[Pants-of-dog]

Sure, it could be easy to prove, say, that I was not in Tulsa, Oklahoma on February 21st because no such records exist and here's video evidence of me in Los Angeles from a neutral source. But this is elininating a possibility by proving something else...

Which you have implied is possible.

So, what are LGBTQ rights? If we know what these rights are, maybe we can come to a conclusion on w hat the Church thinks about them.

If you are not going to support your claim, you should drop it.

Oh, geez, we've been talking about different things.

You see, I said:

So where, exactly, has the Church been swayed by political considerations?

What part of Christian doctrine has been distorted or fabricated for the sake of political consdierations?

You are literally talking about, say, the Anglican church or the Catholic church having different ideas and attitudes towards capital punishment or abortion or slavery over time.

The, this is simple: sure, churches have been right and wrong at different points in time.

... So now that is out of th eway...

I guess I would ask... what part of the Gospels or Epistles has been altered or changed or fabricated for political considerations?

Probably during the decades when they were being transmitted orally and no one wrote them down.

There was also that time when church elders sat down and created an editorial board to decide what was in the Bible and what was not, and several texts were excluded for political reasons.

Sure.



CARM



Crossway[/quote]

As far as I can tell, these do not support the claim that the manuscripts were all finalised before the church had power, nor would that claim contradict mine even if it were true.

[Verv]

What does that matter? I cannot see the difference between a man who literally chops his balls off for God and your 'monk'. They are both doing exactly the same thing in their different ways - They both 'slander God's creation' by denying their God-given nature.

What don't you understand?

Do you believe that, since men experience sexual arousal, that it is a necessary facet of human existence to be sexual?

What's your argument against voluntary celibacy?

I don't.

...

They have been edited and annotated, infected by Pauline crap, and are intrinsically untrustworthy (as you reminded us). No, you asked for an exegesis, an analysis, and you don't have to be a believer to do that.

You just read the texts.

Alright, this runs counter to what the living body of Christians say minus some very modern reformers who reject aspects of the Bible not out of honest, historic consideration, but because they want to conform themselves to the world.

I do not know how much discussion can really exist here -- I believe that the Bible was accurately preserved and that manuscripts like p75 help demonstrate this integrity, as do the writings of the early Saints largely confirm this. I think it'd be a different thread to start discussing the legitimacy and authenticity of the Bible. I'd participate if you made one.

Why do you find sex so problematic? It's a gift from God.

Oh, you believe in God? I am curious, do you have a tradition that you believe in? Or are you just a deist?

I was told by my Bishop -- a lifelong, voluntarily celibate man -- that sex is beautiful, and it is a gift from God. God hasn't created anything dirty or wrong.

However, sexuality ends up conditioning the mind to expect sexuality in countless places and circumstances which aren't universally positive. Sexuality also comes with a lot of responsibility and there are people who don't have the right dispositions for these things.

Just in a day find all the places where human sexuality negatively contributed to someone's life -- you'll be shocked.

St. Paisios says that some people are born to be monks, others could never be monks, and there are still others who could choose either path... The meaning is that some just do not have the disposition for commitment to monogamy and will only be burned by sexuality. That is one reason that we have monks: they benefit the individual.

Another reason is that pure contemplative prayer and dedication to Christ requires withdrawal from the world, and through the withdrawal from the world, you can achieve higher levels of asceticism which are universally beneficial...

St. Porphyros said that a single monk in a cave that prays well is influencing the world more than the most gifted speaker who addresses audiences of 70,000+.

We believe that the spiritual world is completely real, and that those who take on the path of monasticism and become eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven are the elite frontline soldiers of this. This is, of course, not for everyone, and if someone cannot take this path, they will be broken by it if they try and so they should not do so... But it is the ideal path.

[Verv]

If you are not going to support your claim, you should drop it.

You actually said this:

The centuries of prejudice and discrimination that orthodox churches have levelled at LGBTQ people is a good example of bigotry.

In this post. The same page also has the first reference to gay rights and persecution -- it was a post from Donna.

I would say that the Orthodox Chruch is not prejudiced or discriminatory towards homosexuals because it does not turn anyone away from Church membership for experiencing same sex aattraction, and it will gladly council people through their same sex attraction.

If you do not like this, you do not have to be an Orthodox Christian.

Now, this concept of it having been dsicriminatory for centuries.. Geez, I do not really think that homosexuality as you talk about it was a reference point for anyone in the year 1800 or 1200. So, I do not think that it can be said that there was any kind of 'stance' on homosexuality as it exists as a social movement.

Now, since you are the one who brought it up, and made this positive statement of a fact, I think you actually have the burden of establishing it as a fact.

