Gay and Christian?

[JasoNnnN]

And considering I'm a Jew, and most Reform, Reconstructionist and many Conservative Jews have determined that leviticus is interpreted incorrectly based on modern understanding of homosexuality, I'll side with the Jewish view on the issue. I would far sooner trust a council of Rabbis to interpret the OT over some random Christian.

"They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers."

 

[Criada]

Love God.. that's what matters
the rest is just pointless words...

 

[Phinehas2]

That doesnt help. 'Love God' can mean all kinds of conflicting things to different people as we see from our discussions.

 

[Jase]

I dare, all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking and correcting so that the people of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16, it’s the word of God.

In other words, you believe Enoch, Maccabees, the Apocrophya, the Gospel of Thomas, etc. are all inspired by God since they are part of "all scripture". Good to know.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jase,

In other words, you believe Enoch, Maccabees, the Apocrophya, the Gospel of Thomas, etc. are all inspired by God since they are part of "all scripture". Good to know.

I believe all scripture we have in the Bible is God breathed, I haven’t quoted any other. So what you know continues to be mostly in your own head. I would accept Maccabes and the Apocrypha as possible, but not the gospel of Thomas. What about you, notice I Have the courtesy to ask, do you believe those are scripture or not scripture?
but as you see you dared me and I dare

 

[JasoNnnN]

Jase, why are you so quick to assume?

If one believes in the God of the Bible, then surely he believes that God used men to put the bible together? It's the case of 'I don't like it so I will ignore it' again.

 

[Jase]

Jase,
I believe all scripture we have in the Bible is God breathed, I haven’t quoted any other. So what you know continues to be mostly in your own head. I would accept Maccabes and the Apocrypha as possible, but not the gospel of Thomas. What about you, notice I Have the courtesy to ask, do you believe those are scripture or not scripture?[/size][/b]
but as you see you dared me and I dare

Ah, but Timothy says all-scripture. He couldn't have been referring only to that which is in the Bible, because the Bible didn't exist yet. Not to mention, there is more than one Bible. Who says the Protestant version is the correct one?

I see no reason why those books aren't to be included in the Bible. I know why the Church left them out, because they brought up theological questions relating to Jesus' divinity, so the Church didn't want to risk people questioning. The Gospel of Thomas, however, contains many sayings and parables that closely align with the other 4 gospels, and some claim it is the most accurate record of Jesus' direct sayings.

It also contains the basis of one of my favorite religious quotes - "The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you, not in buildings of wood or stone. Split a piece of wood and you will find me. Lift a rock and I am there."

I personally, however, think that Revelation absolutely does not belong in the Bible. There is an older Jewish Revelation which makes far more sense, and correctly refers to the Roman Empire, not some mythical end of days scenario.

 

[Jase]

Jase, why are you so quick to assume?

If one believes in the God of the Bible, then surely he believes that God used men to put the bible together? It's the case of 'I don't like it so I will ignore it' again.

You can assume that God may have had a hand in encouraging the authors to write the Bible based on their culture and understanding, but you have absolutely no basis to assume that God dicated it, or made sure it was 100% infallible, and scientifically accurate.

 

[Archivist]

You can assume that God may have had a hand in encouraging the authors to write the Bible based on their culture and understanding, but you have absolutely no basis to assume that God dicated it, or made sure it was 100% infallible, and scientifically accurate.

True. Bats are not birds although scripture says otherwise.

 

[Criada]

That doesnt help. 'Love God' can mean all kinds of conflicting things to different people as we see from our discussions.

I know
sorry.. it just all seems rather pointless

 

[Jase]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown
They are equal sins in the eyes of the Lord, some are prone to homosexuality, murder, inappropriate behavior with animals, rape, others are more prone to temptations of lying or theft.

Catholic church. Rampant homosexuality, Widespread rape of young boys. Cover-ups. Hello??!!
If it were the boys scouts, or any other organization with whom we trust our youths, there would be a nationwide (or world-wide) boycott. Why aren't you all incensed over
this? On the one hand, you are condemning homosexuality and, on the other hand, you are defending an organization which is pervaded by it. Am I missing something here?

You're missing the fact that homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing, and I find it insulting that this comparison continues. Most child molestors are heterosexual.

 

[Jase]

I am not missing the fact that these are not the same thing, and I agree that the comparison is consulting. Re-read what I wrote.
My point is that in the Catholic Church cases, these children were abused, it was not consensual.

You specifically stated that the Catholic Church is pervaded by homosexuals and pedophilia. You most certainly correlated the two together.

