/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>5681

I feel like I'm the only person on this board who isn't a religious fundamentalist of some kind, so I'll try to answer your question.

Christians today believe the canon condemns homosexuality consistently and the church has been against throughout it's whole history. But modern scholarship has brought this view into question.

In Romans, homosexuality is called "impure" and "unnatural". Paul then demolishes the jewish idea of purity and sees it as being worthless and not part of Christian life. Why would it matter to us? Not only that, but the word translated as "unnatural" did not have a negative connotation in the Greek language at that time. It was a stoic philosophical term and just meant "atypical". The word "arsenokoitai" has an unknown meaning we can't easily find. It is used various ways throughout the patristic era.

In church history, condemnations of homosexuality among the fathers are few and far between. It is not condemned as much as one would expect if the church consistently saw it as "intrinsically disordered" as the modern church would like to say. Not only that, "In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler’s legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century, almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts."

https://www.dignityusa.org/page/frequently-asked-questions

It is a common opinion among scholarship that there was a rite for the uniting of gay couples in the church. This is referred to adelphopoesis. The church likes to call this 'fraternization". Frankly this is wish thinking from the point of view of the modern scholar. The word for "brothers" in the book was ancient term used to refer to one's male lover and this has been widely attested to in Latin and Greek literature. It was a ritual forbidden to monks. It came about at the same time marriage ceremonies did, and it looks very similar to one. The service for the ritual has a line saying "may they be united more in spirit than in flesh". A rudder from the 1600s says it is for "carnal" purposes, and modern albanians still see the ritual as being for that. There are all kinds of clues which bring this view into question.

Largely modern condemnations of homosexuality come from 11th century theology onward. This isn't something that existed for the first thousand years of church history, and now it is treated as something that existed in apostolic tradition. This theology is bogus and ought not be preached in any church.

If you wanna learn more about it, I'd recommend you go on Daniel Helminiak's website. He has some crazy out-there ideas you should ignore, like he promotes this one guy who tried to say Jesus was gay[!!!] and how he denies the trinity, but his stuff on Church history, scripture, theology, and homosexuality is really good. Do check that out if you wanna see the other side of the debate.

Feeling attracted is not wrong, since its just a temptation.

following that temptation to sin is wrong

>>5682

>that pic

christianity is way too popular for that the Final Days will be atheist vs christians.

the final days will be christians vs real christians.

>>5689

do you think its ok to indulge in active homosexual acts?

>>5689

> Paul then demolishes the jewish idea of purity and sees it as being worthless and not part of Christian life.

Does Paul do that?

Every Christian should strive for holiness as final purpose, this includes purity.

>Largely modern condemnations of homosexuality come from 11th century theology onward. This isn't something that existed for the first thousand years of church history, and now it is treated as something that existed in apostolic tradition.

Pederasty was fine in the ancient world, this is true.

But Christianity changed this, I do not think that the claim that it started with in the 11th century is true.

>This theology is bogus and ought not be preached in any church.

So?

>I feel like I'm the only person on this board who isn't a religious fundamentalist of some kind, so I'll try to answer your question.

What is a religious fundamentalist?

Why is it bad to be one?

Were the apostles fundamentalists?

The martyrs ?

The Saints?

Why should we encourage people to care less for God?

>Christians today believe the canon condemns homosexuality consistently and the church has been against throughout it's whole history. But modern scholarship has brought this view into question.

This is why we call it modernism.

>>5690

>christianity is way too popular

I do not know where you come from, but in general Christianity is not very popular, at least not as popular as a westerner migh think. It is still the most persecuted religion in the world.

>the final days will be christians vs real christians.

real christians vs "christians" + atheists + muslims + jews + … + the antichrist

>>5692

>modern scholarship brings the old view into question

>This is why we call it modernism.

So the liberal vs conservative debate in the catholic church is basically just a debate between empty headed backwards cretins who are ignorant of history and people who know about the new historical research done into the areas of authority conservatives try to claim as their own?

Hmmm. I wonder who's right in this conflict.

>>5692

I actually think that in the final days most population will be "christian" in so, they can justifiy the "hate group" aka real christianity.

or what youre saying, the antichirst will be the Jesus that "will save muslisms" and the 2nd coming for christians, it would be too the jewish messiah, they will persecute the real christians.

>>5692

>Why should we encourage people to care less for God?