If you did not bring it up, I would not have anything to "defend" against. Since you do not elaborate or engage what I say but tell me to simply "prove" it's not the case, it's just kind of bizarre.

There's nothing to "prove" if no real assertion has been made.

Probably during the decades when they were being transmitted orally and no one wrote them down.

There was also that time when church elders sat down and created an editorial board to decide what was in the Bible and what was not, and several texts were excluded for political reasons.

P75 dating to the late second century indicates that there was probably an established set of Gospels prior to this, in writing, with Luke and John together as well, or Luke & John already in a great deal of circulation. There are other fragments from diverse places ranging from Egypt to Rome indicating that the Mediterranean world all had references to these texts, and we know that there has been great preservation of the writings of early church fathers like St. Igantius and St. Iranaeus.

To what degree any of this was passed orally is unknown, but it would seem to indicate that a lot of this had been being committed to writing early, as this is what St. Irenaeus (who is preserved in writing) said.

Check it out:

All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100-300 years later. To date we have over 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, with an astounding 2.6 million pages of biblical text.1 While some of these manuscripts are small and fragmentary, the average size of a New Testament manuscript is 450 pages.2 Add to this the ancient manuscripts in Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, etc. which number in the tens of thousands,3 and you realize that there is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to New Testament manuscripts. No other ancient text can compare with the New Testament when it comes to the sheer volume of manuscripts, nor when we consider how close the earliest manuscripts are to the originals.

Bible Archaeology Report

As far as I can tell, these do not support the claim that the manuscripts were all finalised before the church had power, nor would that claim contradict mine even if it were true.

Did the church historically get involved with local politics and make some bad choices? Yes.

Was Christian dogma forever altered to be part of political allegiances? Of course not. Not even materialist and atheist historians like J. B. Bury have asserted this. Christian doctrine was overwhelmingly set before it gained political power.

You make this extraordinary claim but there's just no evidence that there was Christian power bases in the 2nd century, when the documents were already very obviously and clearly being put into writing in diverse locations,which was endearing itself to authority. They were being persecuted at best, or living on the fringes as a cult at worst.

[ingliz]

argument against voluntary celibacy

The argument adopted by the Eastern Catholic Church.

Canon 13

Nor... to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel says: What God has joined together let no man put asunder; and the Apostle says, Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled; and again, Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed.

Second Council of Trullo (691–692).

the legitimacy and authenticity of the Bible.

The council [of Nicaea] made manifest the canonical and apocryphal books in the following manner: Placing them by the side of the divine table in the house of God, they prayed, entreating the Lord that the divinely inspired books might be found upon the table, and the spurious ones underneath; and it so happened.

Synodicon Vetus, 9th century Greek MS, the miracle at Nicaea

you believe in God?

To be honest, no.

Of course, God being outside nature, his existence impossible to prove one way or t'other, agnosticism (hedging one's bets) beckons. But, really, a personal god that sees every sparrow that falls, it's too silly.

the elite frontline soldiers of this.

Christianity as a neo-Manichaean sect.

[Pants-of-dog]

You actually said this:

In this post. The same page also has the first reference to gay rights and persecution -- it was a post from Donna.

I would say that the Orthodox Chruch is not prejudiced or discriminatory towards homosexuals because it does not turn anyone away from Church membership for experiencing same sex aattraction, and it will gladly council people through their same sex attraction.

If you do not like this, you do not have to be an Orthodox Christian.

Now, this concept of it having been dsicriminatory for centuries.. Geez, I do not really think that homosexuality as you talk about it was a reference point for anyone in the year 1800 or 1200. So, I do not think that it can be said that there was any kind of 'stance' on homosexuality as it exists as a social movement.

Now, since you are the one who brought it up, and made this positive statement of a fact, I think you actually have the burden of establishing it as a fact.

If you did not bring it up, I would not have anything to "defend" against. Since you do not elaborate or engage what I say but tell me to simply "prove" it's not the case, it's just kind of bizarre.

There's nothing to "prove" if no real assertion has been made.

So you will not support your claim.

That makes sense, since it would be impossible to support a claim that is so obviously untrue.

P75 dating to the late second century indicates that there was probably an established set of Gospels prior to this, in writing, with Luke and John together as well, or Luke & John already in a great deal of circulation. There are other fragments from diverse places ranging from Egypt to Rome indicating that the Mediterranean world all had references to these texts, and we know that there has been great preservation of the writings of early church fathers like St. Igantius and St. Iranaeus.

To what degree any of this was passed orally is unknown, but it would seem to indicate that a lot of this had been being committed to writing early, as this is what St. Irenaeus (who is preserved in writing) said.

