God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[shmogie]

@Subduction Zone you make a most excellent point about Paul never having met Jesus, and on this subject- I do think that fact is very relevant.

IMO, the prejudices have a lot to do with Paul's personality and dispositions- bearing in mind he murdered people.

True, he did murder people. Actually, he did meet Jesus ( see the first 2 chapters of Acts).

You may think that this particular meeting was somehow not real, however, the Apostles, all of whom had physically met Jesus, accepted him as an Apostle based upon this .

Pauls personality changed, but didn't. He was an extremely well educated pharisee, with zeal for God. Thus as such his persecution of Christians, who were considered a threat to Judaism.

His zeal never changed. His understanding of what was right and true radically changed based upon his meeting with Christ.

He said, based upon the evil he had done, " to he who much is forgiven, much is required"

Thank you for your civility

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, you didn't ASK me to do anything. You, in your mantle of authority, said the term meant many things to many people, ergo, regardless of anything I said I was just one of many people. You posit questions, clothed in a strawman, not worth responding to.

Insults, hmmmmmm . When one shows them to be their lingua franca, I choose to respond in the same language , else how else could you understand ?

Let me interpret that, since you are now contradicting an earlier post you are tacitly admitting that you are wrong and running away again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, he did murder people. Actually, he did meet Jesus ( see the first 2 chapters of Acts).

You may think that this particular meeting was somehow not real, however, the Apostles, all of whom had physically met Jesus, accepted him as an Apostle based upon this .

Pauls personality changed, but didn't. He was an extremely well educated pharisee, with zeal for God. Thus as such his persecution of Christians, who were considered a threat to Judaism.

His zeal never changed. His understanding of what was right and true radically changed based upon his meeting with Christ.

He said, based upon the evil he had done, " to he who much is forgiven, much is required"

Thank you for your civility

That is what sane people call a hallucination. He never met the man. And in fact he disagreed with some of Jesus's apostles about his teachings. That is the reason that some call his teachings "Paulism" .

 

[shmogie]

Let me interpret that, since you are now contradicting an earlier post you are tacitly admitting that you are wrong and running away again.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Subduction Zone]

NO, his support was from one source he quickly grabbed off the internet. That isn't research, that isn't knowledge.

You haven't ASKED in respectful manner, one specific question. You spew ignorance masquerading as knowledge, then demand non specific answers about your nonsense.

Attempting to respond to hyperbolic, truly bizarre , ignorant rants is not my responsibility.

So,rant away, insult away, continue as the disciple of dullardism.................. it's all the same to me.

Come back when you can make a specific, non preloaded, reasonable statement that might have some meaning. Then I might enlighten you. Otherwise, rave on,

Please, once again you break the Ninth Commandment. But then you can't support your claims and constantly make false claims of others insulting you.

 

[shmogie]

Please, once again you break the Ninth Commandment. But then you can't support your claims and constantly make false claims of others insulting you.

ZZZZZzzz huh, unimportant, ah, Zzzzzzz zzzz zzzzzzzzzz

 

[shmogie]

That is what sane people call a hallucination. He never met the man. And in fact he disagreed with some of Jesus's apostles about his teachings. That is the reason that some call his teachings "Paulism" .

Gads, more error parading as knowledge. There was no disagreement about Jesus's teachings. There was disagreement about whether gentiles needed to convert to judaism and keep the Torah. The issue was resolved at the Council of Jerusalem, and the answer was no.The Council was in total agreement, thus were the Apostles.

Some use the term Paulism, because they don't like his message. No true Christian uses the term. It is used by those looking in from outside, who want to be inside, but who refuse to accept the restrictions in Paul's writings on what THEY want. There was no discord among the Apostles after the council. Paulism has nothing to do with any discord before the council.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gads, more error parading as knowledge. There was no disagreement about Jesus's teachings. There was disagreement about whether gentiles needed to convert to judaism and keep the Torah. The issue was resolved at the Council of Jerusalem, and the answer was no.The Council was in total agreement, thus were the Apostles.

Some use the term Paulism, because they don't like his message. No true Christian uses the term. It is used by those looking in from outside, who want to be inside, but who refuse to accept the restrictions in Paul's writings on what THEY want. There was no discord among the Apostles after the council. Paulism has nothing to do with any discord before the council.

