Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

Kal'Stang said:

Jesus did not write the Bible. Nor did any of his disciples.

Click to expand...

The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were linked with the Gospels as their authors right from the very earliest days. No other authors were ever suggested for them. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, and they all give them the same authors. If the names of these authors had only been connected with their Gospels in the second or third centuries, it's very unlikely that all the Greek manuscripts would give them the same authors. By then, these Gospels were being circulated very widely.

In the end this negates the message of peace and love from the NT how? Since your reply just sort of ignores my main point.

Blackdog said:

The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were linked with the Gospels as their authors right from the very earliest days. No other authors were ever suggested for them. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, and they all give them the same authors. If the names of these authors had only been connected with their Gospels in the second or third centuries, it's very unlikely that all the Greek manuscripts would give them the same authors. By then, these Gospels were being circulated very widely.

In the end this negates the message of peace and love from the NT how? Since your reply just sort of ignores my main point.

Click to expand...

I don't think he was referring to who wrote the actual words that were put into the Bible, but rather who decided what writings/manuscripts/texts were put into the Bible, to make the Bible. Those people were the ones that many, like myself, believe were looking for power and control over the people.

Can we honestly know what writings they had? Do we honestly know if those involved didn't destroy texts or cover-up texts that didn't agree with what they were putting into the Bible? Do we know that there weren't other texts and writings that were simply not available at that time to be included in the Bible?

Then there is the translation issue (some words from the Hebrew texts do not translate to what is written in the Bible, at least according to some).

And there is the fact that there are churches, denominations, and/or specific clergymen who take certain Bible passages to influence the belief that a part of the Bible says something it doesn't (the story of Sodom is a good example of this, if someone read that story straight out of the Bible, with no initial prejudices for or against gays, they should have no reason whatsoever to believe that particular story had anything to do with God destroying that city for sexual deviance, including homosexuality but with the possible exception of forced sex, from that story alone). Yet, from a small child I know I, like many other children raised in a Christian family, were taught to believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality and other sexual deviance, and the word "sodomy" even comes from the city. Either we do not have all the information from this story in the Bible or many people have come to accept this explaination without actually, critically reading up on Sodom for themselves.

Really, we don't even know if God wanted people to put the Bible together the way they did or that He would want people to base their faith upon just those writings that were put into the Bible.

Omgitsme said:

I would say there is evidence saying that homosexuality is natural.

Click to expand...

OMG...

Don't waste your time. This thread has become a circle jerk event.

I'm in my den moving my toes up and down. You have no way of knowing that I'm doing what I claim. Whether I'm actually doing what I claim - you just have to take my word for it.

My point is: There are a lot of claims with no supporting sources for arguments, Ya dig?

roguenuke said:

I don't think he was referring to who wrote the actual words that were put into the Bible, but rather who decided what writings/manuscripts/texts were put into the Bible, to make the Bible. Those people were the ones that many, like myself, believe were looking for power and control over the people.

Click to expand...

And yet it preaches peace and love? Go figure.

roguenuke said:

Can we honestly know what writings they had? Do we honestly know if those involved didn't destroy texts or cover-up texts that didn't agree with what they were putting into the Bible? Do we know that there weren't other texts and writings that were simply not available at that time to be included in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Again look at the overall message, that would make little sense if they wanted control.

roguenuke said:

Then there is the translation issue (some words from the Hebrew texts do not translate to what is written in the Bible, at least according to some).

Click to expand...

This does not change the morality or the basic understanding.

roguenuke said:

And there is the fact that there are churches, denominations, and/or specific clergymen who take certain Bible passages to influence the belief that a part of the Bible says something it doesn't (the story of Sodom is a good example of this, if someone read that story straight out of the Bible, with no initial prejudices for or against gays, they should have no reason whatsoever to believe that particular story had anything to do with God destroying that city for sexual deviance, including homosexuality but with the possible exception of forced sex, from that story alone). Yet, from a small child I know I, like many other children raised in a Christian family, were taught to believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality and other sexual deviance, and the word "sodomy" even comes from the city. Either we do not have all the information from this story in the Bible or many people have come to accept this explaination without actually, critically reading up on Sodom for themselves.

Click to expand...

Sodom and Gomorrah is from the Torah, it has been in the Bible for 2000 years long before the NT. We know that sodomy was a sin punishable by stoning even without that story. Please explain this disparity? Common sense has to play a role at some point.

roguenuke said:

Really, we don't even know if God wanted people to put the Bible together the way they did or that He would want people to base their faith upon just those writings that were put into the Bible.

Click to expand...