Check it out:



Bible Archaeology Report

I already addressed this, and this does not contradict my point.

Did the church historically get involved with local politics and make some bad choices? Yes.

Right.

Was Christian dogma forever altered to be part of political allegiances? Of course not. Not even materialist and atheist historians like J. B. Bury have asserted this. Christian doctrine was overwhelmingly set before it gained political power.

You make this extraordinary claim but there's just no evidence that there was Christian power bases in the 2nd century, when the documents were already very obviously and clearly being put into writing in diverse locations,which was endearing itself to authority. They were being persecuted at best, or living on the fringes as a cult at worst.

I never claimed there were Christian power bases in the second century.

And the fact that oral myths were being out into writing is neither here nor there, since whole texts were later edited out for political reasons.

The influence of politics on interpretation has been continuing since before they nailed Barrabas to a cross, and is ongoing.

It seems incredibly odd for a religion to go from being a minor offshoot of some provincial community to being the official religion of the greatest power in the time if you assume no Xinas acted in any political manner whatsoever.

[ingliz]

the Bible was accurately preserved

Are you sure?

[Lust] is only to be tolerated in marriage. It is not a good which comes out of the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin

— Augustine On Marriage and Concupiscence

Original sin...

propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt

— Romans 5:12 (LVul.)

In Jerome’s (mis)translation of the Bible passage, Paul’s letter to the Romans blames Adam for passing sin, and with it death, on to his descendants; he was the “one man…in whom all have sinned."

The original Greek:

Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι' ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφ' ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον·

"death spread to all because all have sinned."

The whole Roman 'obsession with original sin' thing, and Augustine's theological need to absolve Mary of it, was built upon a misreading of one verse. The eastern churches could read Greek and knew that Augustine had read his Romans wrong; they never accepted his doctrine.

But it's hard to pin the blame on Augustine, entirely. Jerome's awkward Latin, Augustine's Manichaean roots, and Paul's attitude to sex in general invited the misreading.

[Verv]

The argument adopted by the Eastern Catholic Church.

Canon 13

Nor... to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel says: What God has joined together let no man put asunder; and the Apostle says, Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled; and again, Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed.

Second Council of Trullo (691–692).

That is a good reiteration of an aspect of St. Paul's 1 Corinthians 7:

3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The council [of Nicaea] made manifest the canonical and apocryphal books in the following manner: Placing them by the side of the divine table in the house of God, they prayed, entreating the Lord that the divinely inspired books might be found upon the table, and the spurious ones underneath; and it so happened.

Synodicon Vetus, 9th century Greek MS, the miracle at Nicaea

That, and they had already largely been establsihed as reliable due to a previous 2nd century controversy:

But it seems that the “heresy” of Marcion was what gave second century Christianity the impetus to begin to define which of these various texts had the status of “Scripture” and which did not. Marcion was born around 100 AD in the city of Sinope on the southern coast of the Black Sea. After a falling out with his father, the local bishop, he travelled to Rome in around 139 AD. There he began to develop his own Christian theology; one which was quite different to that of his father and of the Christian community in Rome. Marcion was struck by the strong distinction made by Paul between the Law of the Jews and the gospel of Christ. For Marcion, this distinction was absolute: the coming of Jesus made the whole of the Jewish Law and Jewish Scriptures redundant and the ‘God’ of the Jews was actually quite different to the God preached by Jesus. For Marcion, the Jewish God was evil, vengeful, violent and judgemental, while the God of Jesus was quite the opposite. Marcion decided that there were actually two Gods – the evil one who had misled the Jews and the good one revealed by Jesus.

This understanding led Marcion to put together a canon of Christian Scripture – the first of its kind – which excluded all of the Jewish Scriptures that make up the Old Testament and which included ten of the Epistles of Paul and only one of the gospels: the Gospel of Luke.

Marcion tried to get his radical reassessment of Christianity and his canon accepted by calling a council of the Christian community in Rome. Far from accepting his teachings, the council excommunicated him and he left Rome in disgust, returning to Asia Minor. There he met with far more success, and Marcionite churches sprang up which embraced his idea of two Gods and used his canon of eleven scriptural works. Alarmed at his success, other Christian leaders began to preach and write vigorously against Marcion’s ideas and it seems that his canon of eleven works inspired anti-Marcionite Christians to begin to define which texts were and were not Scriptural.

As mentioned above, it was Irenaeus who made the first know defence of the four canonical gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – as the oldest and only scriptural ones, and he did so at least partially on the grounds that these four had always been regarded as the earliest and most authoritative. Interestingly, after two centuries of sceptical analysis, the overwhelming majority of historians, scholars and textual experts (Christian or otherwise) actually agree with Irenaeus and the consensus is that these four gospels definitely are the earliest of the accounts of Jesus’ life.

