[Verv]

It is perfectly honest.

The verse must be read in the context of what he said previously on sexual matters. St. Paul was a very odd fellow when it came to sex. 'Be fruitful' was the first command that God gave to mankind, perversely, Paul ignores it.

Read the Song of Solomon, an ode to the delights of conjugal love, and compare it to the poisonous writings of Paul and Augustine, a thinly disguised Manichaean in matters of the flesh.

p.s. Another example of Paul turning God's word on its head.

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

— Romans 7:5 (NASB)

You are overlooking the idea of progressive revelation.

Be fruitful and multiply can be thought of as other commandments that were directed at making Israel and the world flourish. By the time of Rome, the imperative has diminished to some degree, though it is still relevant in terms of those who marry. Catholics oppose contraception, and Orthodox encourage not using it though this is not official or an overly common position.

So, there is a context to that.

Moreover, you overlook what Christ said in Matthew 19:

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

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

5 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?

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

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Men who are capable of becoming "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (celibate for life) should do it.

This is the basis of St. Paul's words.

Do you agree with my interpretation?

[Verv]

I never claimed it was one specific event.

It is hard ot discuss this because there is no event. There is just the accusation that the gay community has been repressed by Christianity.

I think we should look at the examples of the repression, or perhaps some hypothetical scenario you believe was common, and when we examine that, I think you will change your perspective.

The issue of when and how gay people self-identified as gay is irrelevant, since oppression of LGBTQ people happens when other people identify someone as gay.

[/quote]

I do not think oppression happened in any way that we would identify it. The cultural norms were in place, and the Bible tended to reinforce these, of course, but it is not a text that encourages violence.

Perhaps you can define oppression for us.

We are not making headway here so I think you should lay something out for us.

You do not get it because you are incorrectly assuming that I am condemning people.

I apologize.

Yes.



Yes.



No.

OK, but you would agree that every human should be protected from being fired from their job or evicted, right?

I ask because I wonder how this would apply to your political enemies.

For instance, would someone who is a regressive, far right Christian, who actively points out that LGBTQ is morally wrong and rails agaisnt them, or someone who is racist or anti-Semitic, would they be protected from being fired or evicted in your world provided they did not bring disruptive talk into work and their position was completely irrelevant to dealing with people and the likes..?

This seems a bit off topic, but I think it kind of is on topic in the sense that... if you say "Yes, they should be protected," then I would drop the line all together, but if you were to say "No, that's different," I would point out that you do not really believe in human rights in any fair way, but human rights are a political tool, and this would be used against you in your objections against Christian teachings on the topic. I would think you are someone concerned more with a Marxist political system than someone who is concerned with human rights.

So, when they formulated the beliefs that we now consider orthodoxy, they were at least partly influenced by their contemporary political context.

No, they would die before changing their doctrines, and that is what they generally had chosen to do.

Moreover, the text was accuratley preserved, so what instances exist where the Church did wrong things are actually documented and, today, condemned.

Indeed, because the texts were so well preserved, we have the ability to have a great amount of dissent on them today and even back then.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is hard ot discuss this because there is no event. There is just the accusation that the gay community has been repressed by Christianity.

I think we should look at the examples of the repression, or perhaps some hypothetical scenario you believe was common, and when we examine that, I think you will change your perspective.

There was not just one event, but literally centuries of events.

Fell free to try to change my perspective.

I do not think oppression happened in any way that we would identify it. The cultural norms were in place, and the Bible tended to reinforce these, of course, but it is not a text that encourages violence.

Perhaps you can define oppression for us.

We are not making headway here so I think you should lay something out for us.

I am not trying to make headway here, in terms of tutoring you about history or about what oppression means. This whole discussion about whether or not Christians have oppressed LGBTQ people is a tangent. I cited it as an example of bigotry when you asked me to define that word.

It is also a matter of historical fact. You can choose to ignore it.

OK, but you would agree that every human should be protected from being fired from their job or evicted, right?

I ask because I wonder how this would apply to your political enemies.

For instance, would someone who is a regressive, far right Christian, who actively points out that LGBTQ is morally wrong and rails agaisnt them, or someone who is racist or anti-Semitic, would they be protected from being fired or evicted in your world provided they did not bring disruptive talk into work and their position was completely irrelevant to dealing with people and the likes..?