Wow! You don't even know the history of your own myths. Of course there was disagreement. There were quite a few "gospels" There were long discussions of which ones to keep and which ones to reject. The council that you mentioned did not immediately agree, and some books of the New Testament took a while to be accepted. Even Christian sites admit that Revelation took some work to be accepted:

The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon?

And you end with a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Perhaps you should try to support at least one of your errant claims.

 

[shmogie]

LOL, You

Wow! You don't even know the history of your own myths. Of course there was disagreement. There were quite a few "gospels" There were long discussions of which ones to keep and which ones to reject. The council that you mentioned did not immediately agree, and some books of the New Testament took a while to be accepted. Even Christian sites admit that Revelation took some work to be accepted:

The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon?

And you end with a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Perhaps you should try to support at least one of your errant claims.

LOL. Perhaps you ought to read the absolute source in the issues. You are now jumbling issues all together. to cover your heiny,.
You stated that Paul disagreed with the Apostles on the teachings of Jesus. Not true. Acts 15: 6-11 The Jerusalem Council " The Pharisees rose up saying, it is necessary to command them to keep the law of Moses". "Now the Apostles and Elders came together to consider the matter, and their was much dispute." THe Council of Jerusalem decree " It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to lay no greater burden on you than this; that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you have done well " No more disagreement between Paul and the other Apostles. Your first strawman destroyed,

You now bring up post Apostolic church history and disagreement over the canon, and accuse me of being ignorant on the issues, because I answered your first specific accusation, but didn';t answer any you hadn't brought up. You wonder why trying to discuss anything with you is a hopeless mess ? All you do is accuse, and slide around like an eel and are never specific about anything.

I have education in early church history, so let me lay out for you the disagreements about the Canon you brought up, though you didn't know what you were talking about. I am going to take my time to clarify the issue for you. You will find a way to accuse me of something, and like popcorn, blow off in a different direction, I don't care.

You may take me as a minor authority, or you can dig till you find someone, some where who disagree's, I don't care.

The Gospel story was verbally in circulation from the time of Christ, they were in written form probably 65 AD, but definitely by 100 AD. By 150 AD the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles were in writing and were being used by most Churches. There were other writings that some churches used, some not. Many were from the sect known as the Gnostics, a heretical group.
Around 200 AD other Gospels began popping up. there were a number of them. All were inconsistent with the original Gospels, written by eyewitnesses, and in circulation from the beginning.

The Canon was officially established at the Council of Nicea, by looking at consistency, date of origin, and literal comparison.

It has been the same for 1700 years, except that Roman Catholics accept the Apocrypha, which isn't about Christianity, but is about the Maccabean rulers of Israel. Protestants do not accept it.

If you want to civilly discuss issues, stay on topic, be specific, and give up the hostility. It serves no purpose, for either of us. Last opportunity

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, You

LOL. Perhaps you ought to read the absolute source in the issues. You are now jumbling issues all together. to cover your heiny,.
You stated that Paul disagreed with the Apostles on the teachings of Jesus. Not true. Acts 15: 6-11 The Jerusalem Council " The Pharisees rose up saying, it is necessary to command them to keep the law of Moses". "Now the Apostles and Elders came together to consider the matter, and their was much dispute." THe Council of Jerusalem decree " It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to lay no greater burden on you than this; that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you have done well " No more disagreement between Paul and the other Apostles. Your first strawman destroyed,

I said some of the apostles. And please note, you are only hearing one side of the story. It was clear that Paul disagreed with some of the apostles. He claims that he won. Yet he never returned to Antioch and there are those that claim Peter still disagreed with him strongly. To prove your claim you need to have more than just one biased viewpoint.

You now bring up post Apostolic church history and disagreement over the canon, and accuse me of being ignorant on the issues, because I answered your first specific accusation, but didn';t answer any you hadn't brought up. You wonder why trying to discuss anything with you is a hopeless mess ? All you do is accuse, and slide around like an eel and are never specific about anything.

I point out your obvious weaknesses and your inability to substantiate your claims. You still have failed at that. You are guilty of what you accuse others of doing.

I have education in early church history, so let me lay out for you the disagreements about the Canon you brought up, though you didn't know what you were talking about. I am going to take my time to clarify the issue for you. You will find a way to accuse me of something, and like popcorn, blow off in a different direction, I don't care.

