God And Homosexuality

[PureX]

And I don't give an ounce of credit to people who haven't done their proper homework.

Chasing down web sites with an obvious religious agenda isn't doing your "proper homework".

 

[PureX]

Ah, so the bible is wrong, and you're right. The God ordained prophets are all wrong and ignorant, and you're right.

This kind of extreme binary mischaracterization does not help your cause. There is no "all wrong" or "all right". There are facts, and there are logical ways of interpreting those facts.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

I have been inspired to do many good things in my life, and no matter how divine that inspiration may have been, I still have never been perfect, or 'inerrant'. And neither have you, nor has any other human. So I really do not see this quote to be proposing that we jettison both reason and common sense in favor of some blind adherence to a magically inerrant text, being magically interpreted by us, without error. Any argument that has to rely on our acceptance of divine magic is a very weak argument, indeed. Not even the men that wrote these texts believed that what they wrote was inerrant. They believed it was spiritually useful, yes, but they certainly did not see themselves or what they wrote as being perfect or unquestionable. That idea never had existed until a few hundred years ago, when the printing press made the text available to the masses, and some of them decided to worship it as if it were the very mouth of God.

In fact, the people who wrote and used the OT scripture did so with the specific intention of providing inspiration for group contemplation, discussion, and debate. They intended the texts to be used precisely for the purpose of confronting the inexplicability of their "living God". A God so beyond their comprehension that they refused to even assign it a name. These were clearly not people who presumed themselves to know the mind of God to the degree that they could write spiritual treatises in God's name. And they would be shocked to discover that there are humans now days that idolize their texts in that way.

 

[Left Coast]

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.

In his Epistle to the Philippians 2.1-3 and 7.2, Polycarp quotes from Matthew.

But he doesn't name Matthew as the author of the text.

That's incorrect. Here's just one example why:

"Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

More in the following link: 3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

No, it's not incorrect. Irenaeus had no firsthand knowledge of these things, he wasn't born till 100 years after Christianity started. He's just repeating the oral tradition that was passed to him.

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

 

[Spartan]

Chasing down web sites with an obvious religious agenda isn't doing your "proper homework".

How would you know what's true or not in a website unless you've first done your homework, which you apparently haven't? Your claim that the Gospels were written up to 200 years after Jesus is absolutely insane.

 

[Spartan]

But he doesn't name Matthew as the author of the text.

He attributes it to Matthew.

No, it's not incorrect. Irenaeus had no firsthand knowledge of these things, he wasn't born till 100 years after Christianity started. He's just repeating the oral tradition that was passed to him.

So he's passing along lies? Prove it.

 

[PureX]

How would you know what's true or not in a website unless you've first done your homework, which you apparently haven't? Your claim that the Gospels were written up to 200 years after Jesus is absolutely insane.

Three of the four gospels were written approximately 200 years after Jesus death by unknown scribes, based on a common script referred to as the "Q document". But this common script has never been found and we have no idea who might have written it, or when. Also, there were many other gospels written, but that were not included in the NT, that give a somewhat differing account of events. So it's important to see these four NT "gospels" is their full context.

The gospel of "John" was written approximately 75 years after Jesus' death, also by an unknown author, because in those days it was a common practice for the disciples (students) of a rabbi (spiritual teacher) to write under their teacher's name. Remember that this was a culture based on and controlled by family clans, wherein the sons of the patriarch of the family clan were considered to be a physical extension of the patriarch, himself, and to be speaking and acting on the patriarch's behalf. This is in fact why Jesus was referred to as the "son of God": because he spoke with the authority of, and was considered by his followers to be, the human embodiment of God's spirit and intent on Earth. And it is why when these spiritual "teachers" gained a following, their closer male "students" were considered to be the physical extension of their teacher's theology. And they would act accordingly; by speaking in their teacher's name, and signing their teacher's name to texts they'd written or copied. This makes it very difficult for us, now, to know who wrote what, or when.

 

[Left Coast]

He attributes it to Matthew.

Quote please?

So he's passing along lies? Prove it.

It's not my job to prove a negative. He's passing on an oral tradition of which he had no direct knowledge to verify. It's well known that many writings in early Christianity, even anonymous ones, were ascribed to one or another apostolic authors to give them authority and credibility among the churches. The Gospels are anonymous. We don't know who wrote them, and they were likely communal efforts that were edited and appended over time.

 

[Spartan]

Quote?

It's not my job to prove a negative. He's passing on an oral tradition of which he had no direct knowledge to verify. It's well known that many writings in early Christianity, even anonymous ones, were ascribed to one or another apostolic authors to give them authority and credibility among the churches. The Gospels are anonymous. We don't know who wrote them, and they were likely communal efforts that were edited and appended over time.

Baloney. I'll stick with what I've already presented.

 

[Left Coast]

Baloney. I'll stick with what I've already presented.

So, no quote from Polycarp then?

 

[Spartan]

So, no quote from Polycarp then?

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.

In his Epistle to the Philippians 2.1-3 and 7.2, Polycarp quotes from Matthew.

Here - let me help you out on who wrote the Gospels.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

 

[Left Coast]

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.

In his Epistle to the Philippians 2.1-3 and 7.2, Polycarp quotes from Matthew.

