What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Short answer: "Nothing"

[gmark77]

Who cares what an over 2000 year old book says about morality?!

Most modern Americans identify as religious of some form or at least spiritual. Everyone knows that Christianity has acted as the basis for a lot of the early Western Culture we know today.

Given that a large number of Americans believe that there is a God and most of them believe it is the God of Abraham and most of them feel their entire moral code comes from that God then it is critical to understand it.

And finally: the DIFFERENTIATION between our modern morality and one of an ancient peoples could not be more stark. The acceptance of those who were considered at the least "unclean" and at the worst an "abomination" is a good thing. We are better people than that. And, ironically, Jesus himself seemed to open the door for that kind of approach. HIs love and acceptance stuff truly seemed a revolution.

Which is what all religions ultimately need over time. A revolution. But if one expends too much time laboring over how the plain language of the text doesn't say what it says and instead says something completely different then one runs the risk of removing all value and meaning completely from the holy word.

 

[Hume]

Most modern Americans identify as religious of some form or at least spiritual. Everyone knows that Christianity has acted as the basis for a lot of the early Western Culture we know today.

Same people who think Trump is a great leader. Bunch of uneducated assholes.

 

[Cypress]

In the NT, Jesus says that he's come to keep the law (or some similar phrasing). Christians pick and choose which of the laws they believe Jesus is talking about, because they don't want to have to execute their neighbors for working on the Sabbath, but are obsessed with preventing a woman from marrying a woman.

So, in their minds, Jesus, with all the things he had to worry about, was really, really concerned about a dude marrying a dude.

It's remarkable how many conservative Evangelicals have a couple of obscure quotes about sex in the Bible memorized, but they're hard pressed to remember anything about the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Hume]

It's remarkable how many conservative Evangelicals have a couple of obscure quotes about sex in the Bible memorized, but they're hard pressed to remember anything about the Sermon on the Mount.

Why the US should ignore the nonsense of the Bible.

 

[Cypress]

Why the US should ignore the nonsense of the Bible.

I think Frederich Nietzsche has to be read on his own terms, not through the lens that Adolph Hitler viewed him.

The New testament also has to be read on it's own terms, not through the lens Jerry Falwell read it.

Two and a half billion people place their faith in Christianity, and hundreds of millions more adopt the ethos of the New Testament even through they aren't religious themselves.

To me, that makes it a book that shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Hume]

I think Frederich Nietzsche has to be read on his own terms, not through the lens that Adolph Hitler viewed him.

The New testament also has to be read on it's own terms, not through the lens Jerry Falwell read it.

Two and a half billion people place their faith in Christianity, and hundreds of millions more adopt the ethos of the New Testament even through they aren't religious themselves.

To me, that makes it a book that shouldn't be ignored.

No nation survives by following a religion text.

 

[Cypress]

I guess the same reason it matters to agnostics.

As an atheist it doesn't mean that I've shut the door on God's existence! I could always learn otherwise! So I can still have interest in discussing the topic.

And besides: if one cannot see that this is a prime example of religion being wholly man-made then I can't imagine what would. Obviously this is humanity evolving morals, not God changing. God doesn't change. That's why he's God. If God changes then God is of no value to humanity.

The most dangerous thing someone can do is to tell others they are not allowed to question the holy writ.

I don't see any problem. In the most Jewish-oriented of the four Gospels, there is one sentence in which Jesus insinuates to his fellow Jews that Mosaic law, regulation, and ritual is still meaningful to Jews.

Nothing remotely surprising about a Jew telling other Jews that their nation lives under Mosaic law.

That tells you nothing about whether gentiles are subject to Torah. That question hadn't even come up yet.

And since the Torah was a covenant between God and the Israelites, it doesn't even make sense historically and culturally that gentiles are under the authority of Mosaic law - unless they converted to Judaism.

 

[Margot]

I think Frederich Nietzsche has to be read on his own terms, not through the lens that Adolph Hitler viewed him.

The New testament also has to be read on it's own terms, not through the lens Jerry Falwell read it.

Two and a half billion people place their faith in Christianity, and hundreds of millions more adopt the ethos of the New Testament even through they aren't religious themselves.

To me, that makes it a book that shouldn't be ignored.

The only way to truly comprehend the Bible is with the help of the Holy Spirit! Any other man ,you're only getting their spin!

 

[Margot]

Why the US should ignore the nonsense of the Bible.

So you want to go with atheism! I didn't know you were a Stalin USSR fan! Cue - The Beatles Back in the USSR

 

[Cypress]

No nation survives by following a religion text.

Following State-sanctioned atheism hasn't worked out well at all either.

Pluralistic societies are the ones that probably have staying power.

 

[EdwinA]

It’s always intrigued me why Christian’s focus on homosexuality when they ignore what the Bible says about adultery. They embrace remarriage, but condemn homosexuality.

