The Simple Reason For Religious Homophobia

[threnody]

By no means all relationships have reproduction in mind - some don't as a matter of choice, others because cannot have children for medical reasons or because the woman has passed her reproductive period.

Rhetorical, but yes.

[newbie]

tee hee........how many original manuscripts survive of the anciant greek classics?

Actually there are a few. Ever hear of papyrus rolls? Some of Aristotles manuscripts are in the British Museum. My point was where are the originals of even the New Testament. Aristotle's era was 384-332 BCE.

[M.Dancer]

tee hee........how many original manuscripts survive of the anciant greek classics?

Actually there are a few. Ever hear of papyrus rolls? Some of Aristotles manuscripts are in the British Museum. My point was where are the originals of even the New Testament. Aristotle's era was 384-332 BCE.

I beg to differ.......there are no "originals" surviving.

[M.Dancer]

tee hee........how many original manuscripts survive of the anciant greek classics?

Actually there are a few. Ever hear of papyrus rolls? Some of Aristotles manuscripts are in the British Museum. My point was where are the originals of even the New Testament. Aristotle's era was 384-332 BCE.

I beg to differ.......there are no "originals" surviving.

Actually the Provenance of the gospels might be a tad bit cleaner than Aristotle.....aristotle spoke in the 3rd century BC but his writings as we have them are from the 1st century AD

Christ spoke in the 1st century ad and the earliest writing of the gospels is from the early 2nd century AD less that 100 years after.

We can detect extremely small sub atomic particles by the evidence of their interaction with matter...we can also detect the history of the early church and for that matter Christ, by the evidence of the interaction with society....ie: within 70 years of the date of the crucifixion, there were dozens of christian communities through out the mediterranean.....something that in my opinion would be unlikely without highly motivated individuals driven to spread the message......

[newbie]

tee hee........how many original manuscripts survive of the anciant greek classics?

Actually there are a few. Ever hear of papyrus rolls? Some of Aristotles manuscripts are in the British Museum. My point was where are the originals of even the New Testament. Aristotle's era was 384-332 BCE.

I beg to differ.......there are no "originals" surviving.

Hate to go back and forth but please read this:

Aristotle's manuscripts survived despite their bad condition. Two-hundred and fifty years after they were written, the manuscripts were taken by Sulla to Rome to be edited by Andronicus of Rhodes (Lewis 1974, p. 60).link

Seems to me Gilgamesh on the original clay tablets in Sumerian texts cuneiform writing are in existence.

[M.Dancer]

tee hee........how many original manuscripts survive of the anciant greek classics?

Actually there are a few. Ever hear of papyrus rolls? Some of Aristotles manuscripts are in the British Museum. My point was where are the originals of even the New Testament. Aristotle's era was 384-332 BCE.

I beg to differ.......there are no "originals" surviving.

Hate to go back and forth but please read this:

Aristotle's manuscripts survived despite their bad condition. Two-hundred and fifty years after they were written, the manuscripts were taken by Sulla to Rome to be edited by Andronicus of Rhodes (Lewis 1974, p. 60).link

Seems to me Gilgamesh on the original clay tablets in Sumerian texts cuneiform writing are in existence.

The surving manuscripts of Aristotle we have today are from the first century copies....EOS...you're link doesn't say otherwise......Even Gigamesh is not an "Original" The original gigamesh is from circa 2700 BC...the surving copies we have are from 2000 BC...

Notwithsanding that they (the aristotle manuscripts) are old, the provenence of the Gospels is quite good.

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is also dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's "History" (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).

http://www.allabouttruth.org/origin-of-the-bible.htm

[Canadian Blue]

Well, the world would be better off if Christians actaully followed what Jesus told them to do. Jesus was originally a pacifist socialist. As for the old testament I believe they are mostly fables, however many of them do relate to history.

As for saying if we were all atheist their would be no more killing, atheist regimes in the 20th have killed countless millions. Human's kill due to small differences, race, religion, political allignment, etc.

