A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[Fryk]

I agree that it really is quite po.

[Hobbs]

Skunkle, onto the Church's "editing" of the Bible; it was agreed in various Councils what books would be admitted through legitimacy. That is, those gospels that were around from the end of the 1st century to the middle 2nd are admitted, but 3rd and 4th century aren't. It's generally considered that the books were first written down as dictated by the 'writers' themselves or those they passed on the oral tradition. Passed a certain age, you lose that legitimacy.

As for being gay and Christian, my brother is being uber-Catholic this Lent in refusing caffiene, even checking ingredient labels

[Gravekeeper]

Skunkle, onto the Church's "editing" of the Bible; it was agreed in various Councils what books would be admitted through legitimacy.

"Legitimacy" is an extremely subjective term. Especially when the Church is involved, and the Church's primary concern for a goodly length of time was maintaining power and narrative. Hence the Gospel of Thomas was tossed out, the Gospel of Mary wasn't considered and the Gospel of Eve was destroyed because it "encouraged sin".

[Hobbs]

Did you even read what I posted after the word "legitimacy"?

[Ghel]

Does it really matter which books the Church chose to include in the Bible? The very fact that the Church made a selection of books to include, and the fact that they have been edited by various sources and translated into multiple languages over the centuries tells us that the Bible is not "infallible," as many Christians claim, and casts doubt on the suggestion that the Bible is inspired by God.

More to the point, none of the gospels that the Church chose to include can be traced back any earlier than about 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus is said to have died. And none of those who supposedly witnessed these events were the ones to write them down - instead it was their students or followers. If the miracles described in the gospels actually happened, wouldn't somebody have written about them immediately?

[Fryk]

Just as well, Ghel. Haven't we heard time and again that eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable evidence?

Now granted, there's not much else to go with, no forensic or archeological evidence, so you're kind of stuck. But at least you can go with something along the lines of the Gospel of Luke, where he interviewed many of the people who DID witness these events (supposedly), so it's more of a cross section.

[Hobbs]

Does it really matter which books the Church chose to include in the Bible? The very fact that the Church made a selection of books to include, and the fact that they have been edited by various sources and translated into multiple languages over the centuries tells us that the Bible is not "infallible," as many Christians claim, and casts doubt on the suggestion that the Bible is inspired by God.

More to the point, none of the gospels that the Church chose to include can be traced back any earlier than about 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus is said to have died. And none of those who supposedly witnessed these events were the ones to write them down - instead it was their students or followers. If the miracles described in the gospels actually happened, wouldn't somebody have written about them immediately?

Not really. You have to realize that the ability to take written records of events by non-official sources was very difficult. The only ones readily able to write down such information would have been scholars, clerics and government officials. Since most of the Jewish leadership was against Jesus and his teachings, it is logical to conclude that none of them would have recorded his teachings/miracles.

Thirty years is a fair amount of time for oral tradition to be passed down to another generation without the loss or change of the details. I would consider a book written in 60 AD to be more truthful/closer to the truth than a book written in 300 AD. Those books that are excluded, the works of the Gnostics and others, were written over 200 years after Christ. And you believe these to be as valid as a book written in the First Century?

All this being said, there quite possibly could have been eariler written records, but so far none have surfaced. Most likely, the earliest records were destroyed during the Roman persecution of the Christians which didn't end until Constantine.

[HYHYBT]

Also, as I understand it, a lot of people were illiterate, presumably there were lots of people around who had met Jesus in person to talk to, and his followers thought the world was going to end very, very soon. Until they became spread out enough to have to communicate by letter or the first generation was dying out, there just wasn't any point in writing it down.

[crashhelmet]

Does it really matter which books the Church chose to include in the Bible? The very fact that the Church made a selection of books to include, and the fact that they have been edited by various sources and translated into multiple languages over the centuries tells us that the Bible is not "infallible," as many Christians claim, and casts doubt on the suggestion that the Bible is inspired by God.

More to the point, none of the gospels that the Church chose to include can be traced back any earlier than about 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus is said to have died. And none of those who supposedly witnessed these events were the ones to write them down - instead it was their students or followers. If the miracles described in the gospels actually happened, wouldn't somebody have written about them immediately?

