Exegesis, Time, Judgment, St. Paul - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15087699
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.
#15087709
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.

I do not believe your understanding is correct. I do remember the Apostle Paul writing a few things about sexual immorality that could also include the homosexual and gay lifestyle. I looked up the following in which he writes about desires between women as not being natural, and also the same desires between men as not being natural:

{b]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[/b]
(Romans 1:26-27 KJV)

Jesus explained what is the natural use for a man and woman in case you have any question about it:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV)

You might also consider what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians as follows:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV)
Last edited by Hindsite on 29 Apr 2020 06:40, edited 1 time in total.
#15087718
Verv wrote:I am curious, what other sources are out there?

Here's one: The Revelation of Stephen

Where to look for the rest can be found here: F. Bovon, The Dossier on Stephen

If you're really interested, you might find the second part of Leclercq, Etienne. (Martyre. et. sépulture. de. saint) in Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie useful. It presents many Latin, Greek, and Syriac texts on Stephen.

Bovon recommends it as a source for alternative texts.
Last edited by ingliz on 29 Apr 2020 12:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15087740
Potemkin wrote:Is that the same MR James who wrote the famous ghost stories?

That's him - Montague Rhodes James OM FBA, medievalist scholar and provost of King's College, Cambridge.

Verv wrote:what other sources are out there?

Revelation of Stephen...

The apocryphal apocalypse mentioned by some of the post-Nicene apologetes as a text popular among the Manichean heretics... is known from several versions. The older is that related by a Christian priest, Lucian (c. a.d. 400) who lived in a town near Jerusalem. He is supposed to have had three visitations of Gamaliel which led to the discovery of the bodies of Stephen, Nicodemus and Gamaliel. A number of translations have been made of the extant fragments of this work (Ante-Nicene Fathers, viii, 575-586; ix, 141-174).

— BibleTraining.org

My Revelation of Stephen, "the real beginning of Lucian's narrative" (I. Franko, 1906, Zeitschr. f. Ntl. Wiss), apparently unrelated to the Manichean text, is a tale found in an Old Church Slavonic V.S.
#15087765
Verv wrote: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.


If you want to look at specific examples of Christian persecution of Jews, let me know.

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.


Are you referring to Christian persecution of Jews here, or the supposed Jewish persecution of Christians?

How is it a human right to be someone's employee..?


I never said that. I talked about not getting fired.

Let us imagine you apply for a job and during the interview and for the first few months, no one asks you about your sex life or your sexual orientation, because it is irrelevant to the job and frankly no one’s business but your own.

By a complete coincidence, your boss finds out you are straight. The next day, you get fired because of that.

Do straight people currently enjoy the right to not get fired because of this?

Is it also a human right to attend a private school and be somebody's student..?


Many publicly funded schools are run by the churches. Many of my children attend Catholic schools.

(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.


Sodomy is anal and oral copulation. That is literally the definition.

(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.


In my opinion, if Christians want to embrace a model of god that cares more about loving our neighbours than about which orifices touch which, I can see how that could be supported.

(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.


As far as I can tell, opposition to gay marriage is exactly that: discrimination against homosexuals.

I disagree.

Do you want to go over this more or should we drop it?


If you wish to provide an example of the Christian God caring about female consent, please do so.

If not, we can drop it.

What specific passages are you referring to?


For example, the passages where the author blames the Jews for killing Christ, while letting the Romans off the hook.

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.


What you imagine based on the stories is not a good reason to assume that Acts was written 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.


I do not think that you actually know that these heresies were localised while proto-orthodox Christianity was not.
#15087793
Verv wrote:heresies were confined.

Wrong.

...some are called branding-irons of hearing* ... some are called enigmas**... some called Sirens who are cheats of disgraceful conduct, who seal up the ears of those whom they win over, and make their heads like those of pigs ... And you will hear all those who disagree so violently and by their strife refute themselves to their utter disgrace, saying 'The world is crucified unto me and I to the world'***.

– Using Chadwick's standard edition, Origen (tidied up) quoting from Celsus's On The True Doctrine in Contra Celsus


* According to Heracleon (ap. Clement Ecl. Proph. xxv, 1 - frag. 49 Brooke) 'some brand with fire the ear of those whom they seal'. Ireneaus 1, 25, 6 (Harvey 1, 210), says that some Carpocratians 'brand their disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear'.

** Probaby refers to Antipope Hippolytus of Rome, leader of a group of schismatics (Novatianism?), Blessings on Isaac, Jacob and Moses 1.6 and 1.9 on how the OT conceals with its literal sense the mysteries of Christ.

*** Gal. vi, 14, quoted by the Valentinians according to Ireneaus 1, 3, 5 (Harvey 1, 30).

a vast area that propagated outwards very quickly,

Wrong again.

The area may have been vast but...

The number of Christians at the beginning of the 2nd century – and this number is spread across numerous conflicting factions – is rather modest.

The total number of Christians within the empire was probably less than fifty thousand, an infinitesimal number in a society comprising sixty million.

– R. L. Wilken The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p31

The number in Rome?

There are about 25,000 known burial places in the Catacombs of Rome. As these sites were used for nearly 300 years, that would mean on average about eighty burials a year.

If one assumes a lifespan of forty years, the average Christian population in Rome over this period would not have been more than four thousand people at any one time.

This was out of a total Roman population of well over a million.


– P. Roberts In Search of Early Christian Unity, p19

One estimate for the number of Jews in Rome (R. Lambert, Beloved and God) is 60-90,000. Thus, less than a tenth of Rome’s population were Jews, and less than a tenth of Jews were Christians!

segments of the population.

The Eastern Church two centuries later...

Under the reign of Theodosius, after Christianity had enjoyed, during more than sixty years, the sunshine of Imperial favour, the ancient and illustrious church of Antioch consisted of one hundred thousand persons ... The whole number of its inhabitants was not less than half a million, and that the Christians, however multiplied by zeal and power, did not exceed a fifth part of that great city.

– Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch.16.
#15088935
ingliz wrote:Here's one: The Revelation of Stephen

Where to look for the rest can be found here: F. Bovon, The Dossier on Stephen

If you're really interested, you might find the second part of Leclercq, Etienne. (Martyre. et. sépulture. de. saint) in Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie useful. It presents many Latin, Greek, and Syriac texts on Stephen.

Bovon recommends it as a source for alternative texts.


Two very interesting reads -- I really appreciate that, though it certainly has delayed my response :lol: .

You could have summarized the findings to facilitate this, but as they do not make your case particularly stronger in any way, I have seen why you haven't....

The Bovon bit is basically a summary of various early accounts and embellishments of St. Stephen, and the bulk of the works cited do not run counter to the accounts in Acts, some of them not even adding to them in the least, but rather seem to function as attempts to provide extra-canonical information. For instance:

Although Byzantine artists concentrated their energies on
producing a physical portrait of Stephen, we have noted the narrative cycle of
Soleto, which illustrates the strange episode of an unsuccessful crucifixion of the
saint.85 As is the case with the scenes of the discovery, it is also in the West that
we find the most illustrations of Stephen's youth. His kidnapping as a boy by the
devil and the miraculous transformation of wine into blood at his parents' house
during a banquet are among the many legendary representations of his childhood.
Among other depictions, Nitz mentions the forty-three frescoes of the oratory in
Lentate sul Seveso (Lombardy, Italy) from the second half of the fourteenth century
c.E.
86 Interesting is the development of a legend in England and Scandinavia that
portrays Stephen as a servant of King Herod. This legend connects Stephen with
the Christmas story, and the roles of the magi are transposed to him. The young
servant sees the star in the sky, announces its meaning to the king during a banquet,
and hears the boiling cock shouting from the pan, "Christus natus est."87

(Bovon 15)


A great amount of the work has to do with the discovery and translation of his relics, as well as the miraculous workings.

The Apocalypse of Stephen, linked to here, is a fun, short read. I think that the people who wrote it likely wished that it would be an embellishment to what is in Acts, had some familiarity with it. The oldest manuscript dated to the 8th-9th century (Bovon 17) though it is also preserved in Syriac in a very old 5th-6th century manuscript, but still, this does not seem overly impressive when compared to Acts, that we have reliably in the 3rd century (List of NT Papyri).

You must believe this tradition is really reliable and goes back far to think of it as something that casts doubt on what is recorded in Acts.

I am not really impressed with it as something that needs to be accounted for by the faithful as it casts doubt on the account of Acts, but rather view it as something that occurred because of the desires that people have to add to the cult of St. Stephen. It is not meant to read as a counter to Church tradition no matter how much the moderns want to shoehorn this into it, but as something that the faithful rallied around and believe happened in addition to. However, I think the attitudes of the contemporaries who did not include these in their canons proves that early Christians were careful and familiar with lies.

But since Ingliz does not like to post summaries of anything he finds but keeps it brief and cryptic, allowing his opponents to do the legwork for him, we might as well enjoy some of the material I went through today, together. Here are some highlights of the content that @ingliz posted that I found to be interesting:

The fifth way, and the most relevant for my purposes, was to develop the New
Testament narratives by writing additional stories. One of them should be mentioned
here. It concerns Stephen's birth and youth. This additional story, often called the Vita fa bulosa, can be compared with the enterprise of Matthew and Luke:
like the two evangelists, the authors of Stephen's infancy narrative felt compelled
to mention the origin of their hero and to add the episode to a narrative related to
his ministry and passion.

Like John the Baptist's father and mother, Stephen's parents, whose home was in Cana of Galilea, were childless. Their prayer for a child is heard and Perpetua, the mother, gives birth to Stephen. An angel commands her to name her son Stephen. During the celebration of the boy's birth, the devil steals the baby and substitutes in his place a small demon. Ta ken away to the kingdom of Troy, the small Stephen is saved by a doe. The bishop of the place, Julianus, following a divine order, welcomes the child, gives him the name Nathanael and ensures for him a good education. An angel then orders the boy to go home and, directed by the angel, Stephen crosses the sea and reaches his family's home. At his arrival, Stephen exorcizes the demon and is recognized by his parents. He then becomes a student of Gamaliel, meets with his fellow student, Paul, and learns about Jesus through Philip (the author identifies Stephen with Nathanael and uses the Gospel of John, particularly John 1 :43-52). Later, commissioned by an angel, Stephen evangelizes four "cities," Cirenensia, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia. The whole story occurs before Jesus' passion and resurrection. Only the last two lines of the document mention Stephen's ministry as deacon after Easter and his martyrdom. 143

(25-26)


Here is another example of people attempting to add to the legacy of St. Stephen:

It is a "merkwiirdige Schopfung der koptischen Literatur." [trans. strange creation of Coptic literature]163 The best
way to present the text is to quote its editor: "The Coptic text contains: 1) A short
exhortation by Saint Stephen. 2) His marriage and the birth of a daughter. 3) His
retirement to a mountain. 4) The appearance of the Holy Virgin Mary to him,
commanding him to go and see his daughter and to encourage her to accept her
death willingly. 5) The conversion of three robbers by him. 6) His election as one
of the Seven Deacons and Stewards."164

(Bovon 29)



(Ethiopian stories)

The famous Contendings of the Apostles171 mentions Stephen a few times172 but does
not contain a chapter on his martyrdom or any other stories about his life, death, or
his relics. The Contendings is indeed a collection of stories related to the Twelve
and the evangelists. Stephen was not one of these. The Ethiopic Synaxarium, on
the contrary, contain two stories related to Stephen. 173 In the fifth month of the year,
Terr (from 9 January to 7 February), on the first day of the month, the martyrdom
of Stephen is celebrated. The story that is told on that occasion, according to the
Synaxarium, does not exceed the New Testament narrative in the book of Acts.174
The second story is narrated in the first month, Maskaram (from 11 September to
10 October), on the fifteenth day of the month. 175 This is the date of the celebration
of the translation of Stephen's relics from Palestine to Constantinople, but the story
begins with the discovery of his relics by the priest Lucianus (see BHG 1648 and
1650). The Ethiopic Synaxarium, compiled probably between the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries c.E., progressively replaced an older hagiographic compilation,
the so-called Gadla Sama'tat, Acts ( or Spiritual Combat) of the Martyrs, dating
probably from the thirteenth century c.E. The same two stories about Stephen exist
also in this more ancient collection.

