "God's plan" clearly enough that I can see what is truly contrary to that plan.

In my understanding, God is the ultimate outside source.  But, because of the frailties of mortality and the blindness of the natural man, each of us struggles to see and understand things He's trying to reveal to us.  But, as the scriptures, our leaders and the peaceful feelings of the Spirit remind us, the struggle is worth it.

For me, there are days when I feel very weighed down by my limitations.. feelings of being trapped in my own mind .. a prison of sorts... On those days it's pretty easy for me to feel like the struggle is pointless because it's so obvious to me that I'm failing... to understand, grow, etc.. Then there are other days when I feel myself seeing things a little more clearly... not with perfect clarity, but with enough clarity to realize that a patient and loving Teacher is whispering things to my heart and mind, and I am still moving forward at my own pace.  At those moments the darker days look less dark.  The struggle is worth it because I'm not alone in it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, theSQUIDSTER said:

In my understanding, God is the ultimate outside source.  But, because of the frailties of mortality and the blindness of the natural man, each of us struggles to see and understand things He's trying to reveal to us.  But, as the scriptures, our leaders and the peaceful feelings of the Spirit remind us, the struggle is worth it.

For me, there are days when I feel very weighed down by my limitations.. feelings of being trapped in my own mind .. a prison of sorts... On those days it's pretty easy for me to feel like the struggle is pointless because it's so obvious to me that I'm failing... to understand, grow, etc.. Then there are other days when I feel myself seeing things a little more clearly... not with perfect clarity, but with enough clarity to realize that a patient and loving Teacher is whispering things to my heart and mind, and I am still moving forward at my own pace.  At those moments the darker days look less dark.  The struggle is worth it because I'm not alone in it.  

That's the thing, though, isn't it?  That we KNOW we are supposed to fight it.  That's the problem here.

I have IED and it is a daily struggle to keep that tamed.  But I KNOW I am supposed to fight it.  So, I take up my cross everyday and learn coping mechanisms exercising my free agency everyday, strengthening my mind to master my urges.... etc... until I get to that point that there are days and days and days that I don't even think about it.  Yes, I still fail at times (as recently as last week), but I have no other choice but to get up and try again.  I refuse to let it define me.

The problem is when homosexuals don't believe that we are supposed to fight it.  That's where it becomes difficult because we first have to gain that testimony of God's Plan before we can even take up the cross to follow Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with this in principle, but I don't see why this line of thinking cannot apply to homosexual "marriage" -- making careful choice of spouse and making proper covenants with that person for as long as they both shall live. PC mentions some statistics about the higher "failure" rate of gay unions, but just because some in that population fail to live up to monogamous covenants. What is it about these covenants that makes the heterosexual version "right" and the homosexual version "wrong"?

I see two possible issues here:

First, love--whether in the forms the Greeks called "philos", "agape", or "eros"--was always supposed to be eternal.  Joseph Smith was all about building bonds of friendship and familial, brotherly, and romantic love that would continue on into the eternities.  If homosexuality is indeed a result of the fall and I spend my life building an erotic relationship with another man--for one thing, I have set myself up for the heartbreak of having created the *only* form of love that MUST must end on resurrection morning. (well, that and adulterers. Maybe that's why the resurrection of the telestial is delayed--they are still grieving for lost relationships during the morning of the first resurrection, and resurrection at that moment wouldn't be a joyous event for them).  Marriage to a man also forecloses, at least temporally, the opportunity for marriage to a woman; which might be said to represent a rejection of celestial marriage itself.  (This is not to say that gay men should seek heterosexual marriage as a "cure", but . . . as per my earlier post, either you're waiting for deliverance or you're not.  Either you eat your seder in your traveling clothes, ready to leave for the promised land at a moment's notice; or you eat your fill at Egypt's flesh-pots and then settle in for a long slumber of bondage.)

Second, the desire to enter into a gay marriage generally leads to the desire to bring children into that union.  Once I begin cutting other human beings out of their own heirships under the patriarchal order so that I and my gay husband can play house--in my book that becomes a Very Bad Thing.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2016 at 1:26 PM, Zarahemla said:

I've read the standard works all 4 books of scripture and never saw Jesus ever mention His stance on homosexuals, like if they're sinning or condemned or if He loves them. I haven't seen Jesus' position one way or the other. And I've never heard Joseph Smith or the pioneer prophets mention anything about homosexuals. It seems the main mention of homosexuals is from Spencer W Kimball and on so is the church's stance on homosexuality a modern day prophet thing or has it been the stance forever and I just haven't noticed? I'd love references.

Here's the logical way to approach this.

