Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 10 May 91 07:11:42 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton Lines: 37 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article kane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes: >...which brings me to my main point...how do we know that the laws against >homosexuality aren't "Bad Laws"? Here's an interesting passage from Matthew... (Jesus has just finished giving the Pharisees the low-down on divorce.) Matthew 19:10-12 10 His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry." 11 Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those who God has given it. 12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." (TEV) What is the "conventional" way of interpretting this passage? I've often heard the argument made that "Jesus never spoke against homosexuality!". Well, that doesn't mean he's in favor of it either now does it. But back a few months ago, when the homosexuality issue was a hot topic on this board I came across the above passage. I didn't bring it up then. (Call me a coward.) The third reason Jesus lists apparantly has been interpreted as referring to the celibacy of the priesthood. What do the first two refer to? And what does the closing instruction refer to? (I would guess this is usually interpreted as "Accept the celibacy of the priesthood if your can.") Just throwing it out for discussion folks. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton