I most likely would. I can't say yes, really, 'cause who knows, but I'm pretty sure we would have managed to figure it out anyways. It's not like homosexuality is considered a sin just because it's written down...
People seem to think that all morals for catholics come from the religion, but I do belive in natural law... There IS an order in the world, something observable to everyone, wether people choose to see it or not. That's why I know atheists can be great human beings, even though they disagree on the most fundamental part of my life, the existence of God.
I can't begin to understand how anyone can deny the existence of right and wrong though, so I guess I can't discuss a subjet of moral without that minimum common fountation. Basically, I believe in the existence of one, unique truth. Everything from there on out I can argue for and defend logically, including my complete Catholic faith.
the original bible didn't say anything against homosexuality, homosexuality wasn't even outlawed until 312/428 by the Codex Theodosianus and subsequent copied commissions through out the split Roman Empires. That specifically dealt with same sex marriage however, and had nothing to do with sodomy which wasn't officially outlawed in christian dogma for another several hundred years (i cant find the actual date -o-) by one man, a pope of which i cant find (ironic)
What many Christians forget is that the bible isn't law, its not the complete word of G*D sadly. Its really like if i said hey Didj i'm not coming into work today, and then you told one person and that person said it to someone else and so on and so on and so forth till i got called from work saying not to return because i threatened to blow up the place, and then cops come. Thats the bible. Its really just to be read and used as help for living a better life but not to be worshiped.
I say this considering the Bible today is not the original Bible, Much less is it complete. Most of the books of the bible weren't written by first hand accounts but by story tellers. Like say if i wrote a book for the bible today. I'm not a first hand ac-counter but if it flows with what was said and with what the church believes now a days (specifically the Papacy or Holy See) Then it might be canonized and put into bible.
Christ was a Gnostic in terms of "Christan Faith" and the biggest Gnostic book which was written by someone a gen after Jesus's death (so not a first hand account) but dealt with many of his teachings which were not fictionalized and had no miracles just Jesus's sayings but was left out of the bible which we know by Constantine because it said many things the church doesn't like such as you don't need church to believe in god (which was something Christ implied). The Book was called the book of Thomas. And is in all estimates 200 years younger than the youngest books of John, Mark & Luke.
Point being in all likely, G*D probably doesn't hate gays... as homosexuality has been found in nature... and G*D made everything (That includes Nature). We get punished for sins because we chose to do wrong or evil.... but since animals don't have that choice that inherent curiosity that was given once Eve and Adam tasted the apple.... and therefore animals are not beings of good or evil and don't make choices in morality that makes Homosexuality a just is and not something of morality...
The absence of lilith in the modern bible makes me throw the whole t6hing away as a non-starter. She was a great plot device, faulty, corrupted first try to make a woman, later turned into a demon for being such a biotch.
I've been getting them form various points of references, not all of them say the same thing. One of them being a Comparative religion book from college. Interestingly enough the Dates of the Book of Thomas have not yet been completely agreed upon, they had a special on the Bible on History channel where two camps disputed the date. Though most Biblical Historians agreed that the Book was older than the other books of the Testament.
If the Book of Luke was from times around 60-89 A.D the Book of Thomas is around 31-60 A.D or C.E (from the History Chanel Special, which while the History Chanel doesn't always play the most prestigious things or even Historical in the views of the masses i trust their non-bias religious pov)
If i wasn't packed for moving, id get the book(s) i have and give you any of their ISBN's -o-; they are all fascinating O>O though the Book of Thomas is a newer thing for me o.o
Wikipedia while not the best of sources.
Banned from the Bible is the Documentary aired on the History channel Circa 2003
Theres a Second Banned from the Bible Documentary i've yet to see.
Ok. I, personally, believe the Q came first, followed by Mark. Although both books explain many of the different theories as to what came first, or when, or influenced which, both Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology by Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green and Marianne Meyer Thompson, and The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Second Edition by Craig L. Blomberg have enough evidence to pretty much convince me that that is the case. But I also think scripting order doesn't necessarily correlate to "Truth", as it were.
id have to agree, though by how the books were written in theory i could write one that could be no less true, though id have a hard time trying to convince people otherwise Lol...
Though for me, the Bible falls under Scientology. They are both written by humans. Whether with divine help or otherwise... Humans are fallible, and the Books that we know of have been changed, either through translations or times and so i do not trust it. Does the Bible have things to teach? Certainly it does but for me it is not the be all to end all.