(30)


And here is a great little summary of the Revelatio and Passio provided in the Georgian copy:

According to Michel van Esbroeck, two Georgian documents, both related to Saint
Stephen, are closely related in the manuscript tradition: a passion narrative and an
account of the discovery of the relics. 184 The passion was edited twice, once by A.
Shanidze and once by I. Imnaishvili. 1 85 Van Esbroeck did us the favor of translating
it into French. 1 86 Similar in places to the Greek Passio (BHG 1649 in its different
forms), the text mentions the dispute among the Jewish groups about the person of
Christ, the intervention of Stephen, Paul's opposition to this Christian witness, the
appearance of Stephen before Pilate and then before the Roman officer Claudius, a
christological speech by the Protomartyr ( different from that found in Acts 7), an
unsuccessful attempt to decapitate the saint, the stoning and martyrdom (following
the narrative of Acts), the secret burial carried out by Gamaliel, and the baptism of
Pilate and his wife. Finally, Pilate is granted a vision of the victorious Stephen in
heaven. The Georgian version of the Inventio or Revelatio (BHG 1648y), and of
the Translatio (close to BHG 1650-1651), as well as a Laudatio, preserved in the
acephalous Georgian manuscript 11 (Tsagardi 80) from the monastery of Iviron
on Mount Athos, have been edited by Nikolai Marr.1 87


(33)


These texts are preserved on Mt. Athos and other places by the faithful probably because they, or some of them, believe that they are reliable recordings of what were long-surviving oral traditions that can give us insight as to who St. Stephen the Protomartyr is. Now, obviously, people are skeptical of these, particularly because we can look at such a diverse collection of them and see conflict, but I do not think that this impugns church tradition, but that maybe even these writings do include elements of truth that have survived, and attest to the zeal of the believers in preserving things, even those which could not be accurately attested to.

Thanks again for bringing these out.

I think we are not fully interfacing with each other's positions so maybe you would like to be more clear in your claims, and to address my claims more specifically, and to not be overly presumptive in what I am saying.
#15088937
ingliz wrote:Wrong.

...some are called branding-irons of hearing* ... some are called enigmas**... some called Sirens who are cheats of disgraceful conduct, who seal up the ears of those whom they win over, and make their heads like those of pigs ... And you will hear all those who disagree so violently and by their strife refute themselves to their utter disgrace, saying 'The world is crucified unto me and I to the world'***.

– Using Chadwick's standard edition, Origen (tidied up) quoting from Celsus's On The True Doctrine in Contra Celsus


* According to Heracleon (ap. Clement Ecl. Proph. xxv, 1 - frag. 49 Brooke) 'some brand with fire the ear of those whom they seal'. Ireneaus 1, 25, 6 (Harvey 1, 210), says that some Carpocratians 'brand their disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear'.

** Probaby refers to Antipope Hippolytus of Rome, leader of a group of schismatics (Novatianism?), Blessings on Isaac, Jacob and Moses 1.6 and 1.9 on how the OT conceals with its literal sense the mysteries of Christ.

*** Gal. vi, 14, quoted by the Valentinians according to Ireneaus 1, 3, 5 (Harvey 1, 30).


... How did you conclude from what I was writing that I was suggesting that heresies [as a whole] were confined, and not what was more clearly being said: heresies were confined (to their specific regions). For I clearly stated it here:

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.


Post #15,087,699

Naturally, there were many different heresies that happened in different regions, but they lacked what the true Church lacked: a universality throughout Christianity.

In Egypt you find the true Church plus heresies specific to the region; in Greece you find the true Chruch plus heresies specific to Greece; in Gaul you find the true church plus heresies specific to the area.

There are, of course, exceptions, but these are either entirely different religious traditions riffing off Christianity (Manicheanism) or heretical beliefs that are heretical by virtue of misinterpretation, such as Arianism, which centers around a theological debate.

But hey, I would love to hear your thoughts on this since you are familiar with a lot of things. If you have some honestly good material, please do present it, and maybe summarize it a bit this time :lol: .

Wrong again.

The area may have been vast but...


... Then I am not wrong, because I had said

a vast area that propagated outwards very quickly,


as you accurately quoted.

You simply have mischaracterized my position and called a position that I do not have wrong.

The number of Christians at the beginning of the 2nd century – and this number is spread across numerous conflicting factions – is rather modest.

The total number of Christians within the empire was probably less than fifty thousand, an infinitesimal number in a society comprising sixty million.

– R. L. Wilken The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p31

The number in Rome?

There are about 25,000 known burial places in the Catacombs of Rome. As these sites were used for nearly 300 years, that would mean on average about eighty burials a year.

If one assumes a lifespan of forty years, the average Christian population in Rome over this period would not have been more than four thousand people at any one time.

This was out of a total Roman population of well over a million.


– P. Roberts In Search of Early Christian Unity, p19

One estimate for the number of Jews in Rome (R. Lambert, Beloved and God) is 60-90,000. Thus, less than a tenth of Rome’s population were Jews, and less than a tenth of Jews were Christians!


The Eastern Church two centuries later...

Under the reign of Theodosius, after Christianity had enjoyed, during more than sixty years, the sunshine of Imperial favour, the ancient and illustrious church of Antioch consisted of one hundred thousand persons ... The whole number of its inhabitants was not less than half a million, and that the Christians, however multiplied by zeal and power, did not exceed a fifth part of that great city.

– Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch.16.


Gibbon was famous for his anti-Christianity.