You may take me as a minor authority, or you can dig till you find someone, some where who disagree's, I don't care.

Actually you probably simply overrate your education and like many Christians you cannot be honest about the Bible. A biased education is not worth much. Have you compared your conclusions to that of modern biblical scholars? Many of them appear to disagree with you.

The Gospel story was verbally in circulation from the time of Christ, they were in written form probably 65 AD, but definitely by 100 AD. By 150 AD the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles were in writing and were being used by most Churches. There were other writings that some churches used, some not. Many were from the sect known as the Gnostics, a heretical group.
Around 200 AD other Gospels began popping up. there were a number of them. All were inconsistent with the original Gospels, written by eyewitnesses, and in circulation from the beginning.

That is fairly accurate so far. But please note the earliest gospel was written more than a generation after Jesus's death. None of them are eyewitness accounts. They are all anonymous. By the way there are still some that think that "heretical" gospels are accurate today. And they may be as accurate as any of them.

The Canon was officially established at the Council of Nicea, by looking at consistency, date of origin, and literal comparison.

Yes, in the year 325CE! Almost 300 years after the event.

It has been the same for 1700 years, except that Roman Catholics accept the Apocrypha, which isn't about Christianity, but is about the Maccabean rulers of Israel. Protestants do not accept it.

If you want to civilly discuss issues, stay on topic, be specific, and give up the hostility. It serves no purpose, for either of us. Last opportunity

If you can be honest and polite I can be too. The problem is that too many Christians will not own up to the flaws in the Bible.

 

[shmogie]

Not

I said some of the apostles. And please note, you are only hearing one side of the story. It was clear that Paul disagreed with some of the apostles. He claims that he won. Yet he never returned to Antioch and there are those that claim Peter still disagreed with him strongly. To prove your claim you need to have more than just one biased viewpoint.



I point out your obvious weaknesses and your inability to substantiate your claims. You still have failed at that. You are guilty of what you accuse others of doing.



Actually you probably simply overrate your education and like many Christians you cannot be honest about the Bible. A biased education is not worth much. Have you compared your conclusions to that of modern biblical scholars? Many of them appear to disagree with you.



That is fairly accurate so far. But please note the earliest gospel was written more than a generation after Jesus's death. None of them are eyewitness accounts. They are all anonymous. By the way there are still some that think that "heretical" gospels are accurate today. And they may be as accurate as any of them.



Yes, in the year 325CE! Almost 300 years after the event.




If you can be honest and polite I can be too. The problem is that too many Christians will not own up to the flaws in the Bible.

Not fairly accurate, accurate. If Paul and Peter disagreed on any thing after the council of Jerusalem, there is no record of it. In fact, Peter writes that though a little hard to understand at times, Pauls writings were true and of extreme value.

Of course the Gospels were written by witnesses, all but Luke. Luke investigated the claims, spoke to the witnesses, including Disciples and Apostles, then wrote the results of his investigation. A generation is only 20 years, even if tghey were written at the very latest date, 100 AD, they very well could still have been alive. The early date, which most accept, it is no problem. The letters were written earlier, and confirm the Gospels. Paul could not have written the letters twenty years before the written Gospels, and confirm them, unless the witnesses were telling their accounts right from the beginning which is only logical, since 12 men turned the world upside down.

As to the heretical gospels, very, very few scholars give them any credence, since they didn't begin showing up till 200 years after the events. Bogus every one of them

So, the canon wasn't established for 200 years, big deal. There are many letters written by the immediate post Apostolic church Fathers ( c. 150 AD) that confirm that that the letters and Gospels were used, along with other books and writings. The bottom line, The letters and Gospels were the foundation.

Of course I keep up with current theological and Archaeological thought and discoveries. Both by the non believing scholars, like those of the Jesus project and believing ones like the theological departments of Conservative University's and various institutes, like the CS Lewis institute. On line lectures makes it all possible.

You allege errors, but have produced none, feel free to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not

Not fairly accurate, accurate. If Paul and Peter disagreed on any thing after the council of Jerusalem, there is no record of it. In fact, Peter writes that though a little hard to understand at times, Pauls writings were true and of extreme value.