You're repeating yourself rather than answering the question. Polycarp does not identify Matthew as the author in the passages you cite.

Can you quote a passage where he actually names Matthew as the author?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

***MOD EDIT*** Here are some more scriptures which clearly speak against homosexuality in great detail, as well as how they were punished for their homosexual behavior.

I believe that these were in the OP. There's no way that anyone could read this and say that it isn't talking about homosexuality. You would have to be in denial.

ROMANS 1:26-28

"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

I'm done talking to you. You clearly are not even reading my posts, let alone looking at the link I posted. You have not responded to any of the points I've made. You're not interested in a discussion, just in blindly posting verses as if that means anything.

 

[1213]

You don't know what the purpose of sexuality is. ...

I was really not talking about sexuality, but about for what purpose different body parts are for. But, why do you think you are good to define the purpose?

 

[1213]

Righteousness is the quality of being morally right or justifiable, and as I understand Christian morality god sets the rules. Right? ….

By what the Bible tells, righteousness means wisdom of the just, which is right understanding that makes person do right actions. When person has that right understanding, he wants to do right, because he understands it is good.

…Nada. Or maybe god was simply unaware that over a third of all adult heterosexuals were having anal sex. Nah! He's omniscient. He's just biased against homosexuals.

Or maybe it is just so obvious that no need to say it. Of course, it is as stupid thing to do, even if you are heterosexual.

 

[PureX]

I was really not talking about sexuality, but about for what purpose different body parts are for. But, why do you think you are good to define the purpose?

I think reality defines their purpose. And I have to assume that a creator God is OK with that. Humans and animals both use sexual interaction for pair-bonding and for procreation. Not just procreation exclusively. And since both are important and necessary for these various life forms, I have to assume both those purposes are were intended by their Creator (if such exists). The fact that some ancient Jewish religious guys didn't recognize this doesn't change the reality nor the logic of it. And so they do not change my thinking about it. It's that simple.

Also, as a Christian, I believe our purpose as human beings is to embody God's divine spirit that exists within us all, so that it can be expressed through us, to each other, and to the world. That spirit is the spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity. And I see absolutely no reason why any homosexual wouldn't be able to do that just the same as any heterosexual would. So I see absolutely no reason think of it as a sin.

 

[Tazarah]

This kind of extreme binary mischaracterization does not help your cause. There is no "all wrong" or "all right". There are facts, and there are logical ways of interpreting those facts.
I have been inspired to do many good things in my life, and no matter how divine that inspiration may have been, I still have never been perfect, or 'inerrant'. And neither have you, nor has any other human. So I really do not see this quote to be proposing that we jettison both reason and common sense in favor of some blind adherence to a magically inerrant text, being magically interpreted by us, without error. Any argument that has to rely on our acceptance of divine magic is a very weak argument, indeed. Not even the men that wrote these texts believed that what they wrote was inerrant. They believed it was spiritually useful, yes, but they certainly did not see themselves or what they wrote as being perfect or unquestionable. That idea never had existed until a few hundred years ago, when the printing press made the text available to the masses, and some of them decided to worship it as if it were the very mouth of God.

In fact, the people who wrote and used the OT scripture did so with the specific intention of providing inspiration for group contemplation, discussion, and debate. They intended the texts to be used precisely for the purpose of confronting the inexplicability of their "living God". A God so beyond their comprehension that they refused to even assign it a name. These were clearly not people who presumed themselves to know the mind of God to the degree that they could write spiritual treatises in God's name. And they would be shocked to discover that there are humans now days that idolize their texts in that way.

You're essentially saying that the God ordained prophets who God himself choice had no idea what they were talking about, and that you somehow have more knowledge and wisdom than they did concerning the true will of God. This is hilarious.

 

[Tazarah]

I'm done talking to you. You clearly are not even reading my posts, let alone looking at the link I posted. You have not responded to any of the points I've made. You're not interested in a discussion, just in blindly posting verses as if that means anything.

I read what you post and at the same time I post scriptures to show that your personal beliefs directly contradict what is written in the text. Perhaps it would be best if you did just stop responding because if you don't I will continue to expose the errors and extreme contradictions within your arguments.

 

[Tazarah]

I was really not talking about sexuality, but about for what purpose different body parts are for. But, why do you think you are good to define the purpose?

PureX basically told me that the prophets of the bible didn't know what they were talking about, and that he/she actually has the true understanding when it comes to what God actually meant.

 

[Left Coast]

You're essentially saying that the God ordained prophets who God himself choice had no idea what they were talking about, and that you somehow have more knowledge and wisdom than they did concerning the true will of God. This is hilarious.

Actually no, @PureX didn't say any of that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I read what you post and at the same time I post scriptures to show that your personal beliefs directly contradict what is written in the text. Perhaps it would be best if you did just stop responding because if you don't I will continue to expose the errors and extreme contradictions within your arguments.

You didn't bother addressing a thing I said. You have to go deeper than just reading modern translations. I know what the Bible says, you don't need to spam me with verses like I'm ignorant. I apparently know far more about it than the vapid display you've put on here. Anyone can spam Bible verses but that doesn't mean you understand the context, key terms in the original language, let alone the meaning.