Not long after Irenaeus’ defence of the four canonical gospels we get our first evidence of a defined list of which texts are scriptural. A manuscript called the Muratorian Canon dates to sometime in the late second century AD and was discovered in a library in Milan in the eighteenth century. It details that the canonical four gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – along with most of the other books found in the modern New Testament, as well as a couple which are not (the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter) are ‘scriptural’ and authoritative. It also gives some approval to other, more recent works like The Shepherd of Hermas, but says they should not be read in church as Scripture.

The Muratorian Canon document accepts twenty-three of the twenty-seven works which now make up the New Testament in the Bible. It also explicitly rejects several books on the grounds that they are recent and written by fringe, “heretical” groups and it specifically singles out works by the Gnostic leader Valentius and by Marcion and his followers.

History for Atheists

To be honest, no.

Of course, God being outside nature, his existence impossible to prove one way or t'other, agnosticism (hedging one's bets) beckons. But, really, a personal god that sees every sparrow that falls, it's too silly.

Alright, so you are an atheist that is interpreting Christianity through atheist eyes, and not gnostic, New Age, Universalist, or Jewish, as I had previously thought you might be.

Christianity as a neo-Manichaean sect.

Mani came after Christ. I suppose that does not discount the idea that Christianity has been hijacked by Manicheans, but that's simply not the case.

Would you like to tell me again what eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven[ are again? You insist that Christ referred to men who sleep with their wives as 'eunuchs?'

Are you sure?

[Lust] is only to be tolerated in marriage. It is not a good which comes out of the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin

— Augustine On Marriage and Concupiscence

Original sin...

propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt

— Romans 5:12 (LVul.)

In Jerome’s (mis)translation of the Bible passage, Paul’s letter to the Romans blames Adam for passing sin, and with it death, on to his descendants; he was the “one man…in whom all have sinned."

The original Greek:

Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι' ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφ' ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον·

"death spread to all because all have sinned."

(1) The fact that you can make this argument shows that the Bible has been accurately preserved, for it depends on using the authoritative Greek to criticize St. Jerome.

(2) Lust is an evil. You are equating "lust" with lovemaking. Sex itself is beautiful, but when it is fueled by lust, it is not ideal. I am sure such a distinction can be made.

It should also be noted that our Saints are not absolutely infallible, and St. Augustine, while recognized as a Saint in the Eastern church, is not some major basis of inspiration, so I do not feel particularly committed to absolutely affirming everything which St. Augustine said.

Moreover... that would be quite an assignment. Lots of study has to go into this kind of thing.

(3a) Adam & Eve did commit the fall, and literally, sin & death entered the world through them.
(3b) This does not exclude the fact that sin and death enter the world because all men sin, and this is how sin enters the world
(3c) God foreknew this all, further confirming that both aspects of this are true.

The whole Roman 'obsession with original sin' thing, and Augustine's theological need to absolve Mary of it, was built upon a misreading of one verse. The eastern churches could read Greek and knew that Augustine had read his Romans wrong; they never accepted his doctrine.

But it's hard to pin the blame on Augustine, entirely. Jerome's awkward Latin, Augustine's Manichaean roots, and Paul's attitude to sex in general invited the misreading.

We do reject the immaculate conception.

St. Augustine also had associated with Manicheans, but he also famously condemned them later.

St. Paul did not have an inappropriate attitude toward sexuality in the least. That is why, in the East, our monastics are incredibly revered. The Orthodox Church seems to revolve around Mt. Athos as much as it does around the Patriarchs...

... and our Patriarchs are celibate.

[Verv]

So you will not support your claim.

That makes sense, since it would be impossible to support a claim that is so obviously untrue.

You made the claim first and provided no evidence.

I already addressed this, and this does not contradict my point.

The hard doctrine of Christianity was set before there was political power and so it has not been corrupted.

By hard doctrine, of course, I mean the Gospels & Epistles, which are the basis of Christian thought.

Do you agree?

I never claimed there were Christian power bases in the second century.

And the fact that oral myths were being out into writing is neither here nor there, since whole texts were later edited out for political reasons.

The influence of politics on interpretation has been continuing since before they nailed Barrabas to a cross, and is ongoing.

It seems incredibly odd for a religion to go from being a minor offshoot of some provincial community to being the official religion of the greatest power in the time if you assume no Xinas acted in any political manner whatsoever.

Which whole text was edited out for political reasons?