I care more about God than you do, and that's why I can do research on these things and change my mind when new evidence is presented. I don't go around screaming "YOU HATE GOD YOU'RE A HERETIC" when people disagree with me. I'm actually willing to discuss things and learn, unlike you.

>>5705

What denomination of Protestantism are you, out of curiosity?

>>5701

>So the liberal vs conservative debate in the catholic church

There is no such thing.

> between empty headed backwards cretins who are ignorant of history and people who know about the new historical research done into the areas of authority conservatives try to claim as their own?

No, you deliberately misrepresent the actual situation. This is just badmouthing.

>>5703

I think so too.

>>5705

>I care more about God than you do

You do not make a good case for yourself tbh. It is just a matter of style so far though.

Also telling this people that you do not know at all is no good way of conversation.

Anyway, you were ignoring my point, since I did not make this personal at all, I was refering to these people in general.

> I'm actually willing to discuss things and learn, unlike you.

I highly doubt this, based on your behavior in this thread at least.

I'd like to see you proving me wrong, however.

>>5708

I second this.

my guess is non-denom

>>5708

I don't see myself as a protestant. I haven't joined a particular church, but I'm thinking of becoming either Orthodox or Catholic.

>>5720

Good on you. There's Catholics here that can help you out with some of the heretical opinions you might hold, and see how best to proceed from there.

>>5683

>>5689

These two posts make actual arguments for a perspective.

The posts representing the other perspective just make assertions without demonstrating anything.

Can someone make an actual argument for homosexuality being condemned by the gospels, or demonstrate why those two posts are wrong?

>>5724

>These two posts make actual arguments for a perspective.

One can make arguments for anything. This is why TOM said that he'll play devil's advocate. It is meaningless though.

>The posts representing the other perspective just make assertions without demonstrating anything.

Do they? What does "demonstrating" even mean according to you?

>Can someone make an actual argument for homosexuality being condemned by the gospels

This is a logical fallacy:

>>5682

>The Bible is not the only source of morality.

>or demonstrate why those two posts are wrong?

Sure.

Let's start with this one

>>5689

Let's see how he starts:

>I feel like I'm the only person on this board who isn't a religious fundamentalist of some kind, so I'll try to answer your question.

Not very good rethorics, 2/5. Especially if we see how he completely ignores this post addressing it later on>>5692

>What is a religious fundamentalist?

>

>Why is it bad to be one?

>

>Were the apostles fundamentalists?

>

>The martyrs ?

>

>The Saints?

>

>Why should we encourage people to care less for God?

He rather makes it worse with a pridefull answer

>>5705

>I care more about God than you do

This demolishes his credibility imo

>In Romans, homosexuality is called "impure" and "unnatural". Paul then demolishes the jewish idea of purity and sees it as being worthless and not part of Christian life

When asked to demonstrate this>>5692

>Does Paul do that?

>

>Every Christian should strive for holiness as final purpose, this includes purity.

He remains silent. Point dismissed.

> Not only that, but the word translated as "unnatural" did not have a negative connotation in the Greek language at that time. It was a stoic philosophical term and just meant "atypical". The word "arsenokoitai" has an unknown meaning we can't easily find. It is used various ways throughout the patristic era.

If it is neutral it is still negative to call something atypical btw it just proves no point at all.

>In church history, condemnations of homosexuality among the fathers are few and far between. It is not condemned as much as one would expect if the church consistently saw it as "intrinsically disordered" as the modern church would like to say.

So he admitts that the Church condemned sodomy, but he claims that if it was really evil the Church would have condemned it more?

Low, I see no argument made here.

>It is a common opinion among scholarship that there was a rite for the uniting of gay couples in the church. This is referred to adelphopoesis. The church likes to call this 'fraternization".

Claim that it was "gay marriage" and not what the Church calls it, but no point made to prove it. I'd call it wishfull thinking ;^)

>Frankly this is wish thinking from the point of view of the modern scholar.

Baseless claim. The "points" he adds could mean anything. Especially bringing up Albania shows how desperate his position is.

>Largely modern condemnations of homosexuality come from 11th century theology onward. This isn't something that existed for the first thousand years of church history, and now it is treated as something that existed in apostolic tradition. This theology is bogus and ought not be preached in any church.

When confronted to further go into detail here he does not answer:

>>5692

> I do not think that the claim that it started with in the 11th century is true.

Point dismissed.