Wow. I got to say that was really informative. It's a rare breed to meet a religious person who actually puts the effort into knowing as much as they can about their own religion. The majority of the time I just get the twats who quote-mine some vague cryptic passage from the King James version of the Bible, interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean, and treat it like the inarguable infallible word of God himself that they can use to win all arguments ever.
well I'm not really religious i think that's why its not hard for me to notice issues in religion; i am however spiritual so for me, religion is personal and that's how it should stay; Christ even taught that more or less. Minus the be good to family and neighbors kind of messages he had. Also i enjoy history so studying ancient civilizations and various religions go hand and hand. As they are more important as far as civilizations go. I say this from an outside stand point but the civilizations that allowed more than one religion and kept religion away from governments as much as possible are more advanced than the civilizations that kept to one religion. More religions, more freedoms, more philosophical thoughts = more ways of thinking, least in my viewpoint.
I have been brainwashed so I believe whatever the bible or Christians say. That's what every religion does. I chose to believe the things the bible says because I don't want to think that there is nothing else past what we see.
They would find something to bully people about. I don't think it is really about the religion, but about creating tribalism. A world where there is an "us" who are safe, good people (regardless of our actions) because they are like me, and a "them" we must be suspicious of and can conveniently blame things on because they are not like me. I think there's a strong possiblity that people would still fight against homosexuality and claim a religious basis simply because it's a handy dividing line in the population.
Being able to back something up with a loosely interpereted reference in a widely respected book is really just a bonus, for people who think like that.
For instance, the bible makes no mention of extraterrestrial aliens, I will assume. But should they turn up, someone religious will find a way to make it sound like god hates aliens and we should kill them because aliens aren't really people. The reason not being the faith, but the underlying fear.
Well considering that Jesus "fulfilled" the lawthat and from what I've gathered on what that means by the very evangelists here on DA forums is that he replaced the Levitican laws with the inexpensive he preached. Since Jesus himself said absolutely nothing on homosexuality or abortion (really reread your bible) neither of those thing can be considered at the very least against Jesus.
Wasn't there some gibbilly-gook about the writings of some jerkoff called St Paul who didn't like the gays too much? I know that the infamous passage from Leviticus is the favorite line for the more ignorant of bible thumpers to throw around while wearing poly-cotton blend shirts (19:19), having clean shaven faces (19:27), and brandishing their "I heart Jesus" tattoos (19:28). But I think there might be some less blatant gay bashing elsewhere in the Bible.
You mean the guy that had a stroke and saw Jesus a decade (I'm being conservative) after the whole crucifixion/resurrection event and convinced a bunch of people that Jesus had something to tell him that he forgot to tell the apostles?
I can only imagine JC sitting on a cloud looking down saying "That fucking liar! I didn't come to him in no stroke induced dream! This is bullshit!". It's funny how Christians will deny what doesn't jive with the Bible as much as they possibly can, but the moment some dingus says "Jesus came to me in a dream, and I-- I mean he has some stuff he wants to tell you!" people will believe him wholeheartedly.
I honestly really don't know. I'm a Christian and I personally believe homosexuality is wrong, but that's just my beliefs. I'm not a homophobe, though. I just wouldn't do it myself. I respect (or at least try to) other's beliefs. If someone believed heterosexuality was wrong I would respect their belief, as I want to be respected. And to answer your question, if the Bible didn't say that it's wrong, then I wouldn't think it's wrong. Just like if someone never told me "bad" words were bad, I wouldn't think they were bad.
"I'd like to ask, how I am proving that?" By being homophobic.
You might be interested in this snippet of information as well. Just for my amusement, anyway.
There is actually a gay 'gene'. As in a gene structure in human DNA which promotes the predisposition for homosexual behavior. Do you know what it is? Its the gene that predisposes you towards homophobic tendencies. Hatred and misunderstanding of homosexuals in human culture is, quite literally, one of the only reasons homosexuality is such a prevalent statistic respective to sexuality.
If no one hated them, they wouldn't have any reason to have children. During recent human civilization, homosexuals were persecuted and demonized. Meaning that if they wanted to survive, they would have to project the illusion of heterosexuality. Thus passing on their genes, the genes that increased their chances of homosexuality being expressed.
I like that verse a lot, but I'm not quite sure how that verse relates to this situation. Would you please explain. (and what do you mean by "misquoting"? I wrote exactly what my translation, not quite sure what it is, says.)
Jesus fulfilled the Law. He took the whole of the Hebraic Law and fulfilled it himself so no one else would ever have to try and live up to it. Essentially, being the good guy he is, he took all of that and did it for us so we don't have to. It is the same thing as when he died for the sins of mankind. He took all the sin and died for it so we wouldn't have to. So Leviticus is moot and doesn't ever need to be looked at as an outline of anything anyone needs to do ever again. Which is great for me, because I am currently breaking Leviticus 19:19. Well, the part about fabrics, anyway. I don't own livestock or any seeds.
Over 1,500 species of animals are known to exhibit homosexual behaviour (including the New Mexico whiptail lizard, which is made up entirely of females), so it's hardly not natural. And the only people it "hurts" are bigots who can't get over their favourite story book getting another thing wrong and/or their own petty prejudices.