1.  Jesus Christ was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament.

2.  Jehovah gave Moses a law that Israel was supposed to obey. Jesus is Jehovah, he is the giver of the Law.  In the Book of Mormon, Jesus said to the Nephites, "I am he who gave the law" (See 3 Nephi 15:5).  

3. The penalties for various sexual sins, including incest, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are listed in Leviticus, Chapter 20.  Verse 13 specifically addresses male homosexual acts and lists the penalty as death.  Again, Jesus is Jehovah.  It is he who gave the law.

4.  Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses by the shedding of his own blood (3 Nephi 15:8).  Instead of giving specific commands and penalties, he upped the standard and stated that individuals were now accountable to God directly, not only for their acts, but also their thoughts.  Earthly religious leaders no longer enforced capital punishment for those sins. All they can do is withdraw fellowship, as in excommunication or disfellowshipment.

5. In modern revelation, D&C 59:6, the Lord stated:

Quote

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.

Thus sexual sins like adultery, fornication, and homosexual acts are still forbidden.  D&C 42:22 says, 

Quote

Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

The current leaders of the Church have urged latter-day saints to be tolerant and kind toward those who struggle with sin, including those who struggle with attraction toward the same sex.  They have not lowered the bar on the expectations of obedience.  The consequence of disobedience is eternal punishment.  Repentance is the remedy we all need to use, regardless of our various individual transgressions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic is a most interesting justification of right and wrong.  The problem is that human logic is more often generated from unique individual desires and passions rather than from sound principles of reason.  For many logic becomes a means to reach a desired destination rather than a journey of discipline and principle.  For example one can justify and logically conclude certain and particular child abuses are better (therefor good) than a much worse abuse – like feeding children to crocodiles – Thus something less wrong is justified as right because it is not as wrong as some other possibility.  We love this flawed logic of justification especially in religion (morals) and politics.   And so we think ourself good because we think we are not as bad as someone we judge as worse.

Sometimes the logic we use to justify our desires becomes so flawed that the logic itself becomes more corrupted (wrong and evil) than the desire and passion we are trying to justify.  This is the root problem with lies – in that the “cover up” often becomes worse than the initial lying “sin”.  This use of fuzzy logic is the primary objection I have to homosexuality.  The logic of – what is so bad about ______ becomes such a blatant flaw that the justification of homosexual marriage becomes more problematic than the desire to enter into a homosexual marriage.

So the idea – that someone cannot be happy unless they get what they want - is an example of flawed logic that business executives, political and religious individuals have throughout human history used to justify war, theft and even murder thinking it will in the end make them happy.  Another flawed logic for self – is the idea that it really does not hurt anyone else so that alone is justification to do something desired.

In my mind it does not matter if someone believes that marriage is a concept that evolves in society or a divine gift from G-d for a stable human population – the point of marriage is not to gratify our selfish sexual passions and desires so we can be happy about our individual passions.  Not that someone cannot have sexual enjoyment – only that marriage is also about responsibilities as a means to discipline our sexual desires for the future of humanity not a justification or excuse for what we individually want.  In the past I have challenged the proponents of homosexuality to logically present a reason why humanity cannot continue over the next 10,000 years without it.  Once I even suggested that rape has more benefit for the future of mankind than does homosexuality – that upset a few people – but I concluded that they, concerning many things, probably are not aware of the reproductive activity of ducks.  It is not unusual or uncommon for the female duck to end up dead – but that is how ducks sacrifice for the next generation of ducks.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traveler, the logic I mentioned was simply a return to the OP's question. That was, did Jesus address homosexuality? The logic used was to connect the statements of the premortal, mortal, and resurrected Christ. If you're reading anything more to it than that, you're looking for something that isn't there. The answer to the question asked is affirmative. Jesus did address homosexuality, before he was born in the flesh, through his servant Moses. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

 

 

Edited by spamlds
Punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 8:44 PM, spamlds said:

Traveler, the logic I mentioned was simply a return to the OP's question. That was, did Jesus address homosexuality? The logic used was to connect the statements of the premortal, mortal, and resurrected Christ. If you're reading anything more to it than that, you're looking for something that isn't there. The answer to the question asked is affirmative. Jesus did address homosexuality, before he was born in the flesh, through his servant Moses. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

 

 

I do not disagree at all with your opinion but the OP's question if being presented (asked) in a court of law will - your logic not protect you if you are a baker that does not want to make a cake for a homosexual wedding on the basis of your belief and logic that Jesus addressed homosexuality.  Not because your logic is wrong but because it will not be accepted as a defense.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now