This seems a bit off topic, but I think it kind of is on topic in the sense that... if you say "Yes, they should be protected," then I would drop the line all together, but if you were to say "No, that's different," I would point out that you do not really believe in human rights in any fair way, but human rights are a political tool, and this would be used against you in your objections against Christian teachings on the topic. I would think you are someone concerned more with a Marxist political system than someone who is concerned with human rights.

The veracity of my claims is independent of my moral character, hypocrisy, and your opinion of me. So all of this is irrelevant.

No, they would die before changing their doctrines, and that is what they generally had chosen to do.

Since that is not the only way that political contexts can inform interpretation of religious tales, this is not a comprehensive rebuttal of my claim.

Moreover, the text was accuratley preserved, so what instances exist where the Church did wrong things are actually documented and, today, condemned.

Indeed, because the texts were so well preserved, we have the ability to have a great amount of dissent on them today and even back then.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What text are you referring to? What wrong things did the Church do? How are they condemned for it?

What dissent are you experiencing now about whatever happened back then? When was back then, according to you?

[Verv]

I. Homosexuality & Church History

So, there aren't any specific examples or periods to discuss regarding the repression. The historic record is pretty blank. People did not organize or identify themselves as gay. The average person was just working hard to make ends meet, and there was a general consensus on what the nature of sexuality should be.

There are also periods where it is documented that there was some degree of libertinism that was occurring.

You are the one making the accusation, so I don't know. I cannot 'defend' when there is no clear attack to defend against. There's just a fuzzy, unsubstantiated accusation.

II. Human Rights

So, I am curious... you support the laws which prevent discrimination against people based on their sexual identity and orientation, correct?

Do you support laws which prevent discrimination against people based on their religious beliefs?

Do you support laws which prevent discrimination against people based on their political beliefs?

Do you support laws which prevent discrimination against people who are perceived as having the wrong values -- people who are, say, bigoted or racist, explicitly or implicitly..?

Of course, a distinction does have to exist: there is a difference between a man who peskers people in the workplace with their beliefs or sexuality, and a person who simply has been found out as having unpopular religious/political/social views or sexuality. For the purpose of our question, let's say that it is the latter case -- of people being found out.

Do we have these human rights across the board?

Let's discuss this from an ideological perspective, at least, because there have been no claims that have been substantiated or expanded upon for us to discuss.

III. Misunderstanding

Verv:

Moreover, the text was accuratley preserved, so what instances exist where the Church did wrong things are actually documented and, today, condemned.

Indeed, because the texts were so well preserved, we have the ability to have a great amount of dissent on them today and even back then.

POD

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What text are you referring to? What wrong things did the Church do? How are they condemned for it?

What dissent are you experiencing now about whatever happened back then? When was back then, according to you?

My points are these:

a. The Gospels & Epistles were accurately preserved and in no way perverted. They were not influenced by political circumstances.
b. The wrong things that the CHurch did do were documented well enough, and we understand the conflicts that existed, largely.
c. There are still these minor gnostic movements and disputes about Biblical interpretation. This is because we have preseved the text, and have not distorted it to back up specific Church interpretations.

[Pants-of-dog]

I. Homosexuality & Church History

So, there aren't any specific examples or periods to discuss regarding the repression. The historic record is pretty blank. People did not organize or identify themselves as gay. The average person was just working hard to make ends meet, and there was a general consensus on what the nature of sexuality should be.

There are also periods where it is documented that there was some degree of libertinism that was occurring.

You are the one making the accusation, so I don't know. I cannot 'defend' when there is no clear attack to defend against. There's just a fuzzy, unsubstantiated accusation.

This whole discussion about whether or not Christians have oppressed LGBTQ people is a tangent. I cited it as an example of bigotry when you asked me to define that word.

It is also a matter of historical fact. You can choose to ignore it, or feel free to try to change my perspective with actual evidence.

II. Human Rights

So, I am curious... you support the laws which prevent discrimination against people based on their sexual identity and orientation, correct?

Do you support laws which prevent discrimination against people based on their religious beliefs?

Do you support laws which prevent discrimination against people based on their political beliefs?

Do you support laws which prevent discrimination against people who are perceived as having the wrong values -- people who are, say, bigoted or racist, explicitly or implicitly..?

Of course, a distinction does have to exist: there is a difference between a man who peskers people in the workplace with their beliefs or sexuality, and a person who simply has been found out as having unpopular religious/political/social views or sexuality. For the purpose of our question, let's say that it is the latter case -- of people being found out.