Ghel... The bigger problem is not what the Churches chose to include or disqualify. It's what "Christians" choose to follow and not follow from what was selected.

People will come out say that Leviticus says homosexuality is bad, yet they still eat shellfish. 1st Timothy says women aren't allowed to teach or hold other positions of authority over a man, yet we have female pastors. 1st Timothy says women can't dress themselves in fashionable clothing, yet look at Tammy Faye Bakker and the others like her.

Back on topic...

Matthew 5:43-45 says "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Hate the sin if you wish, but love the sinner.

CH

[Ghel]

Matthew 5:43-45 says "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Hate the sin if you wish, but love the sinner.

I don't see how your conclusion follows from this quote. There may be other passages that support your statement, but this one doesn't. This quote says to "love your enemies" (which I think is bad advice, but that's a different topic). If any Christian believes that homosexual individuals are their enemies, they're even farther divorced from reality than I thought.

People will come out say that Leviticus says homosexuality is bad, yet they still eat shellfish. 1st Timothy says women aren't allowed to teach or hold other positions of authority over a man, yet we have female pastors. 1st Timothy says women can't dress themselves in fashionable clothing, yet look at Tammy Faye Bakker and the others like her.

Yes, this is part of the problem. People will pick and choose which passages to follow and which to ignore. A Bible quote can be found to support almost any position, as long as you ignore other passages.

[Hobbs]

Here Ghel, these quotes are better:

Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 7:1
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

[Ghel]

I don't see where these quotes better reflect the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin."

The first two seem to be instructions to control your emotions, which is generally a good thing. However, IMO, the threat of eternal hellfire for anyone who calls someone else a fool is immoral (but that's a different discussion).

Your third quote, citing the "golden rule," seems to me to call for equality for all people. Which, in the current discussion, suggests that if you want to be allowed to marry whoever you wish, others should be allowed to do the same. I understand limiting marriage to consenting adults, since marriage is a contract, but I still see no reason to limit marriages to opposite-sex couples.

[Hobbs]

Well, to be honest, "Love the sinner; hate the sin" is a phrase from St. Augustine (if memory serves).

As for your last part...what exactly are you arguing?

[Ghel]

Am I not clear enough? Here, let me try to explain.

The idea of "hate the sin, love the sinner" seems hypocritical to me. How can you denounce an aspect of who the person IS, and still love them? Also, I haven't read or heard anything in Christian doctrine or from Christians that supports this idea. Not only that, but it seems that this statement is only applied to homosexual individuals and not any other type of "sinner."

As for my discussion of the "golden rule," I'm asking for an end to the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. Is that clear enough?

[Hobbs]

Am I not clear enough? Here, let me try to explain.

The idea of "hate the sin, love the sinner" seems hypocritical to me. How can you denounce an aspect of who the person IS, and still love them? Also, I haven't read or heard anything in Christian doctrine or from Christians that supports this idea. Not only that, but it seems that this statement is only applied to homosexual individuals and not any other type of "sinner."

For this reason, the man who lives by God's standards and not by man's, must needs be a lover of the good, and it follows that he must hate what is evil. Further, since no one is evil by nature, but anyone who is evil is evil because of a perversion of nature, the man who lives by God's standards has a duty of "perfect hatred" (Psalm 139:22) towards those who are evil; that is to say, he should not hate the person because of the fault, nor should he love the fault because of the person. He should hate the fault, but love the man. And when the fault has been cured there will remain only what he ought to love, nothing that he should hate. Augustine, Confessions. 14:6, Penguin ed. trans. Bettenson

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."

IN BRIEF
1870 "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom 11:32).

1871 Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22:PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ.

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man's nature and injures human solidarity.

1873 The root of all sins lies in man's heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

1875 Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.

1876 The repetition of sins - even venial ones - engenders vices, among which are the capital sins.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part III. Life in Christ.

As for my discussion of the "golden rule," I'm asking for an end to the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. Is that clear enough?

Yes, that's clear...but I didn't understand why you added that at the end of your reply.