Where did Peter write this? Surely not in II Peter I hope.

Of course the Gospels were written by witnesses, all but Luke. Luke investigated the claims, spoke to the witnesses, including Disciples and Apostles, then wrote the results of his investigation. A generation is only 20 years, even if tghey were written at the very latest date, 100 AD, they very well could still have been alive. The early date, which most accept, it is no problem. The letters were written earlier, and confirm the Gospels. Paul could not have written the letters twenty years before the written Gospels, and confirm them, unless the witnesses were telling their accounts right from the beginning which is only logical, since 12 men turned the world upside down.

No, they weren't. You do not even seem to know what a witness is. And modern scholars say that even Luke is not necessarily written by Luke. None of the other Gospels are thought to be written by those that they are named after. In fact the author of Luke states at the start of that gospel that it is not based upon eyewitnesses. Have you not read it? Do you need some help understanding it?

As to the heretical gospels, very, very few scholars give them any credence, since they didn't begin showing up till 200 years after the events. Bogus every one of them

That is true, how is that different from the others?

So, the canon wasn't established for 200 years, big deal. There are many letters written by the immediate post Apostolic church Fathers ( c. 150 AD) that confirm that that the letters and Gospels were used, along with other books and writings. The bottom line, The letters and Gospels were the foundation.

That is a pretty big deal. If one cannot agree on the historicity of an event seen from only one side until 200 years after the fact it puts huge doubt into that event.

Of course I keep up with current theological and Archaeological thought and discoveries. Both by the non believing scholars, like those of the Jesus project and believing ones like the theological departments of Conservative University's and various institutes, like the CS Lewis institute. On line lectures makes it all possible.

You allege errors, but have produced none, feel free to do so.

Of course there are the scientific errors of the Bible, there are failed prophecies, there are bad morals. Which do you want first?

 

[shmogie]

Where did Peter write this? Surely not in II Peter I hope.



No, they weren't. You do not even seem to know what a witness is. And modern scholars say that even Luke is not necessarily written by Luke. None of the other Gospels are thought to be written by those that they are named after. In fact the author of Luke states at the start of that gospel that it is not based upon eyewitnesses. Have you not read it? Do you need some help understanding it?



That is true, how is that different from the others?



That is a pretty big deal. If one cannot agree on the historicity of an event seen from only one side until 200 years after the fact it puts huge doubt into that event.




Of course there are the scientific errors of the Bible, there are failed prophecies, there are bad morals. Which do you want first?

I can tell what scholars you read. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses., the witnesses stated as the authors were the authors. Yes, quote from Luke if you would to make your point.

The core Gospels and letters were in use in every church, some added others, but the core was there, do you grasp that ? Sigh, again, since since any Gospels other than the originals, did not surface till two hundred years after the event, ditto for the letters, they were bogus, and found to be that 1700 years ago. The Apostolic Church used the the original Gospels and letters. Two hundred years later, others came into use. A hundred years after that, they were eliminated. So, In the over 2,000 year history of the Church, you are making a big deal about a century where some Churches used additional Gospels and letters.Puny evidence of no big deal.

Start where you choose, give specifics by chapter and verse.

You are still playing at the edge of smart assery, stop it.
Rereading your post, "do you need some help understanding it", ends it here. You are incapable of being civil. I tried, goodbye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can tell what scholars you read. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses., the witnesses stated as the authors were the authors. Yes, quote from Luke if you would to make your point.

Actual biblical scholars disagree with you:


Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels

And from Luke 1:

1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.1:2 Greek from those who from the beginning were servants of the word. 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.

Please note he does not claim to have talked with eyewitnesses, the original stories came from supposed eyewitnesses but what he has is hearsay.

The core Gospels and letters were in use in every church, some added others, but the core was there, do you grasp that ? Sigh, again, since since any Gospels other than the originals, did not surface till two hundred years after the event, ditto for the letters, they were bogus, and found to be that 1700 years ago. The Apostolic Church used the the original Gospels and letters. Two hundred years later, others came into use. A hundred years after that, they were eliminated. So, In the over 2,000 year history of the Church, you are making a big deal about a century where some Churches used additional Gospels and letters.Puny evidence of no big deal.

Start where you choose, give specifics by chapter and verse.