Do we have these human rights across the board?

Let's discuss this from an ideological perspective, at least, because there have been no claims that have been substantiated or expanded upon for us to discuss.

The veracity of my claims is independent of my moral character, hypocrisy, and your opinion of me. So all of this is irrelevant.

My points are these:

a. The Gospels & Epistles were accurately preserved and in no way perverted. They were not influenced by political circumstances.

Since this flies in the face of logic and our knowledge of human nature and history, this is a very difficult claim to believe.

Why do you believe this?

Do you have factual and verifiable reasons, or are they all based on faith?

b. The wrong things that the CHurch did do were documented well enough, and we understand the conflicts that existed, largely.
c. There are still these minor gnostic movements and disputes about Biblical interpretation. This is because we have preseved the text, and have not distorted it to back up specific Church interpretations.

None of this answers my previous questions or in any way dispels any confusion.

[Verv]

This whole discussion about whether or not Christians have oppressed LGBTQ people is a tangent. I cited it as an example of bigotry when you asked me to define that word.

It is also a matter of historical fact. You can choose to ignore it, or feel free to try to change my perspective with actual evidence.

OK, I am not sure how to interact with this.

It hasn't been established as some historic fact that the Church was oppressing gay people.

The veracity of my claims is independent of my moral character, hypocrisy, and your opinion of me. So all of this is irrelevant.

This is actually a discussion about ideology, not your moral character. Maybe you are hypocritical -- it wouldn't be relevant, you are right. But what is your stated ideology on this?

If we understand human rights and your concept of it, maybe we can shed some light on how you believe gays have been oppressed, right?

Since this flies in the face of logic and our knowledge of human nature and history, this is a very difficult claim to believe.

Why do you believe this?

Do you have factual and verifiable reasons, or are they all based on faith?

There are something like 24,000 surviving manuscripts pertaining to the Bible that date back very far, and this is far greater than things like Homer's Iliad. Generally speaking, the certainty that we have of what is in the Bible is far greater than the certainty we have of other ancient texts.

We also understand that very divergent Bishops across great geographical regions were referencing the same core texts, and that the heretical texts tended to appear only in specific regions and were all eventually defeated.

None of this answers my previous questions or in any way dispels any confusion.

What previous question?

[SpecialOlympian]

[tedious sub-thread between SpecialOlympian and Sivad about who is a better poster than the other, with a bit of light personal insulting thrown in, deleted. Please stick to the thread topic. If you must obsess about each other, do it in PMs. Prosthetic Conscience.]

[ingliz]

This is the basis of St. Paul's words.

Yes.

But it's a passage on the sanctity of marriage, conjugal sex, and divorce, not celibacy. In interpreting this passage, Paul turns Christ's words on their head to serve his own deviant sexual agenda.

I wish that all of you were as I am.

— 1 Corinthians 7:7

Do you agree with my [Paul's] interpretation?

No.

I see the words, "he that is able," and these men, "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake", are able to have sex with their wives.

able
/ˈeɪb(ə)l/

adjective

having the power to do something.

NB: Christianity was a Jewish sect at this time.

The mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying [puru u’revuru] is incumbent on the husband and not on his wife… If he reaches twenty and has not married, he is considered to have transgressed and negated the observance of this positive commandment.

— Hilchot Ishut 15:2.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law

— Matt. 5:17

How I interpret the passage...

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

— Mark 10:9

[Verv]

Yes.

But it's a passage on the sanctity of marriage, conjugal sex, and divorce, not celibacy. In interpreting this passage, Paul turns Christ's words on their head to serve his own deviant sexual agenda.

I wish that all of you were as I am.

— 1 Corinthians 7:7


No.

I see the words, "he that is able," and these men, "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake", are able to have sex with their wives.

He is referring to monks here. They do not have wives.

St. Peter and the other apostles were among those listening to this -- people who would go on to live celibately, like St. Paul.

Whatis a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven if not a monastic?

NB: Christianity was a Jewish sect at this time.

The mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying [puru u’revuru] is incumbent on the husband and not on his wife… If he reaches twenty and has not married, he is considered to have transgressed and negated the observance of this positive commandment.