[newbie]

I think the argument for the Bible being the most copied, therefore it must be true, is a misnomer. It was messed with at the Council of Nicea, where Jesus became God essentially, and undergone countless translations from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to English by countless translaters and scribes. And we are to believe the "finished" project is the absolute and total word of God? I'll take the Greek classics in any form for their veracity over an over-translated book of tales and fables. And on the topic of Religious homophobia please understand Jesus said NOTHING on homosexuality, zip, nada. His message was love and forgiveness. Paul's words on this topic are his, not Jesus'.

EDIT: Also not to be forgotten are the gnostic gospels which surprisingly do not appear in the Bible. Wonder why that is?link

[M.Dancer]

I think the argument for the Bible being the most copied, therefore it must be true, is a misnomer.

EDIT: Also not to be forgotten are the gnostic gospels which surprisingly do not appear in the Bible. Wonder why that is?link

I'm sure I haven't made that argument. I onlt point out that there are very few ancient documents that are "originals".

The gostic "gospels' provenace is weak. There is no evidence that the proto church used them, that they belonged only to the gnostic sects. That being said I agree wit the bulk of your post.

[jefferiah]

The official Christian Position is not homophobia. I think there is quite a difference. The Christian position is that homosexuality is a sin. And I dont believe it is wrong or discriminating to to say so either. For instance, Jewish people believe pork eating is wrong and therefore they are condeming an act that most of the general population is guilty of. But the Jews are not Porkaphobes are they? Of course not, and do pork eaters feel excluded or discriminated against because of the Judaic position? I think not. Why do Christian Churches refuse to allow gay marriage? Because according to the faith it is a sin. You would not ask a Rabbi to hold a Ham Potluck dinner at a Synagogue would you?

[M.Dancer]

The official Christian Position is not homophobia.

There is no official christian position as there is no one official christian religion.

There are as many positions on the subject as there are in the Kama Sutra.

Jewish people believe pork eating is wrong and therefore they are condeming an act that most of the general population is guilty of.

ummm...no jews don't condemn eating pork (or mising dairy and meat, shellfish......)

they merely prohibit it amongst the observant.

[jefferiah]

Hmm...good point dancer. I am quite ignorant of Judaism I guess. However I think it still suffices to make my point. It is ok for a faction to believe something is wrong, it doesnt mean they are intolerant. For instance, I really believed Jews believed Pork eating was wrong, and during the time I believed that I harboured no grudge toward Judaism for what I thought was their condemnation of eating pork. The New Testament does say homosexuality is wrong in the book of Romans. Paul makes a reference to it as one of the ways we all went astray. And actually there is a book of John dating to around 100 AD I believe in museum in England. The point I am trying to make, is that the Christian position, though some Christians do not stick well to it, is that even though we believe homosexuality is wrong we are not to condemn or judge people for it, but be merciful to them and help them should they want to change. This is the method for all sin I think. Tolerance does not mean one has to agree with everything someone else believes in. Tolerance does not mean you have to believe being gay is right. I can be tolerant of homosexuals without condoning it. People can be tolerant of smokers without condoning it.

[jefferiah]

I agree that Jesus was a pacifist, but I dont think he ever said he was a socialist. I think thats your own formulation. I dont think he was a tory or republican either, but certainly not a socialist. And actually being a pacifist does not mean he thought homosexuality was OK. As I already stated, you can think something is a sin and is wrong, and it does not make you intolerant. When the women who was caught in adultery was brought before him, he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". This meant no one had any right to punish her. Maybe some of those men were involved with her, too, who knows. But it doesnt mean he softened his position on adultery being wrong. He just chose not to judge her harshly or to punish her, but to show mercy. After her persecutors left, Jesus told her to "sin no more". I know many of you people probably dont care what Jesus said or not, and thats none of my business, but I am adsressing anyone who thinks Jesus being pacifist means he thought homosexuality was OK. You can think its wrong to be homosexual without persecuting a homosexual, the same way you can think adultery is wrong and not persecute an adulterer. Christianity makes it a point that everyone is a sinner, so homosexuals are not singled out.

[M.Dancer]

I agree that Jesus was a pacifist, but I dont think he ever said he was a socialist.

To be fair, while Jesus was certainly on the side of the poor like his predecessors......, his parables used entrepreneurs to illustrate the mission of the gospels.....

The faithful servants multiplied the masters riches while another buried his masters "seed capital" earning his masters wrath.....