And again I will reiterate. Most child molesters and pedophiles, are heterosexual. They are attracted to children because they are pre-pubescent and don't exhibit sexualized characteristics. Homosexual men are attracted to men, not boys.

 

[Polycarp1]

And again I will reiterate. Most child molesters and pedophiles, are heterosexual. They are attracted to children because they are pre-pubescent and don't exhibit sexualized characteristics. Homosexual men are attracted to men, not boys.

I'm going to suggest a tweak here, which you're free to accept or reject, as I don't have the statistics handy to validate whether my suggestion is accurate.

"Most pedophiles who are also attracted to adults are attracted heterosexually. Many are attracted to children precisely because they are pre-pubescent and do not exhibit overt sexual characteristics as yet -- for many pedophiles, this is seen as a 'feminine' characteristic which makes them desirable. Few pedophiles are attracted to both men and boys. And most homosexuals are attracted to men either exclusively or in company with boys well past puberty -- ones that would be 'men' by the standards of other cultures than ours." (I included that last because in all honesty, we should recognize the 'twink' phenomenon -- gay men attracted to older adolescents. The point is that they're not attracted to pre-pubescent boys, any more than their straight counterparts are to pre-teen girls.)

 

[Phinehas2]

Jase,

Ah, but Timothy says all-scripture. He couldn't have been referring only to that which is in the Bible, because the Bible didn't exist yet. Not to mention, there is more than one Bible. Who says the Protestant version is the correct one?

Well he was referring to all that was subsequently put into the Bible, he writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don’t expect to be arguing with Christians about whether the Bible is authority, so I wont bother, I would expect to be arguing with atheists. Christians believe the Bible.

The Gospel of Thomas, however, contains many sayings and parables that closely align with the other 4 gospels, and some claim it is the most accurate record of Jesus' direct sayings.

then as now the Gnostics, the Gospel of Thomas was and is not considered reliable enough.

It also contains the basis of one of my favorite religious quotes - "The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you, not in buildings of wood or stone. Split a piece of wood and you will find me. Lift a rock and I am there."

I personally, however, think that Revelation absolutely does not belong in the Bible. There is an older Jewish Revelation which makes far more sense, and correctly refers to the Roman Empire, not some mythical end of days scenario.

Well sadly for you the Gospel of Thomas isnt considered by Christianity to be reliable and Revelation is included…. And by the Holy Spirit we know why.

 

[Jig]

Homosexual did not exist as a word until quite recently. To take a 2000 year old passage and insert a 20th Century word into it to fit a certain agenda does not good Christian translation make. You just want to believe it's accurate so you can continue to judge and condemn people you don't like under the guise of proper Christian righteousness.

Sodomite also meant nothing related to sexuality until quite recently. I believe, even in the 17th Century KJV Bible, the word was translated to mean general wickedness (in correlation with the true sins of Sodom, not homosexuality). It's the anti-gays who have distorted scripture to align with their personal prejudices. Translators can't be trusted.

I read what you said about Sodom and homosexuality and decided to do some research in early literature around the same time as the bible. I looked at some apocryphal works, Philo, Tacitus, and Josephus. These writers wrote within the same time period the NT writers were writing.

This is what I found.

Here is Philo "On Abraham"
XXVII.
(135b)but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature...
(137) But God, having taken pity on mankind, as being a Saviour and full of love for mankind, increased, as far as possible, the natural desire of men and women for a connexion together, for the sake of producing children, and detesting the unnatural and unlawful commerce of the people of Sodom, he extinguished it, and destroyed those who were inclined to these things.

The Special Laws, III
(39) And let the man who is devoted to the love of men submit to the same punishment, since he pursues that pleasure which is contrary to nature

Here is Josephus AgAp 2.273–275
And why do not the Lacedemonians think of abolishing that form of their government which suffers them not to associate with any others, as well as their contempt of matrimony? And why do not the Eleans and Thebans abolish that unnatural and impudent lust, which makes them lie with males? (274) For they will not shew sufficient sign of their repentance of what they of old thought to be very excellent, and very advantageous in their practices, unless they entirely avoid all such actions for the time to come: (275) nay, such things are inserted into the body of their laws, and had once such a power among the Greeks, that they ascribed these sodomitical practices to the gods themselves, as part of their good character; and indeed it was according to the same manner that the gods married their own sisters. This the Greeks contrived as an apology for their own absurd and unnatural pleasures.

AgAp 2.198–199
25. (199) But then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if anyone do that, death is his punishment.

The Testament of Naphtali, the Eighth Son of Jacob and Bilhah 3:4
4 But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of nature.

This shows that Sodom was related to homosexuality very early. Not recently.