— Hilchot Ishut 15:2.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law

— Matt. 5:17 (NIV)

I. Christianity should never be thought of as a Jewish sect. Christianity is the resolution of Judaism.

II. Christ Himself overturns Jewish practices, for instance, in Mark 7:14:

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

He also approached the Samaritan woman and had a conversation with her, knowing as well that she had been remarried five times (John 4).

Then, there is also the perciope of the adulteress.

We could go on...

And then there is the part where we all accept the miracles in Acts, dietary laws are overturned, and St. Paul's scarf and apron is credited with miracles...

Do you reject all of this...?

Christians do not.

III. And let us even pretend that Christianity was a Jewish sect for a time, and at the time when He spoke of the eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, we know that what Christ meant by until all is accomplished. The accomplishment/fulfillment of the law is always interpreted as Christ's crucifixion & resurrection, which brings about a New Covenant.

And what Did St. Paul say in Hebrews?

When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.

Hebrews 8:13

...

But I suppose if your position is something like...

The Book of Acts doesn't matter.
The works of St. Paul are illegitimate.
Only the Gospels matter,and the Gospels are illegitimate in the sense that I think the crucifixion & resurrection never happened, and I pick and choose what I think was real to affirm the idea that Christ was just trying to be a Jewish rabbi and wa snot God on Earth...

Then yeah, man, sure, how can I argue with a guy that literally limits the Gospel of CHrist to exactly what he wants to advance an unorthodox, unchristian reading..? What's the point?

[ingliz]

He is referring to monks here.

No, he is not, there was no such thing at that time.

What is a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven if not a monastic?

A man, neither feminine nor masculine, that slanders God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manichaeans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts.

The works of St. Paul are illegitimate.

Yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

OK, I am not sure how to interact with this.

It hasn't been established as some historic fact that the Church was oppressing gay people.

This is actually a discussion about ideology, not your moral character. Maybe you are hypocritical -- it wouldn't be relevant, you are right. But what is your stated ideology on this?

If we understand human rights and your concept of it, maybe we can shed some light on how you believe gays have been oppressed, right?

I guess I need to be clear.

If you want to make the claim that Christians never oppressed LGBTQ people, support the claim with evidence. If not, then drop it since I am not going to bother discussing it.

There are something like 24,000 surviving manuscripts pertaining to the Bible that date back very far, and this is far greater than things like Homer's Iliad. Generally speaking, the certainty that we have of what is in the Bible is far greater than the certainty we have of other ancient texts.

We also understand that very divergent Bishops across great geographical regions were referencing the same core texts, and that the heretical texts tended to appear only in specific regions and were all eventually defeated.

I do not think this is true. Can you verify this and show how it relates to the question of whether or not early Christians were influenced by their political context at the time?

It does not seem to contradict the claim that early Christians were partly swayed by their political context at the time.

[ingliz]

@Verv

A man, neither feminine nor masculine, that slanders God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manichaeans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts.

If you are wondering where that came from...

It's John Chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople on those who self-castrate, with a bit of Basil thrown in to add flavour. It's odd, though, that they can condemn a man who chops off his balls for God and praise the man who does the same and keeps his balls on.

Origen chopped his bits off, literally, I kid you not. Tertullian called vaginas the "Gateway of the Devil".

How ridiculous is that?

God made my penis and he saw that it was very good! (Gen 1:31). I say we are blessed that women have vaginas.

[Donna]

If you want to make the claim that Christians never oppressed LGBTQ people, support the claim with evidence. If not, then drop it since I am not going to bother discussing it.

I think Verv realizes that acknowledging it necessarily opens the door to a universally recognized Christian need to reconcile with the LGBTQ community, a project that would require more nuance than he's willing to give to the matter.

Which is fine if he can keep the peace. The goal I think is to cultivate tolerance out of the hermeneutic of reconciliation: the acknowledgement of the sin of homophobia, participation of same-sex couples in worship and the receiving of the Lord's sacrament, and the gradual introduction of special blessings for same-sex unions, all of which can and should become part of the evangelical culture of church life without changing matters of doctrine.

In a word, Verv can cut the macho, Evolian arch-trad act if he really wanted to and still be a good Christian (and I believe he already is one, all things considered).

What is hard work sometimes is tolerance and reconciliation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well said, @Donna. Well said.

[Verv]

No, he is not, there was no such thing at that time.

Monasticism was actually being practiced by some of the Essenes. We do not know specifically whether John the Baptist did that, but I would not be surprised based off of his description.