Edward Gibbon's central thesis in his explanation of how the Roman empire fell, that it was due to embracing Christianity, is not widely accepted by scholars today. Gibbon argued that with the empire's new Christian character, large sums of wealth that would have otherwise been used in the secular affairs in promoting the state were transferred to promoting the activities of the Church. However, the pre-Christian empire also spent large financial sums on religious affairs and it is unclear whether or not the change of religion increased the amount of resources the empire spent on religion. Gibbon further argued that new attitudes in Christianity caused many Christians of significant wealth to renounce their lifestyles and enter a monastic lifestyle, and so stop participating in the support of the empire, however, while many Christians of wealth did become monastics, this paled in comparison to the participants in the imperial bureaucracy. While Gibbon further pointed out the importance Christianity placed on peace caused a decline in the number of people serving the military, the decline was so small as to be negligible in the army's effectivity.[39][40]

Gibbon's work has been criticised for its scathing view of Christianity as laid down in chapters XV and XVI, a situation which resulted in the banning of the book in several countries. Gibbon's alleged crime was disrespecting, and none too lightly, the character of sacred Christian doctrine, by "treat[ing] the Christian church as a phenomenon of general history, not a special case admitting supernatural explanations and disallowing criticism of its adherents". More specifically, the chapters excoriated the church for "supplanting in an unnecessarily destructive way the great culture that preceded it" and for "the outrage of [practising] religious intolerance and warfare".[41]


Wikipedia

While your 18th century source is interesting, here is something more recent:

Did Christianity die down, as predicted by Gamaliel, or did the faith grow in number based upon its Godly inspiration? Historians offer the answer: by 300 A.D., Christianity had between five and six million adherents (Wawro, 2008). Following legalization in 313 A.D. by Constantine, Christianity grew even more dramatically. By 350 A.D., Christians numbered over 33 million (Wawro, 2008). “In terms of world-historical significance, few developments can rival the enduring impact of the triumph of Christianity within the Roman world” (Bryant, 1993, p. 303).


Christian-Apologist

While those numbers look high, I have recently been going through J. B. Bury's history of the Eastern Roman Empire and he talked consistently about the influence of Christians in the fourth century and, much to the chagrin of a lot of Christians, even implied that St. Emperor Constantine was on the fence about Christianity in reality and choosing them merely for some personal inclinations to monotheism and admiration of their character:

symbol. The action was ambiguous, like most of Constantine’s actions at this period of his life. He was quite clear about monotheism; but he was not equally clear about the difference between Christ and the Unconquered Sun. The Gauls had fought of old beneath the Sun-god’s cross of light: so while the Christians saw in the labarum the cross of Christ, the heathens in the army would only be receiving an old standard back again. Such was the origin of the Byzantine Labarum.

...

colleagues. Constantine seems to have begun where his father left off, as more or less monotheistic and averse to idols, and more or less friendly to the Christians; and all these things grew upon him. The last of them may not have meant much at first, for even hostile emperors like Severus and Diocletian had sense enough to keep on good terms with the Christians when they were not prepared to crush them. But Constantine was drawn to them personally as well as politically; by his pure life and genuine humanity as well as by his shrewd statesmanship. Their lofty monotheism and austere morals attracted the man, their strong organization arrested the attention of the ruler.

Bury, J.B.. A History of the Eastern Roman Empire - Book I of III (Illustrated) . Didactic Press. Kindle Edition.


He also explains that the Christian church was too strong to be crushed by the Romans:

When Diocletian threw down his challenge to the Church, he made religion the urgent question of the time: and the persecution was a visible failure before Constantine was well settled in Gaul. If Diocletian had failed to crush the Church, others were not likely to succeed. Maximin or Licinius might hark back to the past; but Constantine saw clearly that the Empire would have to make some sort of terms with the Church, so that the only question was how far it would be needful or safe to go.

Bury, J.B.. A History of the Eastern Roman Empire - Book I of III (Illustrated) . Didactic Press. Kindle Edition.


I am not really seeing numbers, but he points out hwo the Christians had earned the nickname 'the Third Race,[/i] and had become quite powerful:

In the middle of the third century the Emperor and the Empire learnt to dread this organized force within their midst. The despised "third race" had become indeed a nation within the Empire.

Bury, J.B.. A History of the Eastern Roman Empire - Book I of III (Illustrated) . Didactic Press. Kindle Edition.


Of course, I do not think ti is the case that pagans had even begun to cease to exist in the fifth century, but the writing was on the wall as Bury indicates:

The Church, in that age of bureaucracy, had a popular constitution; its clergy came from the people; the services were in the language of the district; its bishops were the natural and sympathetic leaders of the people; and the whole population gradually became included within the Christian Church.

Bury, J.B.. A History of the Eastern Roman Empire - Book I of III (Illustrated) . Didactic Press. Kindle Edition.


(Earlier he had noted that the 'Third Race' was overwhelmingly made up of the urban poor, and so the theme for a while re: Christians is them as a popular movement)

But yeah, I think the numbers from Wowra are plausible but, again, I am open.

I am sure the numbers will vary wildly because this is all a matter of estimation.
#15088942
I'm going to cut some of this out because, after dealing with actual historical stuff with Ingliz, I don't feel like lowering the level dramatically by spending a lot of time mincing words that do not matter.

We've gone on a lot of pages, and I will go more, but let's maybe try to be more concise, as y ou yourself were trying to do in the post before.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you referring to Christian persecution of Jews here, or the supposed Jewish persecution of Christians?


I was commenting on vast periods of history generally.

I never said that. I talked about not getting fired.

Let us imagine you apply for a job and during the interview and for the first few months, no one asks you about your sex life or your sexual orientation, because it is irrelevant to the job and frankly no one’s business but your own.

By a complete coincidence, your boss finds out you are straight. The next day, you get fired because of that.

Do straight people currently enjoy the right to not get fired because of this?


I am not sure if straight people enjoy that right. What country are we talking about?

I guess there are two ways to understand this problem:

(1) It's a matter for private businesses, who they employ and do not employ, and people can be hired/fired for any reason.

(2) There are human rights that should ensure that people cannot be fired for having perhaps an unpopular position or identity status.

Do you believe in one of these models?

What's your position on 'human rights' regarding this?

You know, Korea is very unique in its slander/libel laws -- for instance, even if the negative information you are sharing is true, it is considered criminal to spread that information about a person if it is designed to impact them negatively in their professional life. So, even if someone is X or has totally done Y, you cannot spread this fact knowing it will adversely impact them.