Most of what you have there is allot of "ifs" that really don't make AGAIN any real difference to the overall message or the morals laid down. The translations of Hebrew to English in the Bible are just fine. They would rather quibble about a word here or a word there to justify immorality, I wont. Now lets take into account the OT has very little to do with modern Christian's outside of a good reference for what God finds good or objectionable.

This is the second reply that has very little to do with my point.

Blackdog said:

Does it matter? It is obvious he is a Christian by his statement. :doh

Click to expand...

1. Really? I'm pretty sure Christians aren't the only one who think homosexuality is a sin.
2. My question was a response to his absolute statement about God - who, by the way, is not owned by Christianity. He can answer it for himself.

:slapme:

Blackdog said:

The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were linked with the Gospels as their authors right from the very earliest days. No other authors were ever suggested for them. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, and they all give them the same authors. If the names of these authors had only been connected with their Gospels in the second or third centuries, it's very unlikely that all the Greek manuscripts would give them the same authors. By then, these Gospels were being circulated very widely.

In the end this negates the message of peace and love from the NT how? Since your reply just sort of ignores my main point.

Click to expand...

Those people wrote the gospels but they did not write the bible. It was various councils, like the Council of Trent that wrote the bible by putting together the various gospels. They did so by keeping some of what those various people said in thier gospels and discarding other things.

Blackdog said:

Greedy power hungry men? The disciples who wrote the Gospels all wound up dead and/or broke. Jesus preaches against worldly wealth and most wordily things. He preached charity and loving your neighbor?

Did you read the same Bible???

Forget it. I don't want to derail anymore than I already have.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Kal's argument comes less from the "peace and love" aspects of the Bible and more from the "obey me or you're going to hell" aspects of the Bible. It's pretty obvious from looking at Christian history and many Christians today that fear is a very effective way of holding power over others.

theplaydrive said:

1. Really? I'm pretty sure Christians aren't the only one who think homosexuality is a sin.
2. My question was a response to his absolute statement about God - who, by the way, is not owned by Christianity. He can answer it for himself.

:slapme:

Click to expand...

You should slap palm as it was pretty easy to see from his statement.

theplaydrive said:

I'm pretty sure Kal's argument comes less from the "peace and love" aspects of the Bible and more from the "obey me or you're going to hell" aspects of the Bible. It's pretty obvious from looking at Christian history and many Christians today that fear is a very effective way of holding power over others.

Click to expand...

It is not the fault of the Bible that MAN has issues with the truth written inside.

Blackdog said:

And yet it preaches peace and love? Go figure.

Click to expand...

Then what was Soddom and Gamora about? The Great Flood? What was that passage about casting sinners into a lake of fire? The subserviance of women? The bible preaches more than just peace and love.

Blackdog said:

Again look at the overall message, that would make little sense if they wanted control.

Click to expand...

I agree that the over all message is about peace and love but what is more controllable? A society that is generally taught to love? Or a soceity generally taught to hate?

Blackdog said:

This does not change the morality or the basic understanding.

Click to expand...

Actually it can. I believe that CC even showed an example of how translation can be a big influence in how something is said in this very thread.

Blackdog said:

Sodom and Gomorrah is from the Torah, it has been in the Bible for 2000 years long before the NT. We know that sodomy was a sin punishable by stoning even without that story. Please explain this disparity? Common sense has to play a role at some point.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter where it was originally from. It is still there and still teaches about hating.

Blackdog said:

Most of what you have there is allot of "ifs" that really don't make AGAIN any real difference to the overall message or the morals laid down. The translations of Hebrew to English in the Bible are just fine. They would rather quibble about a word here or a word there to justify immorality, I wont. Now lets take into account the OT has very little to do with modern Christian's outside of a good reference for what God finds good or objectionable.

Click to expand...

So my question is that since the NT is, even according to you, different from the OT how is it possible that the Bible reflects what God wants? Jesus did not change anything that God wanted, he just added to it or explained it. So how is it that they are different? Or more exactly using your words the OT "has very little to do with modern Christians outside of a...." The very fact that there are differences shows that God had nothing to do with the NT. Quite possibly even had nothing to do with the OT.

theplaydrive said:

I'm pretty sure Kal's argument comes less from the "peace and love" aspects of the Bible and more from the "obey me or you're going to hell" aspects of the Bible. It's pretty obvious from looking at Christian history and many Christians today that fear is a very effective way of holding power over others.

Click to expand...

Exactly right.

Blackdog said:

It is not the fault of the Bible that MAN has issues with the truth written inside.

Click to expand...

How do you know that it is "Truth" as God wants it? And not "truth" as a bunch of council members wanted it?

