Jesus never condemned homosexuality, nor did He even mention it. Does it follow that homosexuality is okay?
-//-
Have you heard this one before (or something similar)? There are a number of issues at play here, one of them being a faulty view of the uniformity and cohesiveness of the Scriptures (i.e., for instance, are the words of Paul in his epistle to the Romans authoritative also, seeing as how they’re in the canon too?). However, instead of firstly dealing with that issue, my initial response/angle would be this: “So what! Where are you seeking to go with that premise? Finish the thought.”
What the person means to communicate is that since Christ did not condemn or explicitly mention homosexuality, it should then follow that He either approved of it, didn’t have a problem with it one way or the other, or didn’t see it as a huge deal. However, this conclusion doesn’t follow from the given premise (the person has engaged in a non-sequitur logical fallacy, a fallacy whereby the conclusion to one’s argument does not necessarily or validly flow from the prior premises given). Did Christ specifically condemn rape? Since He did not, does it logically follow that He was okay with that crime?
Jesus upheld the validity of the Old Testament and its condemnation of rape, incest, and homosexuality. Do we seek to put legislation on the table that would seek to decriminalize rape and incest simply because Jesus did not explicitly condemn these behaviors? I think you can see the terrible argument at play here; however, it has been used before. Jesus and the New Testament writers worked within (and from) a framework/backdrop of the Old Testament law, thus, there was no need to repeat what was already accepted to be authoritative.
--
[Scratching the Surface 2.4]
No comments:
Post a Comment