Exceptions are made for public figures and legitimate journalists, but as it stands, people who have committed serious infractions of public decency have their identities protected and are forbidden from being targeted for it, even if it is a fact that they did it. Thus, the guys who have done stunts for Ilbe or feminists who have done topless protests and the likes may definitely see time for any illegal things they did during it, but their identities will be protected, and anyone who actively advertises their real identities with an effort to negatively impact them is in fact committing a crime.

It even applies to crimes. It takes a court ruling to reveal the face of someone who is even a convicted murderer.

So, IDK, just some thoughts.

Many publicly funded schools are run by the churches. Many of my children attend Catholic schools.


Is it a human right to attend those private schools?

Sodomy is anal and oral copulation. That is literally the definition.


Sodomy is used in more than one way.

In my opinion, if Christians want to embrace a model of god that cares more about loving our neighbours than about which orifices touch which, I can see how that could be supported.


We actually believe that the maintaing of God's laws in whole is important, and do not believe upholding one aspect of it becomes a valid excuse for ignoring other parts.

As far as I can tell, opposition to gay marriage is exactly that: discrimination against homosexuals.


How so?

If I do not own a business, am I being discriminated against because I do not get some of the tax benefits that business owners get? If I am not honored for being a war hero because I am not a war hero, am I being discriminated against?

It simply does not apply to homosexuals.

For example, the passages where the author blames the Jews for killing Christ, while letting the Romans off the hook.


Where is that?

What you imagine based on the stories is not a good reason to assume that Acts was written in Hebrew.


I don't understand your position on this.

I do not think that you actually know that these heresies were localised while proto-orthodox Christianity was not.


We have early Saints from very different parts of the world saying the same things, so we know that Orthodoxy was not localized.
#15088966
Verv wrote:to be more clear in your claims

Acts is not a historical text; it is Lukan theology in narrative form.

Propaganda with a theological bias...

He creates a theologically grounded (but deliberately unhistorical) picture of the Roman state in order to secure present and future privileges of unhindered preaching. While this is entirely understandable given the time it was written (c.90 AD) it casts serious doubt on Luke’s veracity in general.

See G Lüdemann, Acts of Impropriety: The Imbalance of History and Theology in Luke-Acts


:)
#15089031
Verv wrote:I was commenting on vast periods of history generally.


You have not shown that Jews persecuted Christians, even after looking at your source material.

I am not sure if straight people enjoy that right. What country are we talking about?

I guess there are two ways to understand this problem:

(1) It's a matter for private businesses, who they employ and do not employ, and people can be hired/fired for any reason.

(2) There are human rights that should ensure that people cannot be fired for having perhaps an unpopular position or identity status.

Do you believe in one of these models?

What's your position on 'human rights' regarding this?

You know, Korea is very unique in its slander/libel laws -- for instance, even if the negative information you are sharing is true, it is considered criminal to spread that information about a person if it is designed to impact them negatively in their professional life. So, even if someone is X or has totally done Y, you cannot spread this fact knowing it will adversely impact them.

Exceptions are made for public figures and legitimate journalists, but as it stands, people who have committed serious infractions of public decency have their identities protected and are forbidden from being targeted for it, even if it is a fact that they did it. Thus, the guys who have done stunts for Ilbe or feminists who have done topless protests and the likes may definitely see time for any illegal things they did during it, but their identities will be protected, and anyone who actively advertises their real identities with an effort to negatively impact them is in fact committing a crime.

It even applies to crimes. It takes a court ruling to reveal the face of someone who is even a convicted murderer.

So, IDK, just some thoughts.


Can you provide an example of a straight person being fired for being straight?

No, neither can I. So, on a practical level, they do enjoy this right.

Now, why should other people not enjoy this right?

Is it a human right to attend those private schools?


Pretty much, yes.

Sodomy is used in more than one way.


The point is that modern Christians try to persecute LGBTQ people despite the fact that there is nothing in the Bible that says that the modern LGBtQ lifestyles and identities are sinful.

We actually believe that the maintaing of God's laws in whole is important, and do not believe upholding one aspect of it becomes a valid excuse for ignoring other parts.


And yet you ignore things like divorce, or sodomy among heterosexuals.

How so?

If I do not own a business, am I being discriminated against because I do not get some of the tax benefits that business owners get? If I am not honored for being a war hero because I am not a war hero, am I being discriminated against?

It simply does not apply to homosexuals.


Because gay couples do not get to enjoy the rights that married couples get to enjoy.

I don't understand your position on this.


I will clarify:

You have absolutely no evidence that Acts was written in Hebrew.

We have early Saints from very different parts of the world saying the same things, so we know that Orthodoxy was not localized.


No, all the early saints are from the Holy Lands or Rome, the same area where the heretics also spread their message.
#15089435
ingliz wrote:Acts is not a historical text; it is Lukan theology in narrative form.

Propaganda with a theological bias...

He creates a theologically grounded (but deliberately unhistorical) picture of the Roman state in order to secure present and future privileges of unhindered preaching. While this is entirely understandable given the time it was written (c.90 AD) it casts serious doubt on Luke’s veracity in general.

See G Lüdemann, Acts of Impropriety: The Imbalance of History and Theology in Luke-Acts


:)


Yet another PDF without any relevant quotations highlighted and a short hot take. Very cool, Ingliz.

I downloaded it and will give it a read through later, hopefully being able to provide some relevant content for the readers here.

Let me start by saying, though, that my contention is simply that the early Christians had bad run-ins with the Jews, resulting in martyrdoms (like that of St. Stephen), and these persecutions even gave us St. Paul. Of course Acts will not qualify as a modern historical narrative.

If you would like to bring up something relevant from the 16 page PDF you submitted, let me know. I think my response is sufficient for now.

EDIT: Oh, also, I am curious: are you going to respond to some of the things that I have brought up before, or are you going to continue selectively replying and letting the points you fair poorly on just drop by the wayside?
#15089436
Pants-of-dog wrote:You have not shown that Jews persecuted Christians, even after looking at your source material.