Kal'Stang said:

Then what was Soddom and Gamora about? The Great Flood? What was that passage about casting sinners into a lake of fire? The subserviance of women? The bible preaches more than just peace and love.

Click to expand...

So everyone knows, Sodom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all. It was hospitality and protection. God punished those two cities because they were inhosptiable, including towards his two angels that he sent. The "sodomy" that he was refering was NOT homosexuality, but was RAPE. The homosexuality misinterpretation comes from the fact that the angry mob wanted to rape (male homosexuality) the angels that visited Lot. This was a very common method of humiliation that was used at the time, especially amongst Pagans. God's warning is that sodomy... RAPE, especially homosexual RAPE, is sinful... hence his destruction of those two cities where that practice occurred. The story says nothing about consentual homosexual behavior.

Kal'Stang said:

Those people wrote the gospels but they did not write the bible. It was various councils, like the Council of Trent that wrote the bible by putting together the various gospels.

Click to expand...

The council of Trent did no such thing. It was not even the council of Nicea in 325 AD, it was 60 years later. It was in Carthage in 397 AD and the first 21 books were never in question.

Kal'Stang said:

They did so by keeping some of what those various people said in thier gospels and discarding other things.

Click to expand...

We have all but one that was discarded. We also know what was in that one.

Concerning manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea. The Arian party's document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council. Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known. - Did Constantine decide what books belonged in the Bible?

People make assumptions about the Bible and it's assembly without even knowing what really happened or when.

Kal'Stang said:

Then what was Soddom and Gamora about? The Great Flood? What was that passage about casting sinners into a lake of fire? The subserviance of women? The bible preaches more than just peace and love.

Click to expand...

That is in the OT, has nothing at all to do with modern Christians outside of reference material into the nature of God. I have already explained this though.

Kal'Stang said:

I agree that the over all message is about peace and love but what is more controllable? A society that is generally taught to love? Or a soceity generally taught to hate?

Click to expand...

You mean like the Nazi's? or any racial extermination campaign? You decide.

Kal'Stang said:

Actually it can. I believe that CC even showed an example of how translation can be a big influence in how something is said in this very thread.

Click to expand...

It made no difference. If 67% to 80% of homosexuals practice sodomy, they would be stoned to death by OT standards. No mistranslation in that.

Kal'Stang said:

Doesn't matter where it was originally from. It is still there and still teaches about hating.

Click to expand...

It teaches about hating sin, not people.

Kal'Stang said:

So my question is that since the NT is, even according to you, different from the OT how is it possible that the Bible reflects what God wants? Jesus did not change anything that God wanted, he just added to it or explained it. So how is it that they are different? Or more exactly using your words the OT "has very little to do with modern Christians outside of a...." The very fact that there are differences shows that God had nothing to do with the NT. Quite possibly even had nothing to do with the OT.

Click to expand...

You are trying to compare an Apple and an orange. The OT was Gods law and prophecy's for his chosen people the Jews. The NT is the new covenant for everyone.

CaptainCourtesy said:

So everyone knows, Sodom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all. It was hospitality and protection. God punished those two cities because they were inhosptiable, including towards his two angels that he sent. The "sodomy" that he was refering was NOT homosexuality, but was RAPE. The homosexuality misinterpretation comes from the fact that the angry mob wanted to rape (male homosexuality) the angels that visited Lot. This was a very common method of humiliation that was used at the time, especially amongst Pagans. God's warning is that sodomy... RAPE, especially homosexual RAPE, is sinful... hence his destruction of those two cities where that practice occurred. The story says nothing about consentual homosexual behavior.

Click to expand...

And why is that?

Pius IV confirmed the council’s decrees in 1564 and published a summary of its doctrinal statements; observance of disciplinary decrees was imposed under sanctions. In short order the catechism of Trent appeared, the missal and breviary were revised, and eventually a revised version of the Bible was published. By the end of the century, many of the abuses that had motivated the Protestant Reformation had disappeared, and the Roman Catholic church had reclaimed many of its followers in Europe. The council, however, failed to heal the schism that had sundered the Western Christian church.

Click to expand...

Britannica.com

Blackdog said:

People make assumptions about the Bible and it's assembly without even knowing what really happened or when.

Click to expand...

You were saying?

Kal'Stang said:

Britannica.com

You were saying?

Click to expand...

That you are still wrong. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.

You were also talking about much more than just Trent. You were talking about Nicea, but you are trying to avoid that. Need I post the original statement by you?

Blackdog said:

The council of Trent did no such thing. It was not even the council of Nicea in 325 AD, it was 60 years later. It was in Carthage in 397 AD and the first 21 books were never in question.