My source:

The Essenes (in Modern but not in Ancient Hebrew: אִסִּיִים, Isiyim; Greek: Εσσηνοι, Εσσαιοι, or Οσσαιοι; Essēnoi, Essaioi, or Ossaioi) were a Jewish sect that flourished from the 2nd century BC to AD 100 which some scholars claim seceded from the Zadokite priests.[24] Being much fewer in number than the Pharisees and the Sadducees (the other two major sects at the time), the Essenes lived in various cities but congregated in communal life dedicated to asceticism, voluntary poverty, daily immersion (in mikvah), and abstinence from worldly pleasures, including (for some groups) marriage. Many separate but related religious groups of that era shared similar mystic, eschatological, messianic, and ascetic beliefs. These groups are collectively referred to by various scholars as the "Essenes". Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers, and thousands lived throughout Roman Judaea.

Wikipedia

But you would be right that here he is using new words to succinctly refer to an ascetic who abstains fom sex, since the closest thing to a mainline Jewish ascetic and the most familiar thing would have been a Nazarene that would be permitted to still have a wife.

A man, neither feminine nor masculine, that slanders God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manichaeans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts.

So he was referring to men who are neither feminien nor masculine and slander God's creation..?

Yes.

OK, so why do you trust the accounts of Christ's words and teachings? The Apostles approved of St. Paul and so much of the New Testament all hinges on the consensus of people who agree with St. Paul, yet these are the primary sources for what we believe about Christ...

How about you just tell me everything you think about Jesus and the Gospels, and then I don't have to ask dozens of questions as we proceed down this.

If you are wondering where that came from...

It's John Chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople on those who self-castrate, with a bit of Basil thrown in to add flavour. It's odd, though, that they can condemn a man who chops off his balls for God and praise the man who does the same and keeps his balls on.

Origen chopped his bits off, literally, I kid you not. Tertullian called vaginas the "Gateway of the Devil".

How ridiculous is that?

God made my penis and he saw that it was very good! (Gen 1:31). I say we are blessed that women have vaginas.

Here is St. John Chrysostom on St. Paul:

Paul, more than anyone else, has shown us what man really is, and in what our nobility consists, and of what virtue this particular animal is capable. Each day he aimed ever higher; each day he rose up with greater ardor and faced with new eagerness the dangers that threatened him. He summed up his attitude in the words: “I forget what is behind me and push on to what lies ahead.”

You can find more from St. John Chrysostom on St. Paul here.

I'm also not a member of any Church that has ever encouraged self-mutilation or anything like that. In fact, I've seen monastics condemn it in the context of Indian yogis, saying that demons lead them to doing such ridiculous things so that they can laugh at them.

I do not think it is odd at all to p raise people who conquer their base urges. This is actually one of the paths to liberation -- and it's not as hard as people think it is. It's not some impossible task.

I do not undersatnd your perspective on this so much... why do you think it's so strange to believe in cutting out something that is so problematic for humans?

I also would like the Tertullian quotation in context.

[Verv]

I guess I need to be clear.

If you want to make the claim that Christians never oppressed LGBTQ people, support the claim with evidence. If not, then drop it since I am not going to bother discussing it.

How do I prove a negative?

You clearly have the burden of proof -- you say that repression by the Church occurred and provide no evidence.

If this is so obvious, prove it.

I do not think this is true. Can you verify this and show how it relates to the question of whether or not early Christians were influenced by their political context at the time?

It does not seem to contradict the claim that early Christians were partly swayed by their political context at the time.

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?

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.

[Verv]

I think Verv realizes that acknowledging it necessarily opens the door to a universally recognized Christian need to reconcile with the LGBTQ community, a project that would require more nuance than he's willing to give to the matter.

Which is fine if he can keep the peace. The goal I think is to cultivate tolerance out of the hermeneutic of reconciliation: the acknowledgement of the sin of homophobia, participation of same-sex couples in worship and the receiving of the Lord's sacrament, and the gradual introduction of special blessings for same-sex unions, all of which can and should become part of the evangelical culture of church life without changing matters of doctrine.

In a word, Verv can cut the macho, Evolian arch-trad act if he really wanted to and still be a good Christian (and I believe he already is one, all things considered).

What is hard work sometimes is tolerance and reconciliation.

So, just a few things on this...