I disagree. I think you've generally lost these exchanges because the accounts of St. Stephen and St. Paul by themselves show it. Sadly, I do not have the time to expand beyond these accounts.

Can you provide an example of a straight person being fired for being straight?


No?

This was a hypothetical that you brought up. I am just here for the ride.

No, neither can I. So, on a practical level, they do enjoy this right.

Now, why should other people not enjoy this right?


I do not know how it is a right, though. I have never thought that someone has the right to be employed, no matter what.

I am curious, though: if you support that, would you support guaranteeing the employment of people who are privately racist/sexist/misogynist or Marxist/uber-woke/etc. if they are outed against their will for their political views, since normal people enjoy the right to not being fired for their political views? I think that'd be a fun discussion as well.

But I am not sure if I have an opinion on whether or not "not being fired" is a "right." It depends on what you think of "property rights."

What is a right, POD?

Pretty much, yes.


Why?

The point is that modern Christians try to persecute LGBTQ people despite the fact that there is nothing in the Bible that says that the modern LGBtQ lifestyles and identities are sinful.


I am unsure how they are trying to persecute them.

What rights are they trying to remove from them?

And yet you ignore things like divorce, or sodomy among heterosexuals.


(1) In my Church, divorce is allowed in some circumstances.

(2) In my church, I haven't been told to not practice what is covered under one definition of sodomy.

So, it's hard to itneract with what you have said.

Because gay couples do not get to enjoy the rights that married couples get to enjoy.


Then all unmarried people being discriminated against. But that doesn't make sense, does it?

I will clarify:

You have absolutely no evidence that Acts was written in Hebrew.


It could have been, at one point, just as how we imagine that the original Hebrews was written in Hebrew. There just isn't surviving documents in it.

I think this is the third or fourth time this has been said.

No, all the early saints are from the Holy Lands or Rome, the same area where the heretics also spread their message.


Define "early."

St. Irenaeus was in Lyons. His predecessor, St. Pothinus, was in Gaul long before him. Of course, this would be irrelevant if you mean "Rome" in the giant, imperial sense, and not the city.

But then, what would you really expect?
#15089439
Verv wrote:I disagree. I think you've generally lost these exchanges because the accounts of St. Stephen and St. Paul by themselves show it. Sadly, I do not have the time to expand beyond these accounts.


Not really.

You have a single source that was written decades after the fact by someone who almost certainly was not present at the described events, written at a time when early Christians were part of a dynamic political landscape where they were a player. And even if we assume all that was written is true, the actual persecution was done by an incredibly small minority of Jews, which is consistent with the known fact that Christianity was simply not that well known among Jews a the time.

No?

This was a hypothetical that you brought up. I am just here for the ride.


So, on a practical level, straight people enjoy this right.

I do not know how it is a right, though. I have never thought that someone has the right to be employed, no matter what.

I am curious, though: if you support that, would you support guaranteeing the employment of people who are privately racist/sexist/misogynist or Marxist/uber-woke/etc. if they are outed against their will for their political views, since normal people enjoy the right to not being fired for their political views? I think that'd be a fun discussion as well.

But I am not sure if I have an opinion on whether or not "not being fired" is a "right." It depends on what you think of "property rights."


Now, since straight people already enjoy this right, why should LGBTQ people not also enjoy this right?

What is a right, POD?


:|

Why?


Funding.

I am unsure how they are trying to persecute them.

What rights are they trying to remove from them?


The right to marry.

The right to access housing.

The right to attend government funded schools.

The right to work at said schools without fear of being fired.

(1) In my Church, divorce is allowed in some circumstances.

(2) In my church, I haven't been told to not practice what is covered under one definition of sodomy.

So, it's hard to itneract with what you have said.


Okay, so you inconsistently support sexual mores in the Bible according to modern political context when it is convenient for you, but not when it means you need to stop discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Then all unmarried people being discriminated against. But that doesn't make sense, does it?


No, your weird criticism does not make sense at all.

Single people cannot possibly exercise rights that are given to couples, by definition.

But banning gay marriage deprives some COUPLES of rights that every other COUPLE enjoys.

It could have been, at one point, just as how we imagine that the original Hebrews was written in Hebrew. There just isn't surviving documents in it.

I think this is the third or fourth time this has been said.


And each rime, I point out that you have no evidence and you have no actual argument for supporting this claim.

Do you want me to tell you a fifth time?

Define "early."


:|

St. Irenaeus was in Lyons. His predecessor, St. Pothinus, was in Gaul long before him. Of course, this would be irrelevant if you mean "Rome" in the giant, imperial sense, and not the city.

But then, what would you really expect?


I would expect you to now show that there were no heretical movements in these areas at the time that Iraneus and his cohorts were.

Or, you know, support your claims in some way.
#15089461
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really.

You have a single source that was written decades after the fact by someone who almost certainly was not present at the described events, written at a time when early Christians were part of a dynamic political landscape where they were a player. And even if we assume all that was written is true, the actual persecution was done by an incredibly small minority of Jews, which is consistent with the known fact that Christianity was simply not that well known among Jews a the time.


Having a single source in the year 2020 might sound bad, but when we are literally talking about a part of history where we would not expect there to be many sources at all, yet we do have one, and it divulges the details of some of these events.

If you think they are lying in the Book of Acts, so be it. I can't argue with that. It's just a different assumption from my own, I guess.

So, on a practical level, straight people enjoy this right.


But is it a right?

I enjoy chocolate cookies... but are they a right?

Now, since straight people already enjoy this right, why should LGBTQ people not also enjoy this right?


What's a right?


:|


What's a right?

Funding.


So I am discriminated against because I do not receive the special funding that people with disabled children may have, as I do not have any disabled children? That would not make sense.

The right to marry.

The right to access housing.

The right to attend government funded schools.

The right to work at said schools without fear of being fired.


(1) People have a right to marry regardless of their sexuality.

(2) I've never heard of anyone fighting for mandating that LGBTQ people be homeless.

(3) I've never heard of anyone fighting to keep LGBTQ people out of schools.