You are still playing at the edge of smart assery, stop it.
Rereading your post, "do you need some help understanding it", ends it here. You are incapable of being civil. I tried, goodbye.

Please I am not the one being a jerk here. When you can be civil I will be civil. You were far from polite in your response so you have no grounds for complaint at all. Unlike you I have supported my claims. Here you are a mere poster until you find some independent support.

Support your claims with valid sources. That means avoiding apologists, they tend to be liars for Jesus. See if you can find some actual scholars that agree with you.

 

[Prestor John]

There is no use arguing with Subduction Zone.

He always claims that he knows more about the given topic than his opponent (even if the topic is the personal beliefs of his opponent) yet he never provides evidence of his claim.

He also always claims that his opponent is being dishonest, yet he can never provide evidence for that claim either.

Finally, he always claims that his opponent has violated some imaginary moral code.

Basically, he begins each "discussion" with his unfounded claims that he somehow has the undisputed intellectual or moral high-ground, yet can he can never provide evidence of having either.

There is no use arguing with Subduction Zone.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, if you already know that there is no real legitimate backing to your statement, why state it as if it were fact in the first place?
Secondly, you realise that ancetodal evidence is considered fallacious, right?
I don't care what "theory" a person tells me. If they can put their money where their mouth is, then I give them props and go from there. If not well I usually discard it as nothing but conjecture.
Your claims hold as much water as some rando coming on here and claiming that because I'm born after a certain year I'm more prone to abuse drugs because a doctor they once spoke to told them that in their experience a lot of addicts are of a certain age bracket. So what?
You seem adamant in ignoring basic debate etiquette. I might be a brash jerk, but I am merely trying to hold you to some form of standard, however silly and hyperbolic I may act at times.
I'm not upset or disturbed. Although claiming people are "insert sexual orientation here" specifically because of abuse is quite offensive to many actual abuse victims. So I might take issue when someone claims such a thing and I will take them to task if they cowardly back out of proving it with you know, actual goddamned evidence. That's just how debates tend to work.
Some random person with "qualifications" telling you something is not evidence. It's not proof, so your claims can't be taken as valid. Just FYI.

Oh and if I did tell at least 3 of my gay friends and/or family members what you just asked me to, I already know the response.
It will either be incredulity at such false accusations levied against their own family members who did nothing to hurt them or manic laughing at such a ridiculous notion put forth when they freely say with pride, nope not a single instance of abuse. I can report on their exact responses verbatim when I next speak to them, if you so desire. Although my family are prone to a very dark insulting sense of humour. So there might be a bleeped out word here or there thanks to RF rules. Just to let you know.

My anecdote may be taken as that, but God as my witness, I've seen the experiment repeated successfully many times. I tend to move towards affirmation as statistics pile on.

But your anecdote claims "I know what my gay friends would say if asked." Afraid to see there is truth there? Why not say, "some idiot at a forum said X, whatcha think?" and let's see how your three respond?

 

[SkepticThinker]

My anecdote may be taken as that, but God as my witness, I've seen the experiment repeated successfully many times. I tend to move towards affirmation as statistics pile on.

But your anecdote claims "I know what my gay friends would say if asked." Afraid to see there is truth there? Why not say, "some idiot at a forum said X, whatcha think?" and let's see how your three respond?

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[BilliardsBall]

According to 1 Kings 7:23 the value of pi is three. Do you still want to try to stake your claim on what the rest I said is wrong?

If you're open to it, there are multiple answers. Here's one: Pi And The Bible

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you're open to it, there are multiple answers. Here's one: Pi And The Bible

More mental gymnastics in an attempt to cram current knowledge into inaccurate Biblical claims. Ho hum.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you're open to it, there are multiple answers. Here's one: Pi And The Bible

Indeed, an equally accurate approximation of pi can be obtained by a division of chapter and verse (23/ 7 = 3.2857), whilst the median of the two gives an estimation identical to the familiar 22/7, or 3.1428...

That is really grasping at straws. Playing mathematical gymnastics doesn't work, and doesn't provide excuse the Bible from giving a number of 3. Not unless you accept the movie The Number 23 as having some validity, and playing mathematical gymnastics to produce a desired result is a valid method for assessing whether something is accurate or not.