In Law, it is understood that the lack of evidence is not in an of itself proof.

This is not an argument.  It is a strategy, and totally without merit or foundation.

What Creighton+ said, plus the strategy of dismissing the bishop’s statement as “political”. Homosexualist partisans, following the California election, threatened the non-profit status of both the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church for their moral stands.

The fundamental dishonesty of this letter is impressive, but unfortunately typical.

Well, the series of brochures could be extended quite far, I’d recommend: What Jesus said about…
atomic fission and thermonuclear weapons
state run health care
cocaine
morphine
global warming
domestic abuse
pollution
st cetera ad infinitem

Let’s see how that works out for them.

According to St. John the Word was saying quite a bit about quite a lot of things before he became flesh and dwelt among us.

After a thorough review of the Gospels, I find no record that Jesus said anything about arson.

Jesus did say that from the beginning God created them male and femlae and for this reason a man should leave his parents and take a wife ane the two should become one flesh. Hebrew scripture was clear and there was no need for an additional teaching. The fact that Jesus did not give a new teaching in instructive.

#3, don’t forget the biggie, universal health care, amongst a slew of social welfare programs….

Jesus is also silent on homophobia.
Let’s see how that works for the reappraisers.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Why would Jesus say anything about homosexuality?  He was sent to the lost sheep of Israel.  It wasn’t an issue for the Jews because the Law was very clear about it.  Men lying with men (and women with women) was what those pagan Gentiles did.  After the resurrection, however, as the gospel moved out from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth it did become an issue and St Paul more than adequately addressed it for those who have ears to hear.

This Sunday’s Gospel reading (Mark 10:2-16) does throw some light on the matter too.  The pro same-sex-blessing/gay-marriage crowd will say that because the church now makes allowance for remarriage of divorced people an obvious next step should be the recognition of permanent same-sex relationships.  (I fail to see how the one follows the other but that’s another matter.) But if we look at Jesus’ teachings on divorce we hear him say that divorce was a concession to hardheartedness.  It wasn’t at all what God intended for humankind.  Life-long union in marriage between a man and a woman is part of the created order, an order that is disrupted by divorce and, I would add, by homosexual practice. 

So based on the above, had some Pharisees come to Jesus and in order to test him asked what he thought about same-sex-relationships I imagine he would have said that they were an example of human hardheartedness, that mark of a life lived in stubborn resistance to the purposes of God.  Then I imagine he would have pointed to that passage in Genesis again about what God intended for men and women made in his image that they might reflect that image to the world.

Ross

Actually, there’s a big ‘ol bllboard out on I-30 just east of Fort Worth that says Jesus affirmed a gay couple.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

Isn’t this a great example of “get your hypothesis and then make everything fit it?”

Did Jesus address abortion?  bestiality?  incest?  polyamory?  So, if Jesus didn’t address it not only is it permissible, its also blessed?  Is that the logic?

It seems there are too many people with teeny, tiny, little, “red-lettered” Bibles probably out there in the world.

Let me lay some red letters on you: 

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

I often think that actual size of our conception of the triune God is proportional to the authority of we give to His inspired word in our own lives.  Small Bible, small Jesus, etc.

Nary a word about slavery, either.  Didn’t save a thief who was being *crucified*....Boy, time to rewrite a few law codes.

The only purity that mattered to Jesus was purity of the heart. True love between any two people is pure.

She was not inclusive enough. Perhaps that should have been written “between two or more people.”  Oops I left out the single people. Sorry.

I thought all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God but what do I know?

“True love is pure.” What is “true” love?

Perhaps if Israel had a gay lobby Jesus might have had to mention something…

[Edited by Elf]