My take was that Jesus would have despised conspicuous wealth and consumption, greed and gluttony. Wealth was to be earned by hard work and to be liberally shared with the poor.

But no where do I find that Jesus advocating that the workers should own the means of production.....

Nor do I find Jesus to be particulary outraged over sexual misdemeanors......

From the Samaritan woman who has had many, many husbands........to the woman caught in the act of adultery, he seems very willing to forgive and filled with compassion.......but let him find the Money Marts and payday loans of the day using the courtyard of the temple to do business.....he gets down right pissed.

[jefferiah]

M Dancer, you are right, he was willing to forgive the woman of adultery amd the Samaritan woman of her sins. That is my point exactly. If they were not sins he would not have to forgive them though, would he. He did not condone having many husbands. He said adultery was wrong. That is exactly my point.

[M.Dancer]

M Dancer, you are right, he was willing to forgive the woman of adultery amd the Samaritan woman of her sins. That is my point exactly. If they were not sins he would not have to forgive them though, would he. He did not condone having many husbands. He said adultery was wrong. That is exactly my point.

And had he met a loving monogamous gay couple who were not adulterers, but were observant and a gave to the poor, cared for the sick and visited those in prison, who knows what jesus might have said........

.......my money would be on him having dinner with them

[jefferiah]

There is a difference between being "merciful and forgiving" and saying that "something is OK, and I condone it". If you caught your son injecting himself with heroin in his room, you would not condone it. But at the same time you would try to get him help. You would be merciful with him, and try to see him get better. You would not take him outside and stone him. So the fact that you forego judgement doesnt mean you condone using heroin. When Jesus addressed the Samaritan woman at the well, he pointed out her sins, not to say that they were ok, and that she could continue sleeping with whoever she wanted. He told her he could give her water that would keep her satisfied, while the "water of sensuality" that she was drinking would always run out and she would need more.

[jefferiah]

I agree with you again Dancer. He would have dinner with them. So would I. But he would not condone homosexuality, just as he would not condone adultery. It doesnt mean he would not associate with sinners. We are all sinners. But that doesnt make sin right. Just because he is merciful does not mean adultery and homosexuality are ok. If you whack me with a baseball bat once a day and I forgive you Dancer that is my business, and no one can question it. But it doesnt make what you are doing right. And it doesnt mean you should continue to do so, even though for your sake i would continue to forgive you.

[jefferiah]

I am not saying homosexuals should be treated worse than anyone else Dancer. I am saying that like all the sins that I have in my life, sin needs to be called sin. Jesus had dinner with drunkards and adulterers and probably he would have with homosexuals and drug addicts too. But he would never say here buddy this needle is on me. Once again you see there is a clear difference between having dinner with someone and condoning what they do.

[M.Dancer]

There is a difference between being "merciful and forgiving" and saying that "something is OK, and I condone it". If you caught your son injecting himself with heroin in his room, you would not condone it. But at the same time you would try to get him help. You would be merciful with him, and try to see him get better. You would not take him outside and stone him. So the fact that you forego judgement doesnt mean you condone using heroin. When Jesus addressed the Samaritan woman at the well, he pointed out her sins, not to say that they were ok, and that she could continue sleeping with whoever she wanted. He told her he could give her water that would keep her satisfied, while the "water of sensuality" that she was drinking would always run out and she would need more.

Yes, but he did not tell her to divorce her current husband......

nevertheless...jesus's detracter would say he prefered the company of whores and revenue canada tax agents......

I have to feel that a great amount of the gospels are tuned to the sensitivities of the era....certainly now the rules concerning the eating of foods offered to the pagan gods are anachronistic.....and maybe so the exhortations to avoid the temple prostitutes, who would be male and female for men and women......likewise when Paul wrote to one church about the leader who was a cross dresser (no pun intended) he did not condemn the fellow, but merely said that there wa no tradition of it and it might confuse people......

[M.Dancer]

I am not saying homosexuals should be treated worse than anyone else Dancer.

