- 29 Apr 2020 05:10
#15087699
Right, like how it is perhaps the case that many famous riots and incidents were limited to very specific segments of the population.
Entire pogroms were perhaps executed by only a few hundred people hell bent on doing it.
What empowered it, though, was the general lawlessness of the times, the lack of order, and perhaps also the ingrained biases of the people. Moreover, cowardice allows for much evil.
How is it a human right to be someone's employee..?
Is it also a human right to attend a private school and be somebody's student..?
(1) The Bible condemns specifically sodomy in the sense of homosexuality. It does not condemn specifically anal or oral copulation, as far as I know, but this is an inference based on what traditional Christian theologians have concluded based on extrapolating the reasons for it.
(2) If, by Christian, you are broadly referring to 80% of US citizens who may say they are, in some way, then I am not sure how to argue about it. I think you'd be surprised by the number of people that never have anal intercourse, and the number of people who also never have oral intercourse, which is less contentious if it can be argued that it is merely foreplay...
I would also say that a significant amount of Christians everywhere are not that engaged with their religious identity and many would struggle to describe the Trinity without falling into modalism...
I once discussed something with a Catholic who was pro-abortion and honestly acted shocked that I would suggest it was hypocritical of her. You'd really be surprised by the people you run across.
Do most Catholics occasionally enjoy oral and use Jimmy hats? Maybe. But there is also internal conflict in the Church and perhaps many Priests who are not serious about promoting this line. We literally have Jesuits out there promoting the normalization of gay catholics.
(3) Opposition to homosexual marriage is not discrimination against homosexuals, I am glad you distinguished that.
I would not know about Christians discriminating against or abusing homosexual people any more than I would know about homosexuals discriminating against or abusing Christians. I do not think it is a common phenomenon among adults.
I disagree.
Do you want to go over this more or should we drop it?
What specific passages are you referring to?
I would imagine that 120 disciples after the death of Christ, and even the further 3,000, were largely Aramaic native speaking Jews who, if literate, were literate in Hebrew.
We know that these heresies tended to be localized while Orthodoxy was prevalent. I cited the example of Collyridianism earlier to help illustrate this point.
August 8th, 2019
Pants-of-dog wrote:According to the story, the Sanhedrin did not get involved until the folks from these four synagogues paid people to lie about it. So, if we are looking solely at the evidence presented, it is a tiny segment of the Jerusalem population of Jews at the time.
Right, like how it is perhaps the case that many famous riots and incidents were limited to very specific segments of the population.
Entire pogroms were perhaps executed by only a few hundred people hell bent on doing it.
What empowered it, though, was the general lawlessness of the times, the lack of order, and perhaps also the ingrained biases of the people. Moreover, cowardice allows for much evil.
What about being allowed to go to school or not get fired for being straight?
How is it a human right to be someone's employee..?
Is it also a human right to attend a private school and be somebody's student..?
Let us clarify what we have discussed so far.
St. Paul and other early Christians never condemned the modern gay lifestyle or identity or even having this sexual orientation, because these ideas did not exist at the time.
The actual laws are against non-procreation sex.
Christians often take part in such sexual acts, and these days never condemn them, despite the fact that this is what the Bible is actually condemning.
Instead, many Christians oppose gay marriage and discriminate against LGBTQ people
because of their identity or lifestyle, despite the fact that the Bible does not condemn these things.
(1) The Bible condemns specifically sodomy in the sense of homosexuality. It does not condemn specifically anal or oral copulation, as far as I know, but this is an inference based on what traditional Christian theologians have concluded based on extrapolating the reasons for it.
(2) If, by Christian, you are broadly referring to 80% of US citizens who may say they are, in some way, then I am not sure how to argue about it. I think you'd be surprised by the number of people that never have anal intercourse, and the number of people who also never have oral intercourse, which is less contentious if it can be argued that it is merely foreplay...
I would also say that a significant amount of Christians everywhere are not that engaged with their religious identity and many would struggle to describe the Trinity without falling into modalism...
I once discussed something with a Catholic who was pro-abortion and honestly acted shocked that I would suggest it was hypocritical of her. You'd really be surprised by the people you run across.
Do most Catholics occasionally enjoy oral and use Jimmy hats? Maybe. But there is also internal conflict in the Church and perhaps many Priests who are not serious about promoting this line. We literally have Jesuits out there promoting the normalization of gay catholics.
(3) Opposition to homosexual marriage is not discrimination against homosexuals, I am glad you distinguished that.
I would not know about Christians discriminating against or abusing homosexual people any more than I would know about homosexuals discriminating against or abusing Christians. I do not think it is a common phenomenon among adults.
You can accuse me of whatever you want.
No matter what nefarious motive I bring to the table, it is a fact that female consent is not important in the Bible.
I disagree.
Do you want to go over this more or should we drop it?
How the author of Acts expresses his view that Christianity is a Gentile religion because the Jews repudiated it, among other things.
What specific passages are you referring to?
Why would it make sense that it was written in Aramaic or Hebrew?
I would imagine that 120 disciples after the death of Christ, and even the further 3,000, were largely Aramaic native speaking Jews who, if literate, were literate in Hebrew.
The “heresies” were not confined any more than the proto-orthodox Christians were.
What are you talking about?
We know that these heresies tended to be localized while Orthodoxy was prevalent. I cited the example of Collyridianism earlier to help illustrate this point.
August 8th, 2019