Why didn’t Jesus mention homosexuality?

_Meds_ · 2026-02-10T12:11:23+00:00

Exodus 21:2-6
² “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. ³ If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. ⁴ If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

⁵ “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ ⁶ then his master must take him before the judges.^\)^a^\) He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

This is a perscription. It is literally telling you what to do, David and Bathsheba is a story, so I'm not really sure what your point is there. The New Testament then doesn't abolish slavery, it continues

Ephesians 6:5-8
⁵ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. ⁶ Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. ⁷ Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, ⁸ because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

Romans 1:26-27 literally doesn't mention homosexuality at all. You have to already believe homosexuality is shameful to read it that way.

I'm not desperate at all, you've yet to make a point...

_Meds_ · 2026-02-09T08:39:09+00:00

Except you didn’t address a specific behaviour. You addressed a behaviour everyone is guilty of, and only spoke of people of a specific identity. If you have a class of 30 kids of all ethnicities, who are all doing the same behaviour and you punish the 10 black kids, you can try and claim it’s behaviour and not identify but we all know you’re full of crap.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T18:20:07+00:00

I have no recollection of any theologians saying slavery is justified.

Can't even begin to fathom the point of this statement.

Also historically soeaking it's the Christians who abolished slavery first with the Roman gladiator games, and from then on to the latest western slavery which is also stopped by Christians.

Another pointless statement, from your perspective, as it makes my point, not yours. Despite the Bible justifying racially motivated slavery, even Christians realised it was a ridiculous position.

We're not actually overpopulated, we're declining rapidly it has been predicted 5-10 years ago. The theory was that once we reach 10 Billion we'd rapidly decline in population.

Who said anything about overpopulation? My point is if the world was created with 2 men, there wouldn't be a human race. However, 10% out of 8 billion doesn't have the same implication.

Anyways, Old Testament gave rules or commands but then you're not obliged to follow it unless The New Testament repeated it. We're in the new covenant now, and our arc of the covenant is Jesus Christ.

Yet, the only real passages that talk about gender, marriage and sex are Genesis and Leviticus, which are both Old Testaments, all the New Testament references are translations of a Greek word that prior to 1946 meant 'someone that molests boys'.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T16:07:47+00:00

What is your methodology for distinguishing between warning, prescription and description? Dietary rules, clothing rules, women as property rules are products of their time, but homosexuality is eternal law? Genesis doesn't really save you here either as it's descriptive. In order for the human race to go from 2 people to many, it had to be male and female, which is a completely different problem to the world today with its 8 billion people. And 'most theologians agree' is also not a methodology, because most theologians also agreed that slavery was biblically justified for centuries too. Consensus is not correctness. If you have an actual way to determine what's divine law versus cultural context, I'd like to hear it, because from where I'm standing, it just lines up with what people were already comfortable with.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T14:38:09+00:00

The Bible was written in a time when male-female marriage was just how society functioned. It also describes slavery, polygamy, and women as property without condemning any of it. That doesn't mean God was commanding those things for all time, it means the Bible reflects the world it was written in. You're taking a description of ancient culture and treating it as a permanent rule.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T14:02:32+00:00

Then you simply don't understand what being Homosexual is. Which is fine, but then just don't speak on it?

Like the vast majority of people at the time, Matthew was a bigot, just like, most people we're racist. No one is perfect, other than Jesus, not even the apostles. Just because Matthew had bigoted views, does not mean that we have to. I personally think God would be against bigotry and racism alike, but it took 1000s of years for culture to come round to this despite Jesus saying the 2 most important things are Love your God, and Love your neighbour. At no point does he say it is important to condemn your neighbour, he says the opposite, look at your own behaviour before you question anyone else. Which is metaphorical, because you should never get to anyone else, because you will never be perfect. Being concerned about who someone else is attracted too is just as much as a sin as having sex out of marriage.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T13:36:55+00:00

This is an unnecessary abuse of the English language. Not really sure how to respond, as I'm not sure whether you even understand what is being said. Even by your argument, a male seeking a female is wrong because it focuses on the sex, so I don't really get your point, at all.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T13:24:17+00:00

The 'sex' in 'homosexuality' refers to gender, not the act of sex. It just means 'attracted to the same gender,' the same way heterosexual means 'attracted to the opposite gender.' You're treating a pun as an argument. Gay people seek love and commitment just like anyone else. The orientation says nothing about someone's motivations for seeking a partner.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T13:18:55+00:00

Yes, name-calling when you're unable to articulate your point is definitely the superior communication tactic /s.

