Started By
Message
re: Will homosexuality be Christianity's bane?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:14 am to the808bass
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:14 am to the808bass
quote:
1) That's some interesting dating of the New Testament texts. Some might go so far as to say it's inane.
Yeah, don't now where he got his numbers. The first gospel was written around 70 AD and all four are believed to have been written by 100 AD (so between 40-70 years after Jesus).
The problems with the gospels aren't the dates, it's the contradictions between them and the lack of original texts to support them. What we have now are almost surely not identical to what the original documents said. For instance, the last 12 verses of Mark we know were added several hundred years later because Mark (believed to be the first gospel) included NOTHING about the resurrection, only the death, the burial and ends with the women at the tomb.
Also, the gospels are not all "original", independent accounts. Matthew is essentially Mark with different wording and a different ending and Luke clearly drew from both. John is the only gospel that really stands alone and is the source of NUMEROUS contradictions when compared to the synoptics.
quote:
2) In an oral society, "hearsay" isn't the same as "hearsay" in a written society. Oral tradition is very static in oral societies. Ascribing your cultural biases to another culture's systems usually doesn't end well.
While true on some level, the fact is that their society was far more prone to superstition, deification and legend. What would be shunned as an outrageous part of a story today was easily believed then.
The fact is that there is strong historical evidence, and even evidence within the gospels, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who genuinely believed the world was coming to an immediate end. He even told his followers some would not see death before his second coming. He may or may not have predicted his resurrection (many think this was part of his deification later) but the general idea is that most of his early followers believed that the world had little time left in the years following his death. Over time, his lack of return combined with oral legend spread to a society desperate for new faiths.
2
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:15 am to Pavoloco83
quote:
The bible is a political work
You seem to think that the KJV was the first Bible put together.
quote:
Its all hearsay.
How are Paul's letters hearsay?
One interesting tidbit about the KJV. Old King James was a sprinkler, so when the translators got to the Greek word "baptizo", them liking their heads attached to their neck, instead of using what the word really meant, which is immersion, they transliterated baptizo to baptism. There was no English word "baptism" until the KJV.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:21 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Men change, but God does not
Yahweh is NOTHING like the God of the New Testement. Their traits are not only different, they are mutually exclusive.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 2:26 am
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:23 am to Stonehog
quote:
Must be why he never brought it up in the New Testament. Touchy subject with his dad.
He defined marriage as being between a man and a woman:
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).
By defining it thusly, he's condemning all other arrangements.
Jesus never specifically said it was wrong to marry a porcupine, does that means it's A-OK with the man upstairs?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:28 am to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
How are Paul's letters hearsay?
The strange thing about Paul's letters is that he never gives much indication that he believed Jesus was ever a person who walked the earth. He may have believed it, but he refers to Jesus in a very spiritual, mystical, "vision I saw on the road to Damascus" kind of way. Additionally, his words about salvation and works and morals are very different from those spoken by Jesus in the gospels. He implores a much more faith-based approach, whereas Jesus clearly said that faith alone is a hollow faith that won't save you.
Paul is also said to have had many heated verbal battles with Peter and the disciples, indicating they did not see eye to eye.
quote:
One interesting tidbit about the KJV. Old King James was a sprinkler, so when the translators got to the Greek word "baptizo", them liking their heads attached to their neck, instead of using what the word really meant, which is immersion, they transliterated baptizo to baptism. There was no English word "baptism" until the KJV.
The KJV is a mess. It literally alters the meaning of numerous verses.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 1:32 am to LittleJerrySeinfield
Agreed, if you believe the bible as the word of God Jesus is against homosexuality even though he never specifically says the word. He quotes the OT and refers to the same "sexually immoral" that included homosexuals in the OT.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 2:27 am
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:37 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Agreed, if you believe the bible as the word of God Jesus is against homosexuality even though he never specifically says the word. He quotes the OT and refers to the same "sexually immoral" that included homosexuals in the OT.
That's just another example of Christians picking and choosing which parts of the bible they want to acknowledge. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but God condemned it in the Old Testament so that means Jesus must agree. But everything Christians don't like about the Old Testament can be thrown out with the New Covenant.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:02 am to Stonehog
quote:
That's just another example of Christians picking and choosing which parts of the bible they want to acknowledge. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but God condemned it in the Old Testament so that means Jesus must agree. But everything Christians don't like about the Old Testament can be thrown out with the New Covenant.