>If you wanna learn more about it, I'd recommend you go on Daniel Helminiak's website. He has some crazy out-there ideas you should ignore, like he promotes this one guy who tried to say Jesus was gay[!!!] and how he denies the trinity, but his stuff on Church history, scripture, theology, and homosexuality is really good. Do check that out if you wanna see the other side of the debate.

Cherrypicking when a source is credible and when not. Another attack on his objectivity.

I see no good point for homos made here at all. There is no "actual argument"

>>5683

> I'll try to play devil's advocate and find what I can on the subject from the side that supports homosexuality.

Ok

>>5683

>The first thing that comes to mind is the peculiar interpretation of the Mosaic Law. It views the prohibition on homosexual behavior very similar to the mixing of cloth, the consumption of molluscan and other practical or ritual rules for the Hebrews. In short, its something that was abolished by Christ.

It is no ritual rule nor practical, it is a rule of morality.

Morality is eternal and not related to its current time, this is different to not being allowed to eat shell fish or not mixig cloth. Following this logic we would have to dismiss the 10 commandments too.

Next the law was not abolished by Christ but fullfilled.

We do not have to circumcise anymore because the old covenant was succeeded and we do not need to make the sacrifices because the sacrifice on the cross was made that fulfilled these rituals.

In no way did Jesus ever go against OT morality or call the law bad or evil.

>A proponent of this belief would point out the silence of Christ specifically on the issue, and take the silence as a commendation of sorts.

There is no silence on this issue however.

He clearly accepted/embraced the authority of scripture and affirmed it, and scripture calls it a sin and condemns it. Jesus as a part of the trinity and eternal God himself punished people for this sin and others. Hence why it is called sodomy.

>When confronted with Paul's works, they may try to assassinate his character by arguing that ¨Paul said many things we don't follow¨ (Women being allowed to speak in church and such). Then there's the crowning jewel of this type of argument: The Original Greek. The argument is as follows: The words that Paul used when supposedly referring to homosexuals are actually not that clear; the greek word may more closely translate to ¨effeminate¨ or ¨soft¨, which doesn't necessarily mean homosexual. Paul was probably referring to male prostitutes or the like, it is inconsistent with the rest of the message of Christ that a couple IN LOVE would be denied simply because they are the same sex.

Even if we were to assume that Paul meant it like this it would be no argument that is pro-homo.

It would just mean that there is a single argument less against it.

I still think that this is trying to twist the actual meaning of scripture to fit a modern narrative though.

>The Eunuch from Acts is an example of this. Actually, the pro-homo stance tends to always interpret ¨Eunuch¨ as homosexual

Which it could be, or not. Again, this is a non-argument.

>>5726

>I still think this is trying to twist the meaning of scripture to fit s modern narrative though.

That's everything that this argument is. Modernism, shifty claims, blatant opposition to authority and a desire to push the pre-concieved hypothesis rather than find the truth of God.

Its also incredibly Gnostic and Marcionist in its attitude. All the old testament is garbage and only the select few who delve into these sekrit clubz and the like can obtain the true gnosis of what God really meant when He spoke on the subject.

>>5725

>>I care more about God than you do

>This demolishes his credibility imo

Oh really?

Well this was said in response to this statement made by the person you're defending

>Why should we encourage people to care less for God?

Do you think he has no credibility?

>>5689

>Adelphopoiesis, etc

See, I knew Christians would find a way to rewrite the modern interpretation. As homosexuality becomes popular, you'll see more arguments like this until being gay is just another thing.

With one less unethicial tradition in common practice, it will become harder for Atheists to argue about the veracity of the religion. Flip-flops could technically be used in an argument, except they really can't when hardly any layman knows much of the history of flip-flops in the church.

>>5727

> blatant opposition to authority

This.

It is amazing how easily people dismiss 2000 years of theology and teaching and tradition, and think that "they" are the first ones to get it right. Modern people would need more awe before making so harsh judgements.

>>5733

>Oh really?

Yes. It is a personal attack, and it seems swollen with pride. Very few decent people talk about how much they care about God, and how better they are than others in this regard.

>Well this was said in response to this statement made by the person you're defending

This is a general statement. Religious fundamentalists you still have to define what you mean with that are caring about God more than "normal" people.

So the question why we would want them to stop being fundamentalists is very valid.

It is no personal attack and also does not elevate this poster

>>5692

above others. It is not clear if he is a "religious fundamentalist" or not.