It doesn't, it just that faggots keep lying about what's in it and bashing it all the time, then sniveling about the responses. Nobody' focuses' on it except faggots.

 

[EdwinA]

Surprisingly, the worst Biblical literalists and cherry-pickers are poorly-educated religious fundamentalists, and militant atheists.

That's because they have their own agendas beyond legitimate critical literary and historical analysis.

The bible is written on many levels, and that is one of them. I agree that what a 'literalist' is can be misinterpreted because of that. But there is room for those as well. It doesn't have to please deviants, sociopaths, and feral criminals.

 

[EdwinA]

I

Here is the marketing agenda; it's all about desensitizing the public over time, and follows the same patterns laid out by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci. No surprise, since the whole 'gay rights' hoax was founded by MArxists and card carrying Communist Party members like Harry Hay and NAMBLA founder DAvid Thorstad. It's no secret what the 'normalization' program is, and now it has been carried into the grade schools and moved to promoting extreme sexual mutilations to kids as young as 6.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA - By Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

 

[EdwinA]

What is hilarious about these mentally ill fetishists is they were all touting up Islam as far more 'enlightened' than Da Evul Xians, cuz butt raping little boys has been a thing in Muslim countries for centuries, and fags like Gore Vidal and others were always gushing over that and adored it. Then the vids of them tossing queers off of buildings showed up on newscasts in the early 21st century and now all that idiot crap disappeared. lol but they still run around trying to bash Xians and then trying to tell us all what the bible really says n stuff. When that gets laughed at and shown to be false, then they whine about how Xians 'focus on gays n stuff' after all their attention whoring nonsense gets rebutted.

Clue: It isn't 'evul xian fundies' who start these threads.

Please find any evangelical who just preaches about faggots all day every day. We'll wait, just the same as we're still waiting on all that proof Joel Osteen just asks for money all day every day. That hasn't showed up either. In fact nobody can show where he has taken a dime from his church in over 20 years. lol

 

[EdwinA]

And since the Torah was a covenant between God and the Israelites, it doesn't even make sense historically and culturally that gentiles are under the authority of Mosaic law - unless they converted to Judaism.

^^^This.

 

[gmark77]

I don't see any problem. In the most Jewish-oriented of the four Gospels, there is one sentence in which Jesus insinuates to his fellow Jews that Mosaic law, regulation, and ritual is still meaningful to Jews.

Nothing remotely surprising about a Jew telling other Jews that their nation lives under Mosaic law.

That tells you nothing about whether gentiles are subject to Torah. That question hadn't even come up yet.

And since the Torah was a covenant between God and the Israelites, it doesn't even make sense historically and culturally that gentiles are under the authority of Mosaic law - unless they converted to Judaism.

I sense you are not seeing the inherent difficulty with this position:

You really do seem to be saying that a Teacher said to his possible flock: "Part of my followers are to be held to the Judaic Laws and part will be free of them", yet you have never pointed to anything that Jesus says that even remotely comes close to that. Meanwhile there is at least one quote where he says pretty much effectively the opposite of that. You find it convenient to "ignore" this quote or hand wave it away with some exegesis which is nowhere in the words of Jesus.

Your primary defense seems to be "other people settled it later on".

Are you of the opinion that the author of Matthew simply made up things for Jesus to say? Or do you think Jesus actually DID bifurcate his flock into those who would have to follow the laws and those who wouldn't? If the latter then where did Jesus state this?

(Also: I'm still curious what your denomination is.)

 

[gmark77]

It doesn't, it just that faggots keep lying about what's in it and bashing it all the time, then sniveling about the responses. Nobody' focuses' on it except faggots.

Ahhh, just "faggots" lying about your holy word. Your holy word that teaches you to love even your enemies. But you seem to be unimpressed by that part.

You just wanna scream at the "faggots".

Go with God, my son.

 

[gmark77]

So you want to go with atheism! I didn't know you were a Stalin USSR fan! Cue - The Beatles Back in the USSR

So the ONLY alternative to living by the Bible is to be a Stalinist dictatorship?

Your "reasoning" is astounding.

 

[gmark77]

and hundreds of millions more adopt the ethos of the New Testament even through they aren't religious themselves.

To me, that makes it a book that shouldn't be ignored.

I wish more Americans adopted the ethos of the NT. But if we did we'd hardly be Americans anymore, would we?

 

[EdwinA]

Ahhh, just "faggots" lying about your holy word. Your holy word that teaches you to love even your enemies. But you seem to be unimpressed by that part.

You just wanna scream at the "faggots".

Go with God, my son.

Like I need your permission. lol

I'm not a Christian; that's just your brainwashing leading you around by the nose. Nobody is 'screaming', except of course faggots. They demand everybody use their silly ass euphemisms, being little mentally ill gimps.