(4) I haven't heard about people fighting to keep LGBTQ people from working at private schools, and I do not think I have heard it for public schools.

Okay, so you inconsistently support sexual mores in the Bible according to modern political context when it is convenient for you, but not when it means you need to stop discrimination against LGBTQ people.


(1) What are the sexual mores of the Bible? How has the Orthodox CHurch got it wrong?

I would argue that married couples do not have it dictated to them that all sexuality should be open for procreation. Moreover, divorce due to adultery is allowable, always.

(2) I do not discriminate against them.

No, your weird criticism does not make sense at all.

Single people cannot possibly exercise rights that are given to couples, by definition.

But banning gay marriage deprives some COUPLES of rights that every other COUPLE enjoys.


Gay people still have a right to marry -- they just cannot marry another gay person.

Since gay couplings do not provide social benefits to the community, they cannot be expected to receive the same funding that qualitatively superior heterosexual couplings bring to the community.

Even sitll, I am actually not aware of increased "benefits" from public taxes that exist purely for being married in the US.

Moreover, I am not sure that receiving tax benefits is a "right!"

And each rime, I point out that you have no evidence and you have no actual argument for supporting this claim.

Do you want me to tell you a fifth time?


It is not something that evidence will be forthcoming in, but it is not silly or strange to suggest that the early Christians recorded this originally in Aramaic or Hebrew as they were, in the beginning, primarily ethnic Jews.


:|


Surely, you see how it is relevant.

I would expect you to now show that there were no heretical movements in these areas at the time that Iraneus and his cohorts were.

Or, you know, support your claims in some way.


You don't understand what I was writing in post #15,087,699, so let me elaborate a bit by quoting post #15,088,937:

Naturally, there were many different heresies that happened in different regions, but they lacked what the true Church lacked: a universality throughout Christianity.

In Egypt you find the true Church plus heresies specific to the region; in Greece you find the true Chruch plus heresies specific to Greece; in Gaul you find the true church plus heresies specific to the area.

There are, of course, exceptions, but these are either entirely different religious traditions riffing off Christianity (Manicheanism) or heretical beliefs that are heretical by virtue of misinterpretation, such as Arianism, which centers around a theological debate.

But hey, I would love to hear your thoughts on this since you are familiar with a lot of things. If you have some honestly good material, please do present it, and maybe summarize it a bit this time :lol: .


Meaning, heresies can spring up in these places, but it is orthodoxy that is universal.
#15089474
Verv wrote:Having a single source in the year 2020 might sound bad, but when we are literally talking about a part of history where we would not expect there to be many sources at all, yet we do have one, and it divulges the details of some of these events.

If you think they are lying in the Book of Acts, so be it. I can't argue with that. It's just a different assumption from my own, I guess.


Yes, you have a single questionable source.

So we agree that even the source you do have shows that Jewish attacks against Christians were not a broad movement enjoying widespread support among Jews at the time.

But is it a right?

I enjoy chocolate cookies... but are they a right?

What's a right?

What's a right?


If you think that people should be allowed to treat LGBTQ people differently, by arbitrarily terminating their employment, housing, studies, or military career, and you do not think straight people should have to deal with this, you are supporting a double standard that discriminates against LGBTQ people.

So I am discriminated against because I do not receive the special funding that people with disabled children may have, as I do not have any disabled children? That would not make sense.


No, that is a stupid comparison.

It only makes sense if you incorrectly believe that I think anything that has to do with funding is the topic.

(1) People have a right to marry regardless of their sexuality.


No, not everywhere. And Christians opposed it in pretty much every place where gay marriage is legal.

(2) I've never heard of anyone fighting for mandating that LGBTQ people be homeless.

(3) I've never heard of anyone fighting to keep LGBTQ people out of schools.

(4) I haven't heard about people fighting to keep LGBTQ people from working at private schools, and I do not think I have heard it for public schools.


There are many reasons why you would be unaware of Christian people denying housing, education, and employment to LGBTQ people.

(1) What are the sexual mores of the Bible? How has the Orthodox CHurch got it wrong?

I would argue that married couples do not have it dictated to them that all sexuality should be open for procreation. Moreover, divorce due to adultery is allowable, always.


Since we just discussed some of the sexual mores (i.e. you are allowed to rape a prisoner of war if you follow certain rules, fellatio and anal sex are not allowed, divorce is not allowed, a widow must give herself to her dead husband’s brother regardless of consent, and homosexuality is actually not discussed at all), there can be no reason to keep asking.

And since you have just confirmed that the modern Christian churches ignore all of this, we are all good.

(2) I do not discriminate against them.


At this point, I find that hard to believe since many conservative Christians do, and you seem to be one.

Gay people still have a right to marry -- they just cannot marry another gay person.


So we agree that banning gay marriage deprives gay COUPLES of rights, and that COUPLES are different from INDIVIDUALS.

Since gay couplings do not provide social benefits to the community, they cannot be expected to receive the same funding that qualitatively superior heterosexual couplings bring to the community.


Gay marriage brings the exact same benefits that hetero marriages do.

And it also decreases the rate of infection for HIV, if I recall correctly.

Even sitll, I am actually not aware of increased "benefits" from public taxes that exist purely for being married in the US.

Moreover, I am not sure that receiving tax benefits is a "right!"


I was not even thinking of tax benefits, since tax benefits are not as universal as other rights enjoyed by couples. But thanks for bringing up an example.

It is not something that evidence will be forthcoming in....


....so there is no point in continuing this tangent.

You don't understand what I was writing in post #15,087,699, so let me elaborate a bit by quoting post #15,088,937:

Meaning, heresies can spring up in these places, but it is orthodoxy that is universal.


I know what you believe.

I just think you believe it despite a complete lack of evidence or even historical knowledge.
#15089484
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you have a single questionable source.

So we agree that even the source you do have shows that Jewish attacks against Christians were not a broad movement enjoying widespread support among Jews at the time.


There's documented cases by Christians that show that there was persecution occurring even outside of Israel, so it may have had widespread support. It is, however, difficult to gather together all of this information. I'd love to research it more and perhaps I will someday.