Not saying you do.......I don't think homosex was a particulary big deal in 29 AD....no more than today when a guy has a private wank.....

times change

[jefferiah]

The woman knew she was an adulterer. He did not tell her to divorce her current husband because she didnt have one. The man she was living with was not married. He told the woman who he saved from being stoned by the religious authorities to sin no more. He did prefer the company of sinners. All people are sinners, but he preferred those who were not too proud to admit it. This is why he forgave those women. The religious leaders were proud and self-righteous and did not adimt they had done wrong, did not seek mercy. They put themselves in a position of God exercising punishment, while they had their own sins no better than her sins. In order to be repentant you must admit you are doing wrong. But to say oh this is ok to do, and to deny that what you are doing is sin is not repentant. It's proud. The religious leaders who condemned the woman may have done worse things that she did. This does not mean he condoned the woman's adultery any more than he condoned their actions, simply that he recognized her shame and repentance. He made it quite clear in the sermon on the mount that to look at another woman with lust is adultery. Have I ever done that? Yes I sure have. That makes me an adulterer, but it does not make it right. We refrain from judgement not because all these things are A-Ok, and God really doesnt care about "sexual misdimeanors", but because we all are sinners, we all do wrong, and it is not our place to exercise punishment. If there is no mercy for homosexuals sinners then there is of course no mercy for me when it comes to my own sins, my own adulteries and lusts. But to say that because God is willing to forgive us gives us a license to do as we please is a whole other story. You have to ask forgiveness to be forgiven, and to do that you admit you have done wrong.

[M.Dancer]

The woman knew she was an adulterer. He did not tell her to divorce her current husband because she didnt have one. The man she was living with was not married. He told the woman who he saved from being stoned by the religious authorities to sin no more. He did prefer the company of sinners. All people are sinners, but he preferred those who were not too proud to admit it. This is why he forgave those women. The religious leaders were proud and self-righteous and did not adimt they had done wrong, did not seek mercy. They put themselves in a position of God exercising punishment, while they had their own sins no better than her sins. In order to be repentant you must admit you are doing wrong. But to say oh this is ok to do, and to deny that what you are doing is sin is not repentant. It's proud. The religious leaders who condemned the woman may have done worse things that she did. This does not mean he condoned the woman's adultery any more than he condoned their actions, simply that he recognized her shame and repentance. He made it quite clear in the sermon on the mount that to look at another woman with lust is adultery. Have I ever done that? Yes I sure have. That makes me an adulterer, but it does not make it right. We refrain from judgement not because all these things are A-Ok, and God really doesnt care about "sexual misdimeanors", but because we all are sinners, we all do wrong, and it is not our place to exercise punishment. If there is no mercy for homosexuals sinners then there is of course no mercy for me when it comes to my own sins, my own adulteries and lusts. But to say that because God is willing to forgive us gives us a license to do as we please is a whole other story. You have to ask forgiveness to be forgiven, and to do that you admit you have done wrong.

The big question is, is being a homosexual a sin or is having homosexual sex a sin? If it is the first, then God is the sinner because why on earth would he make people homosexuals...sort of like being screwed if you do and screwed if you don't, so to speak.....and if it is the second, same answer........

Now you can understand why adultery is a sin, it hurts people, it hurts the spouce, it involves lies and it hurts the children, to be reaised in such an enviroment.......

But why would God or jesus be concerned about two monogamous individuals who happen to be the same sex......I think he would care as much about that as he would someone eating pork.

[jefferiah]

For the record He also forgave Paul (formerly Saul) for persecuting and executing hundreds of Christians, and then charged him with the job of being an Apostle. Does this mean M Dancer that he was condoning mass executions as well? He did not give specific instructions to the woman at the well as what to do about her husband, but I think she understood anyway. Likewise, there is no record of him telling Paul to stop executing people, but I think you can ascertain that he meant Paul had to change his lifestyle.

[M.Dancer]

For the record He also forgave Paul (formerly Saul) for persecuting and executing hundreds of Christians, and then charged him with the job of being an Apostle. Does this mean M Dancer that he was condoning mass executions as well? He did not give specific instructions to the woman at the well as what to do about her husband, but I think she understood anyway. Likewise, there is no record of him telling Paul to stop executing people, but I think you can ascertain that he meant Paul had to change his lifestyle.

Well you could hardly expect paul to continue to be an inquisitor........he would have had to have himself stoned.....