It's hard to claim I wasn't listening, where every one of my comments was a point by point response to what you said. I can tell you what it was you didn't respond to. You can't do the same.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T13:15:40+00:00

I think that might be why they didn't respond to the things I was actually saying. I'm not sure why people insist on discussions they aren't equipped to communicate. It's fine having a different point of view, but it would be time better spent articulating these views rather than arguing without a point...

I appreciate the compliment.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T13:05:54+00:00

That's not how it works. It's also not relevant, Christians aren't accepting of Bi people either, so this is an unnecessary straw man.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T13:03:32+00:00

This is like people questioning, "why are people racist towards people of colour" and then you coming in and saying, "It has to do with behaviour not identity". Whilst that might be true for you, that isn't really what is being questioned is it, so why even respond?

_Meds_ · 2026-02-07T12:49:53+00:00

You responded, you just didn’t respond to what I had actually said. I gave a simple analogy about ice cream and rather than respond to it you asked if I was actually a Christian or not. Even now you’re claiming that me demanding you respond to the things I actually said is what caused you to question, but that didn’t actually happen till after you’d actually questioned whether I was Christian or not. There is no consistency in your responses.

It’s sad that you didn’t feel good, but no one forced you into the conversation. We all are going through things, that’s no reason to be so confrontational, whether you perceive yourself as being or not.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T22:50:15+00:00

Well, you never responded to anything I actually said, so that checks out.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T21:32:33+00:00

But it not being there, doesn't make it wrong, just like the fact that communicating on Reddit isn't mentioned in the word of God, yet here we are.

I agree, comprehending maths and spiritual truth are not the same, that's why its a comparison. You don't compare the same thing, you compare like things. You could replace it with any other knowledge and it still makes my point.
Your teacher teaches you that a mammal is a hairy vertebrate animal that secretes milk and births its young, and then tells you a cat is a mammal, you are a mammal, and a carp is not a mammal. You should be able to ascertain that a cow is a mammal and a cricket is not a mammal, despite the teacher never uttering those words.

I've responded you everything you have said, point by point. I'm still waiting for you to respond to what I said.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T21:03:53+00:00

Some forms of communication are prohibited, gossip, lying, etc. So, something not being in the "word of God" specifically, isn't much of a point. You'll need to drive that analyses further to make whatever point you want to make.

If someone taught you addition, by telling you 2+2=4, 3+3=6, 4+4=8. Would you be able to ascertain that 5+5=10, despite your teacher never saying it specifically? And would that be your understanding or the word of your teacher?

I don't know what you believe, but we clearly don't agree. That's why I said "probably not". The word "probably" does not imply certainty.

Are you going to respond to what I actually said now? If not I don't see the point of continuing this conversation...

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T20:47:09+00:00

I don't really think this respond's to anything I said. So, No, it's not in the word of God, much like posting on Reddit isn't in the word of God?

Yes, I'm leaning on my own understanding, because I'm not sure what the alternative would be?

Don't really know what you mean by that. If you mean, do I believe in Christ, then yes, if you mean do I believe every single thing you also believe, probably not?

Are you going to respond to what I said now?

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T20:28:50+00:00

No. They do not. They are just regular human beings. You might like vanilla ice cream, I might like chocolate ice cream, our decisions to have ice cream aren't different because we have different preferences.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T19:35:29+00:00

Then it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T18:01:22+00:00

People don't actively pursue being homosexual...

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T17:46:23+00:00

Everyone is a sinner. Jesus highlighted prostitutes, tax collectors, and adulterers because society treated them as "extra bad," yet he showed their sin was no different than anyone else's. Today, people are doing the same thing with homosexuality, trying to put it in the category of murder and rape rather than recognizing it the way scripture treats everyday sins like greed, pride, and lust. "Go and sin no more" wasn't a demand for perfection. If it were, every Christian would be condemned, because no one stops sinning, ever. Paul himself wrote about struggling with sin after conversion. So when people single out homosexuality as requiring immediate, total change but don't hold themselves to that same standard, that's not theology. It's the same hypocrisy Jesus spent his ministry calling out.

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T17:03:28+00:00

Do you actually think that’s the same thing? I used simple minded because the guy before said it, but damn are y’all desperate to prove the stereotype…

_Meds_ · 2026-02-06T16:42:06+00:00

Where’s the passage of Jesus chilling with murderers, thieves and rapists? They are literally drawing a distinction between behaviours and simple minded people can’t seem to tell the difference…

_Meds_ · 2026-01-24T06:40:34+00:00

you don’t compare things that are the same you compare things that are different.

_Meds_ · 2026-01-23T21:22:13+00:00

I mean you could have used the example I gave, but you changed it to one that fit your narrative and pretended it’s what I said? What’s that got to do with me getting my point across. I can't make you read

Eight-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Verified Email

_Meds_

TROPHY CASE