If you think that people should be allowed to treat LGBTQ people differently, by arbitrarily terminating their employment, housing, studies, or military career, and you do not think straight people should have to deal with this, you are supporting a double standard that discriminates against LGBTQ people.


There'd be two systems:

(1) Everyone is free to do what they wish with their private property and the government should not interfere much, in which case employers can have whatever standards they want for employees.

(2) There are protected groups.

I am OK with either. But if we have (2), I would like the "protected group" to essentially include everyone. So, I would simply write into law that nobody can be fired for anything relating to their private life that does not interfere with their work.

If it is anything less than this, then this protection itself becomes a political tool.

No, that is a stupid comparison.

It only makes sense if you incorrectly believe that I think anything that has to do with funding is the topic.


But that is what the marriage amounts to.

No, not everywhere. And Christians opposed it in pretty much every place where gay marriage is legal.


But marriage is a union between a man and a woman, or, in some societies, a man and several women. By any traditional definition, gay couples are excluded from this. It isn't discrimination -- it's the collective social position.

Just like it is not discriminatory to tell a man he cannot marry a dog. It's just not the definition of marriage.

There are many reasons why you would be unaware of Christian people denying housing, education, and employment to LGBTQ people.


Do I have a right to live in a house against the will of the landlord? No.

But I guess we can go back to system (1) or (2) and think about that some more, if you like.

Do you believe humans have rights?

Since we just discussed some of the sexual mores (i.e. you are allowed to rape a prisoner of war if you follow certain rules, fellatio and anal sex are not allowed, divorce is not allowed, a widow must give herself to her dead husband’s brother regardless of consent, and homosexuality is actually not discussed at all), there can be no reason to keep asking.


This is not accurate -- in Old Testament law, a man was allowed to marry a POW and thereby annul her status as a slave after a month long period of mourning. Also, there were debates among Jews on the nature of divorce in the OT...

And I do not know the Biblical basis for fellatio and anal copulation being disallowed in Christianity in a way that is direct and enforceable. I know the series of inferences, though, that lead to it, and I do not think it is absolutely the necessary conclusion.

At this point, I find that hard to believe since many conservative Christians do, and you seem to be one.


How do I discriminate?

So we agree that banning gay marriage deprives gay COUPLES of rights, and that COUPLES are different from INDIVIDUALS.


They have a right to marry, just like I have a right to marry, but I am not invoking this in terms of a Right in the sense of a thing that POD will refuse to define or talk.

Gay marriage brings the exact same benefits that hetero marriages do.

And it also decreases the rate of infection for HIV, if I recall correctly.


I disagree.

I was not even thinking of tax benefits, since tax benefits are not as universal as other rights enjoyed by couples. But thanks for bringing up an example.


What are "rights?"

I know what you believe.

I just think you believe it despite a complete lack of evidence or even historical knowledge.


:excited:

I have stated the reasons I believe the things I believe.
#15089496
Verv wrote:There's documented cases by Christians that show that there was persecution occurring even outside of Israel, so it may have had widespread support. It is, however, difficult to gather together all of this information. I'd love to research it more and perhaps I will someday.


Yes, there might be other evidence.

But I am discussing the evidence you did provide.

There'd be two systems:

(1) Everyone is free to do what they wish with their private property and the government should not interfere much, in which case employers can have whatever standards they want for employees.

(2) There are protected groups.

I am OK with either. But if we have (2), I would like the "protected group" to essentially include everyone. So, I would simply write into law that nobody can be fired for anything relating to their private life that does not interfere with their work.

If it is anything less than this, then this protection itself becomes a political tool.


Are you choosing to ignore that some groups have been discriminated against while others have not?

But that is what the marriage amounts to.


What marriage? We are discussing why LGBTQ students should not be kicked out of Christian publicly funded schools.

But marriage is a union between a man and a woman, or, in some societies, a man and several women. By any traditional definition, gay couples are excluded from this. It isn't discrimination -- it's the collective social position.

Just like it is not discriminatory to tell a man he cannot marry a dog. It's just not the definition of marriage.


The collective social position has changed. Too bad.

According to your rules and traditions that you are espousing, I can have several wives, and their consent is meaningless. Fortunately, the collective social position also now excludes most Biblical sexual mores.

Do I have a right to live in a house against the will of the landlord? No.

But I guess we can go back to system (1) or (2) and think about that some more, if you like.


Actually, you do.

For example, if you live in the USA, you cannot get kicked out of your house just because you are black or white or whatever race your landlord hates.

You cannot get kicked out of your house for being Christian if your landlord hates Christians.

So yes, you do have the right to live in a house if the landlord does not want you to.

Do you believe humans have rights?


Now that we have covered how you actually do have rights to housing that override the bigotry of your landlords, do you think that other people should be excluded from enjoying the same rights that you already enjoy?

This is not accurate -- in Old Testament law, a man was allowed to marry a POW and thereby annul her status as a slave after a month long period of mourning. Also, there were debates among Jews on the nature of divorce in the OT...

And I do not know the Biblical basis for fellatio and anal copulation being disallowed in Christianity in a way that is direct and enforceable. I know the series of inferences, though, that lead to it, and I do not think it is absolutely the necessary conclusion.


I have already gone over all the Biblical sexual mores that you currently ignore. And in those discussions, we already addressed all your criticisms.

How do I discriminate?


Do you oppose gay marriage?

They have a right to marry, just like I have a right to marry, but I am not invoking this in terms of a Right in the sense of a thing that POD will refuse to define or talk.


Do you understand the difference between individual rights and rights that can only be exercised as a couple?

Yes or no?

I disagree.


You can disagree with facts. It is still a fact that gay marriage provides society with the same benefits that hetero marriage does.

What are "rights?"


:|

:excited:

I have stated the reasons I believe the things I believe.


This is a debate forum.

Not a forum where you can simply make whatever unsupported claims you feel like later ignoring.
#15089548
Verv wrote:Yet another PDF...

Both you and P.O.D. asked for them...

"I am curious, what other sources are out there? ...[It's n]ot a forum where you can simply make whatever unsupported claims you feel like."

Stop whining.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]