As the History for Atheists link in the post I just made above this one points out, the bulk of the New Testament was outlined in the 2nd century. P75 also helps indicate this. There are no books not in the New Testament that should not be there, and there are no books missing which should be included. This is a long-established tradition that predates the Council.

[Pants-of-dog]

You made the claim first and provided no evidence.

Yes, right after you asked for a definition of “bigotry”. It seems like you know exactly what bigotry means, by the way.

The hard doctrine of Christianity was set before there was political power and so it has not been corrupted.

By hard doctrine, of course, I mean the Gospels & Epistles, which are the basis of Christian thought.

Do you agree?

For the third time, even if this is true, this does not contradict my point,

Which whole text was edited out for political reasons?

The Book of 1Clement seems like the most obvious example.

As the History for Atheists link in the post I just made above this one points out, the bulk of the New Testament was outlined in the 2nd century. P75 also helps indicate this. There are no books not in the New Testament that should not be there, and there are no books missing which should be included. This is a long-established tradition that predates the Council.

This does not address my point at all.

In order to simplify our discussion, I will only be quoting those lines that are relevant to my point from now on,

[Verv]

Yes, right after you asked for a definition of “bigotry”. It seems like you know exactly what bigotry means, by the way.

So if I ask for a definition, I end up being the one with the burden of proof for an aspect of your definition that you accuse me of being guilty of?

Doesn't sound very fair.

For the third time, even if this is true, this does not contradict my point

Would you agree that your point is irrelevant, then, because Christianity has not been distorted or tainted by any of the political influences that did occur later on..?

It's pretty remarkable when you think about it, right: the doctrine is firmly established, and yes, it can be interpreted in dubious ways to temporarily give advantages to temporal leaders and merchants, but ultimately, the original text is preserved.

The Book of 1Clement seems like the most obvious example.

Let me guess...

... it's now my job to look up & outline the argument for why "1Clement" is the exception, and then it is also my job to respond to this assertion...?

Your role in the debate is simply mentioning that an argument also exists, and I have to do the rest?

Please tell me this is the case.

[ingliz]

You insist that Christ referred to men who sleep with their wives as 'eunuchs?'

No, I do not.

The relevant passage is about marriage and marital sex.

the person who can marry should accept this teaching about marriage

Matt. 19:12 (EXB)

In it, in passing, Christ refers to men who had stopped sleeping with their wives for the sake of the kingdom from heaven and he admonishes them. Telling them, if you are physically able, fuck them, become one flesh, for what God has joined let no man put asunder.

St. Augustine

In Manichaeism,

a. sexuality is referred to in a highly negative way;

b. sexual desire is the primordial sin and the punishment for sin, which procreates itself by means of the copulation;

c. lust is evil, of the earthly kingdom of darkness, the realm of evil.

Put another way as evil is intrinsic to matter (ὕλη), all material things are evil.

Being, arguably, the most important Western Church Father, it matters that Augustine was influenced by Manichaeism. Without Manichaeism Western theology cannot really be comprehended.

If it might be possible that an Aethiops, could change his skin and if it could be possible for a leopard to change his spots, then it would be possible for you to wash away the dirt of the Manichaean mysteries.

— Julian bishop of Eclanum on Augustine's doctrine on the transmission of sin Opus imperfectum c. Iul. IV,42.

[Rich]

What part of Christian doctrine has been distorted or fabricated for the sake of political consdierations?

The original texts all predate Christians having consolidated political power, and there was no attempt for the Christians to ingratiate themselves to these authorities, but countless accounts of them choosing martyrdom.

Large parts of the Gospel story were fabricated for the sake of political considerations.

The New Testament argues that Christians are the true Jews and are hence entitled to the same privileges as Jews, not having to take party in Emperor worship and other state mandated rituals. But at the same time the Gospels tell us that Christians are nothing like those nasty Jews that revolted against the Roman empire. The Christians have a new covenant with God which voids the previous covenant the Jews had. The implication is clear, Christians should receive a new covenant with the Roman empire and the their old covenant with the Jews has been voided. Failing to make libations and offerings to the Emperor could be punishable by death. It would be like someone saying that they didn't think much of the five year plan under Stalin. Stalin it should be noted, admitted to his mother that he was a kind of Tsar, the Russian word for Caesar.

Paul invented the idea that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a very painful death, but the key thing for Paul was the humiliation. There were no loin cloths in crucifixion. Paul was a homosexual, who hence could not keep to the Jewish law. Creating the Sadomasochistic homosexual fantasy of crucifixion allowed him to spiritualise his shameful homosexuality as a form of religious purity. Paul's Jesus like the proto Christians that preceded him did not believe Jesus had ever been on earth. Paul's Jesus was crucified by demons in the lower heavens in ignorance of who he was. Later as Jesus became euhemerised it was natural to imagine or presume that he been executed by the Romans. Later still Christians became uncomfortable about the implications of this so invented the story about Judah / Judas and the perfidy of the Jews.