I. Reconciliation isn't necessary. Nothing in the Orthodox Church's doctrine or canons has to change.

II. Homophobia... meaning what? It would be a sin to hate anybody. However, it is not a sin to believe that homosexuality is a sin (obviously).

Maybe it is the case that we have to oppose hate more clearly, but as someone who has been in Church much over the last years, I do hear it condemned. I also hear it condemned by conservative Christians that also piss off many on the left like James White.

III. Sacraments can only be shared with those who repent of their sins, not anyone who says that their sins are not sins.

IV. There can be no blessings for same-sex unions. People struglging with same-sex attraction can be blessed. But blessings for somoene unrepentant... to continue doing something that puts them in a state of sin... I do not think that has ever been acceptable.

V. Thanks for the good Christian comment. I try to repent. But I am not very good at anything.

I also wanted to tell you -- perhaps you already know about this -- there was a Bishop in Greece, w ho simply can't be found by internet searches because of the last decade of debates that simply refer to Bishops commenting on LGBTQ issues, that apaprently even created a ceremony for re-naming transgender Church members, and i fI remember right, the issue was actually somewhat left alone because it involved a debate about whether someone can be born in the wrong body.

I couldn't find anything... but I know that I have seen it and it's a real story.

I have a very conservative Orthodox friend who talked about how transgenderism is completely different from homosexuality and believes in the possibility that someone can fully transition and be Orthodox, but there is still the idea that one cannot contineu with same sex attraction....

This is kind of ruined because I really just couldn't find what I was looking for. Oh well. Have a good one, Donna!

[Pants-of-dog]

How do I prove a negative?

You clearly have the burden of proof -- you say that repression by the Church occurred and provide no evidence.

If this is so obvious, prove it.

It is actually possible to prove a negative. But I am not asking you to do that. I am asking you to provide evidence for a negative claim. Which is also possible.

You can also reword it as a positive claim: that Christian churches have always been neutral or supportive of LGBTQ rights.

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?

Slavery is the most obvious one.

In the years of the early church, you were literally allowed to rape slaves. Now you cannot even own them.

Divorce is another, as is the increased role of women in the clergy.

Abortion is yet another, as the current hate against it is quite recent.

Biblical literalism is another example of a nee stance on doctrine.

Usury. Charging interest only became religiously acceptable after the Renaissance.

Capital punishment.

Would you like me to continue?

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.

Provide evidence for these claims.

[Verv]

It is actually possible to prove a negative. But I am not asking you to do that. I am asking you to provide evidence for a negative claim. Which is also possible.

You can also reword it as a positive claim: that Christian churches have always been neutral or supportive of LGBTQ rights.

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.

Slavery is the most obvious one.

In the years of the early church, you were literally allowed to rape slaves. Now you cannot even own them.

Divorce is another, as is the increased role of women in the clergy.

Abortion is yet another, as the current hate against it is quite recent.

Biblical literalism is another example of a nee stance on doctrine.

Usury. Charging interest only became religiously acceptable after the Renaissance.

Capital punishment.

Would you like me to continue?

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?

Provide evidence for these claims.

Sure.

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.

CARM

For generations it was thought that the excellent texts of Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B) were the result of a late third- or early fourth-century recension in Alexandria. But the discovery of p75 (containing most of Luke and John), written in the late second or early third century, has debunked this notion. The text of p75 is exceptionally close to the corresponding text in the mid-fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, making two conclusions necessary.

First, we must suppose that these manuscripts had a very early, common ancestor and, second, that this line of transmission was executed with remarkable consistency. Gordon Fee argues that this tradition did not stem from an intentional attempt to standardize the text (a recension). Rather, echoing Hort’s judgment about Vaticanus from a century earlier, Fee claims, “These MSS seem to represent a ‘relatively pure’1 form of preservation of a ‘relatively pure’ line of descent from the original text.”2 There is now much to justify Westcott and Hort’s high opinion of what they called the “Neutral” text and to identify this text with a copying tradition that stretches back at least well into the second century.3 Today p75 is joined by an increasing number of early papyri in attesting this early, stricter line of copying.4

Crossway

[ingliz]

So he was referring to men who are neither feminine nor masculine and slander God's creation..?

John was condemning self-mutilation, eunuchs who chopped their own balls off; Basil, eunuchs in general.

but...

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.

why do you trust the accounts of Christ's words and teachings?

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.

cutting out something that is so problematic

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