I'm not a Christian, I just understand what the bible says.
IF you are going to follow it as the word of God, Jesus (and Paul in his letters) make it understood they believe homosexuality is a sin. I do not agree, but that's what it says.
Additionally, the old covenant was a series of rituals and customs and not a set of sins that were inherently evil. Eating pork was a not a SIN or a moral evil, it was a command from God for obedience sake. The old covenant disappearing doesn't change inherent moral truths for Christians, and inherent moral truths set down in the OT include lists of sexuality immorality.
Again, I disagree with this but it IS what the bible says if one takes the time to examine it in context. If you are a Christian and claim to accept the bible, one has to believe being gay is a sin. You don't have to treat them differently, but you do have to acknowledge they are sinning or admit you simply disagree with parts of the bible.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 4:07 am
Posted on 2/11/14 at 6:21 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
Will homosexuality be Christianity's bane?
No. Will Christians who hold to traditional family values, while the country continues to slide backward, continue to be ridiculed and scorned by an increasingly anti-Christian America. Yes.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:01 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The problems with the gospels aren't the dates, it's the contradictions between them and the lack of original texts to support them. What we have now are almost surely not identical to what the original documents said. For instance, the last 12 verses of Mark we know were added several hundred years later because Mark (believed to be the first gospel) included NOTHING about the resurrection, only the death, the burial and ends with the women at the tomb.
We "know" no such thing. Much of the debate surrounding the ending of Mark is literary and not textual. Using word counts and vocabulary comparisons to write off a section of a book that was considered whole by the 2nd century church isn't a good idea and is likely with a motive. The miraculous nature of the passage makes more people comfortable in writing it out, IMO.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:03 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
While true on some level, the fact is that their society was far more prone to superstition, deification and legend. What would be shunned as an outrageous part of a story today was easily believed then.
Eh. If a story about feeding the 5,000 with some loaves and fishes was "easily believed," why would they even record it? It was recorded precisely because they knew it wasn't normal or natural. You don't like miracles? Fine. They understood them as miracles.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:01 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
I feel like they are already outnumbered.
If you take the entire world population into account, no. Not even close.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 9:42 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:This is a common misconception, but it is inaccurate.
Yahweh is NOTHING like the God of the New Testement. Their traits are not only different, they are mutually exclusive.
Jesus' teachings were nothing new. He took the OT teachings and displayed their true meanings, usually culminating in something about Himself being God and Savior or what it means to obey the law (love your neighbor and love God).
Those who think Jesus is that weak hippie ignore how He treated those who profaned the Temple, and they also ignore what He will do when He returns: He's a fierce warrior who will slay His enemies on the day of judgement. That, however, is not the reason for His first coming, so His mission was to obey the law of God and teaching others the way of Salvation.
Jesus said that He and the Father (God of the OT) are one. They aren't mutually exclusive at all.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:24 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Additionally, the old covenant was a series of rituals and customs and not a set of sins that were inherently evil.
I used the New Covenant as an example of Christians picking and choosing their favorite parts of the bible.
I doubt anyone in this thread has ever put a gay person to death, the way the bible instructs.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:42 am to Stonehog
quote:
I used the New Covenant as an example of Christians picking and choosing their favorite parts of the bible.
I doubt anyone in this thread has ever put a gay person to death, the way the bible instructs.
Jesus fulfilled the Old Law, making it obsolete. Look, we get that you're anti-Christian, but if you're going to get into a Biblical discussion, at least gain a little knowledge on the subject first.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 10:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
This is a common misconception, but it is inaccurate.
Correct. The only thing that has changed about God is how he interacts with man.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:01 am to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
Jesus fulfilled the Old Law, making it obsolete.
So which parts of the Old Testament should Christians totally disregard?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:04 am to Stonehog
I don't disregard any of it. We just won't be judged by the Old Law.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:06 am to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
I don't disregard any of it. We just won't be judged by the Old Law.
Then how is it relevant?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 11:08 am to Stonehog
quote:
So which parts of the Old Testament should Christians totally disregard?
The "laws" of the OT for sure. Deuteronomy, Leviticus, ect.
The shite about not eating pork. Women on their periods are unclean and you must have a priest come bless anywhere she sat before you sit there. Stoning your kids for disobedience is ok. Ect.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News