The Gospels are late. There had already been a long and complex story evolution. Take the feeding of the four and five thousand. Someone invented a story of mass feeding. That story got written down in 2 different versions. Because of the ancients tendency to venerate the written word, it was presumed that the 2 versions must refer to 2 separate events, when the historical truth is that there were no feedings, no loaves, no fish, no boats, no Judas and no Jesus. There was a man called Pontius Pilate, but the Gospels have zero information to give us about him.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Verv

Can you tell me what you think my point is, please?

[ingliz]

Do you believe that, since men experience sexual arousal

Women experience sexual arousal too...

in female arousal the body's response is engorged sexual tissues such as nipples, vulva, clitoris, vaginal walls and vaginal lubrication.

Arousal female physiological response:

Erection of nipples

Widening of the areola

Vaginal lubrication

Vasocongestion of the vaginal walls

Tenting, i.e. expansion of the inner ⅔ of the vagina

Tumescence and erection of the clitoris

Elevation of the cervix and uterus

Change in shape, color and size of the labia majora and labia minora

Pupil dilation

that it is a necessary facet of human existence to be sexual?

Yes.

Lust serves a necessary biological function. It inspires individuals to engage in sexual activity. Unless you are into turkey basters and paper cups, couples must copulate to reproduce.

[Verv]

Large parts of the Gospel story were fabricated for the sake of political considerations.

Which?

One of the fun things about this is that, ultimately, there isn't much proof either way, and it seems a lot zanier to argue that there was a conspiracy about the Gospels going back to the 1st century in order to manipulate everything, and that the Apostles carried identical messages that would get themselves killed in order to manipulate people with their own fabricated story to do things that they would never see.

What sort of things did they want them to do to take advantage of them after their death? Who knows. Their gains are not monetary or material, what are they? They did not even have a power structure in place that could be exploited by anyone they knew.

The New Testament argues that Christians are the true Jews and are hence entitled to the same privileges as Jews, not having to take party in Emperor worship and other state mandated rituals. But at the same time the Gospels tell us that Christians are nothing like those nasty Jews that revolted against the Roman empire. The Christians have a new covenant with God which voids the previous covenant the Jews had. The implication is clear, Christians should receive a new covenant with the Roman empire and the their old covenant with the Jews has been voided. Failing to make libations and offerings to the Emperor could be punishable by death. It would be like someone saying that they didn't think much of the five year plan under Stalin. Stalin it should be noted, admitted to his mother that he was a kind of Tsar, the Russian word for Caesar.

This is a total perversion of the Christian position.

Christians did not want to offer sacrifices to false gods, just like Jews; Jews had the right to not offer these, and the Christians also wanted this right. As Wikipedia states:

Decius' edict was intended to act as an Empire-wide loyalty oath to the new emperor (who had come to power in 249 AD), sanctified through the Roman religion. There is no evidence that Decius sought to specifically target Christianity or initiate a persecution of its practitioners. Jews had been specifically exempted, demonstrating Decius' tolerance of other religions. Nevertheless, Christians were not similarly exempted, apparently because they were not considered to be a religion. Christian monotheistic beliefs did not allow them to worship any other gods, so they were forced to choose between their religious beliefs and following the law, the first time this had occurred.

...

Julius Caesar had formulated a policy of allowing Jews to follow their traditional religious practices, a policy which was followed, and extended, by Augustus. This gave Judaism the status of a religio licita (permitted religion) throughout the Empire.[6] Roman authorities respected tradition in religion and the Jews were following the beliefs and practices of their ancestors. It was well understood that Jews would not perform sacrifices to the Roman gods or burn incense before an image of the Emperor. In contrast, the Christians were a new phenomenon, and one that did not seem like a religion to Roman authorities at all; both the earliest extant Roman references to Christianity, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus in his Annals about 116, refer to Christianity as superstitio, excessive and non-traditional religiosity that was socially disruptive.[7] Christians had abandoned the religion of their forefathers, and were seeking to convert others, which seemed dangerous to the Romans; refusal to sacrifice for the Emperor's well-being appeared seditious.[4]

Do you have some first hand sources which talk about Christians attempting to remove the Jewish exemption to this? Isn't it far more feasible that Christians were actually just a persecuted minority?

Are you blaming the victims, now, Rich?

II. New Covenant is correct, though. Hebrews 8:13 talks about how the Jewish covenant is now irrelevant. There is also this awesome fire from John 8:

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[b]”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

But there is no command for us to harm anyone.