>>5734

>See, I knew Christians would find a way to rewrite the modern interpretation. As homosexuality becomes popular, you'll see more arguments like this until being gay is just another thing.

I have no doubts that this is true for non-apostolic "Churches".

>>5736

Don't think the Catholic Church is immune to this, especially in the west. There are certainly priests that try their hardest to make homosexuality into a venial sin, despite the mental gymnastics this requires. Some still lead the people astray with their soft words; and even if they would loose in an objective debate regarding proper theology, the people are eager to believe homosexuality is a ok and tend not to look a heretical gift horse in the mouth.

>>5737

This is true.

But majorities will never change truth.

A solid link to refutations should be compiled and or like a pastebin to prevent people from asking this over and over. I agree OP it is a recurring confusion

>>5739

I don't think there will be much agreement on what those refutations are. Some Christians believe gayness is the possession of demons.

>>5739

I don't know if that's necessary. Its not like we have a ridiculous amount of discussion, and these *are* important questions to be considering. More importantly, they're just fun to debate.

If we want to keep this a fun image board and not a Law firm, I don't think there's any subject that ought to be considered settled or off-limits.

>>5739

>A solid link to refutations should be compiled and or like a pastebin to prevent people from asking this over and over. I agree OP it is a recurring confusion

There is the old FAQ that I have linked to somewhere.

But I do not think this is necessary. People starting discussions, opening threads and posing questions should be encouraged.

>>5742

>Some Christians believe gayness is the possession of demons.

And others believe it is their own wickedness.

>>5720

become adventist

>>5781

Why? Please make a thread on it.

I use the Archbishops of Canterbury's argument around homosexuality.

Sex outside marriage is a sin, homosexuals can't marry therefore… And leaving it at that. That way, you can condemn homosexuality without specficially naming it. Very shrewd of a man who has feminists and liberals breathing down his neck 24/7

The problem has to do with which laws from the OT we drop and which we keep, and why.

Many laws are dropped, for various reasons. Some we dropped because St. Paul told us to, like not eating shellfish, or any other food items.

Some we dropped because they aren't of God: as when Paul says not to wear long hair, it's just his personal preference, which he explains with some rather lousy idea that women should be hidden because they're inferior to men, while men should be shown because they're more glorious (if that's not gay, nothing is). This we have never even implemented for all I know.

The question comes down to Leviticus. We have dropped the overwhelming majority of these laws. Which to drop, which to keep?

Another important thing to consider is this: do God's laws make sense? Yes, they do, but sometimes we lack the context to understand it. So far as I know, God never asked for anything that didn't make sense. Why does this matter? Because if God says not to drink alcohol, you then wonder whether it's the mere drinking that's a problem or what results of being drunk; depending on what you think, you may still drink alcohol to a degree and avoid what God wants avoided.

Homosexuality has always been severely condemned by most human groups because it is naturally disliked by heterosexual males, to whom it looks like eating feces, and more generally represents death as it is a fruitless union. That doesn't mean God wrote Leviticus, and for that reason, I don't know what to think on the subject of homosexuals. There is more than sex in a union, and plenty of unions have completely abandoned the more carnal side of things.

>>5823

I think you might be right in its categorization as a mental illness, and it would certainly help if this became more common knowledge and it wasn't blatantly obscured by Jews and leftists with their dogmatism.

I'll have to pass on that documentary though, I'm familiar with the practice of bug chasing and the true face of homosexual culture.

In this regard its good to be a Mormon. No arguing over the meaning of the Scripture, no weird secular arguments; the Prophet has condemned it and when the Prophet finished speaking the matter is settled.

>>5823

>that first image

Oh come the fuck on. You're better than posting that shit.

It's like having pictures of priests raping altar boys and saying "This is the true face of christianity". Bug chasers are an extreme fringe group.

>>5839

>Oh come the fuck on.

Coming.

>Bug chasers are an extreme fringe group.

I assume the caption "This is the true face of homosexuality" was to be taken as a hyperbole. I know it's not most homos, even though that doesn't matter too much. One is all it takes to get AIDS. Without going to such extremes, it is infinitely easier for young homosexual males to find a fuckbuddy than for a heterosexual one.

But yeah, I didn't take that caption literally. It's from my Nazi file against homos, most of which is trolling material from my old days on /b/.

>>5844

Bug chasers are the worst of the worst, but it doesn't men that homosexuality as a whole, and I mean its culture in the west especially, isn't wicked as hell.