We have all but one that was discarded. We also know what was in that one.

Concerning manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea. The Arian party's document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council. Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known. - Did Constantine decide what books belonged in the Bible?

People make assumptions about the Bible and it's assembly without even knowing what really happened or when.

Click to expand...

And my point was, we weren't there. There is no way for us to know for sure why they put in the books they did or whether they left out more and what significance anything that was left out might have had. It is quite possible that if these people were looking for a way to manipulate certain parts of the Bible to ensure that it was written the way they wanted it to be written, they could have hidden or even destroyed texts that contradicted anything they wanted to ensure was at least some what supported by the Bible.

It is also possible that they were unintentionally putting things in out of context for what the prophets and/or Jesus and/or God wanted put out. Or that they took things the wrong way. People don't always say or write things exactly as they would like. Sometimes you don't even realize something could be taken the wrong way unless it is pointed out to you. It is also possible that there were texts and/or lessons that were just as important as those or may have expanded on or added to those that are in the Bible that were destroyed and/or lost that could change the entire meaning of the Bible or at least parts of the Bible.

However, these are the verses that always freak me right the hell out:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

roguenuke said:

And my point was, we weren't there. There is no way for us to know for sure why they put in the books they did or whether they left out more and what significance anything that was left out might have had. It is quite possible that if these people were looking for a way to manipulate certain parts of the Bible to ensure that it was written the way they wanted it to be written, they could have hidden or even destroyed texts that contradicted anything they wanted to ensure was at least some what supported by the Bible.

It is also possible that they were unintentionally putting things in out of context for what the prophets and/or Jesus and/or God wanted put out. Or that they took things the wrong way. People don't always say or write things exactly as they would like. Sometimes you don't even realize something could be taken the wrong way unless it is pointed out to you. It is also possible that there were texts and/or lessons that were just as important as those or may have expanded on or added to those that are in the Bible that were destroyed and/or lost that could change the entire meaning of the Bible or at least parts of the Bible.

Click to expand...

I am going to dismiss the first paragraph of your post out of hand, and here is why:There is no way for us to know for sure why they put in the books they did or whether they left out more and what significance anything that was left out might have had.

As I have already shown we know exactly what was put in and what was left out. It is not some great mystery. Nothing was burned or hidden away.

Again with the "possibly" etc. This is about a well established doctrine and system of beliefs, not some up start new age religion. It has a long history that is well documented.

BDBoop said:

However, these are the verses that always freak me right the hell out:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Click to expand...

Don't be. They are about only that book as it was not IN the Bible in the beginning, and neither was any other book. It has never been changed as has most of the Bible. The Bible is many different books.

Do you know what the major difference between the Protestant OT and Catholic OT is? The Protestants ordered them like the Torah and took out the ones the Catholic church added not in the Torah, thats it.

Blackdog said:

I am going to dismiss the first paragraph of your post out of hand, and here is why:There is no way for us to know for sure why they put in the books they did or whether they left out more and what significance anything that was left out might have had.

As I have already shown we know exactly what was put in and what was left out. It is not some great mystery. Nothing was burned or hidden away.

Again with the "possibly" etc. This is about a well established doctrine and system of beliefs, not some up start new age religion. It has a long history that is well documented.

Click to expand...

And you don't know for sure. Why would they document the fact that they were destroying what should be sacred texts? They would probably take those secrets to their graves. And even if they didn't, it isn't likely that the churches that might have that information would allow such a sacrilege to become public. It would be a horrible scandle if anyone living does know about it. Likely though, if something like this did happen, it was never recorded and kept a complete secret. It wouldn't have been that hard to do back then. It isn't like they had recording equipment of any kind and they had the power to ensure that secrets were kept.

roguenuke said:

And you don't know for sure. Why would they document the fact that they were destroying what should be sacred texts? They would probably take those secrets to their graves. And even if they didn't, it isn't likely that the churches that might have that information would allow such a sacrilege to become public. It would be a horrible scandle if anyone living does know about it. Likely though, if something like this did happen, it was never recorded and kept a complete secret. It wouldn't have been that hard to do back then. It isn't like they had recording equipment of any kind and they had the power to ensure that secrets were kept.

Click to expand...

They destroyed one text because it was the only one, let me emphasize the only one out of hundreds that said Jesus was just a man. That's it. The rest are available and were not burned etc.

So your premise is based on flawed information. Which makes the conclusion incorrect as well.

Blackdog said:

You should slap palm as it was pretty easy to see from his statement.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're understanding the purpose of my comment.