We simply believe the Jewish covenant is completely resolved, and these people are not the sons of Abraham in a meaningful sense, rather, anyone who does the will of God, whether they are of African or Asian or European or Hebrew descent, is a son of Abraham.

But I am sure someone will say that it is "Anti-Semitic" to say that all people who follow God are children of God, but it is perfectly fine to say that only ethnic Jews who follow God are sons of Abraham.

Paul invented the idea that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was a very painful death, but the key thing for Paul was the humiliation. There were no loin cloths in crucifixion. Paul was a homosexual, who hence could not keep to the Jewish law. Creating the Sadomasochistic homosexual fantasy of crucifixion allowed him to spiritualise his shameful homosexuality as a form of religious purity. Paul's Jesus like the proto Christians that preceded him did not believe Jesus had ever been on earth. Paul's Jesus was crucified by demons in the lower heavens in ignorance of who he was. Later as Jesus became euhemerised it was natural to imagine or presume that he been executed by the Romans. Later still Christians became uncomfortable about the implications of this so invented the story about Judah / Judas and the perfidy of the Jews.

So the Gospels are all wrong, and St. Paul completely created this story out of thin air because he was gay?

There can be zero actual evidence of this, but it might be interesting to see the mental gymnastics you went through to read that far into the texts and jump to this conclusion.

The Gospels are late. There had already been a long and complex story evolution. Take the feeding of the four and five thousand. Someone invented a story of mass feeding. That story got written down in 2 different versions. Because of the ancients tendency to venerate the written word, it was presumed that the 2 versions must refer to 2 separate events, when the historical truth is that there were no feedings, no loaves, no fish, no boats, no Judas and no Jesus. There was a man called Pontius Pilate, but the Gospels have zero information to give us about him.

"None of this ever happened, there is no proof of it... but, remember, Paul is gay, and he made up the crucifixion story."

So, you think hundreds of people in Israel made up a story about Jesus, dedicated their lives to travelign the world and spreading it, and faced death and torture because it'd be a good gag..? Because that is all it could have been, heed you. Nobody got rich off of this story. They were imprisoned, exiled, reviled, etc., by the Jews first, and the gentile authorities second.

[Verv]

No, I do not.

The relevant passage is about marriage and marital sex.

the person who can marry should accept this teaching about marriage

Matt. 19:12 (EXB)

In it, in passing, Christ refers to men who had stopped sleeping with their wives for the sake of the kingdom from heaven and he admonishes them. Telling them, if you are physically able, [expletive] them, become one flesh, for what God has joined let no man put asunder.

Here is the first half of Matthew 19:

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

I contend:

- They were talking about divorce.
- The men didn't like his answer, protested saying, then it's better not to marry.
- Christ decides to talk about not marrying, prefacing it with 'not everyone can accept what I'm about to say.' This is a radical moment where Christ is going "... well, ACTUALLY, since you brought it up..."
- "there are even these guys who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. If you can accept this, you should."

How isn't this the logical flow of the text?

In Manichaeism,

a. sexuality is referred to in a highly negative way;

b. sexual desire is the primordial sin and the punishment for sin, which procreates itself by means of the copulation;

c. lust is evil, of the earthly kingdom of darkness, the realm of evil.

Put another way as evil is intrinsic to matter (ὕλη), all material things are evil.

Being, arguably, the most important Western Church Father, it matters that Augustine was influenced by Manichaeism. Without Manichaeism Western theology cannot really be comprehended.

If it might be possible that an Aethiops, could change his skin and if it could be possible for a leopard to change his spots, then it would be possible for you to wash away the dirt of the Manichaean mysteries.

— Julian bishop of Eclanum on Augustine's doctrine on the transmission of sin Opus imperfectum c. Iul. IV,42.

I do not believe that St. Augustine was a corrupt Manichean. But let's say that he totally was, purely hyptohetically -- my apologies to the Saint, I do not believe this at all, this is literally just rhetorical, forgive me -- a Manichean.

Why is it that monasticism and celibacy has been the interpretation of so many Fathers? Why is it that Christ basically suggests this in Matthew 19?

IF, at this point, you are just going to say that everything was fabricated by St. Paul and the actual Jesus simply was telling a random collection of men that may exist to not abstain from sleeping with their wives, a group that are never addressed again but simply brought up in something about divorce, then I am not sure what to say.

(This was actually using 'man' to refer to everyone, not men specifically.



It is also natural to be angry with others, to desire to do many immoral things. We can overcome these aspects of ourselves and become holier to the extent of completely abstaining, as Christ wants some of us to do.

Properly ordered sexual desire for your wife is not lust.

Not everyone is called to monastic life.

[annatar1914]

Here is the first half of Matthew 19:



I contend:

- They were talking about divorce.
- The men didn't like his answer, protested saying, then it's better not to marry.
- Christ decides to talk about not marrying, prefacing it with 'not everyone can accept what I'm about to say.' This is a radical moment where Christ is going "... well, ACTUALLY, since you brought it up..."
- "there are even these guys who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. If you can accept this, you should."

How isn't this the logical flow of the text?



I do not believe that St. Augustine was a corrupt Manichean. But let's say that he totally was, purely hyptohetically -- my apologies to the Saint, I do not believe this at all, this is literally just rhetorical, forgive me -- a Manichean.

Why is it that monasticism and celibacy has been the interpretation of so many Fathers? Why is it that Christ basically suggests this in Matthew 19?

IF, at this point, you are just going to say that everything was fabricated by St. Paul and the actual Jesus simply was telling a random collection of men that may exist to not abstain from sleeping with their wives, a group that are never addressed again but simply brought up in something about divorce, then I am not sure what to say.



Properly ordered sexual desire for your wife is not lust.

Not everyone is called to monastic life.

Well said. @Verv , I just wanted to add that the Bishop who attacked St. Augustine, Julian of Eclanum, was a Pelagian heretic who had an animus against St. Augustine on account of his own departures from the Orthodox Faith which Blessed Augustine was pointing out. He is not a unbiased and objective commentator on St. Augustine of Hippo, but a venomous enemy of him.

[Rich]

Christians were a sect with Judaism, of which there were probably many that have been lost to history. As such they received the exemptions of the Jews. There were many tensions within Jewish communities, particularly between liberal Helenists and Conservative Hebrews and no doubt over the dietary laws. There were overlapping conflicts within the proto Christian movement. We know this from Paul's letters. These conflicts were internal to the Jewish communities and their governing institutions and didn't concern the Roman authorities.

Two crucial changes happened. First the Jewish revolt of 66 -73AD, caused Christians to want to distance themselves from the Jews in the eyes of the Roman authorities. Some proto Christians may have sided with the revolt, but they tended to end up dead, leaving the loyalists (to the Roman state) as the survivors. Secondly at some point the Jews started to expel Christians from their communities and their synagogues. These are the material circumstances that shaped the emerging story of Jesus' earthly incarnation.

Jesus didn't exist. He therefore wasn't betrayed by a Jew called Judah. He wasn't tried by a Jewish court and he wasn't handed over by the Jewish authorities for execution by the Roman authorities. But many Christians felt betrayed by the Jews. They were tried by Jewish courts. They were wrongly convicted in Christian eyes. They were expelled from the Jewish communities and Synagogues. This then potentially amounted to a death sentence for the Christians, when asked to conform to the state religion.

[ingliz]

If you can accept this, you should.

On divorce.

At the beginning the Creator made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

[...]

The person who can marry should accept this teaching about marriage.

Those who can marry...

Jewish tradition forbids marriage to a man who has been forcibly emasculated but it is not prohibited for men who were born without visible testicles (conditions including cryptorchidism), or without a visible penis (conditions including hermaphroditism*).

If a man who can marry reaches twenty and has not married, he is considered cursed by God.

* Catholicism follows Jewish practice.

Some, but not all, intersex adults are infertile thus such a union can be said to remain open to the possibility of life and is lawful.

lust

Sex is fun and my wife and I have been having fun together for 41 years as God intended. Even for us old people, wrinklies, sex is fun.

I still lust after my wife and she me.

I don't know why you expect us to feel guilty for having perfectly natural appetites or why this guilty feeling somehow brings us closer to God.

Please, explain.

[expletive]

Fuck is a perfectly good word.

fuck
/fʌk/

VERB

have sexual intercourse with

[Rich]

I don't know why you expect us to feel guilty for having perfectly natural appetites or why this guilty feeling somehow brings us closer to God.

Please, explain.

Judaism has many, many often contradictory voices over many many centuries, responding and adapting to the changing environment. Judaism however is at its core an ideology of hate. Hate for gentiles. Judah was a failed loser state, but the race supremacist, God entitled religion proved very helpful to Jews when they went and lived in other people's lands. Hatred of the gentile, creates racial / tribal /national solidarity amongst Jews and enhanced their desire to be more successful than their Gentile competitors in pre modern Malthusian society's with their high birth rates and glacial technological development.

Christianity is a universal religion. It universalises hatred, but particularly encourages self hatred. Humans are evil, therefore procreation is evil. Cultural Marxism is a successor ideology to Christianity. White people are evil, therefore procreation of White people is evil.