Homosexuality, baseball's biggest taboo

[MWM]

There's also a mountain of evidence in the other direction, tr. I don't know if this holds true for you or not, but my experience has been that most believers have no interest in hearing about such evidence, but they soak up the evidence you speak of. If you believe in the divinity of the Bible, you do so on faith. Why is that such a bad thing? All religious beliefs are based on faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but believers undermine that faith when they try to point to "evidence" as to why they choose to believe. It's faith, plain and simple.

[M2]

Originally posted by traderumor
Which speaks to a basic moral law that is written on all of our hearts that is put there by the Creator. Plus, as we see with Cain's killing of Able, he did not have the 10 commandments to tell him killing was wrong. What was his source, as the first children born to the first couple? There are only a few options. And I don't recall Cain debating with God about not knowing it was wrong to kill his brother. He just didn't like the consequences.

That's certainly a fair take on it. My issue was with Paul's seeming assertion that the Bible was the cause to the effect of knowing that killing is a bad thing. Perhaps he was driving at the same thing you are here, but it didn't read that way to me.

Of course your take on it does raise a theological question. If there are natural laws that predate and exist outside of the Bible, then can we state with surety that the Bible is the perfect statement of those laws?

For instance, we know the Old Testament is a collection of stories passed down through the oral tradition over the course of generations. Some of it we know is historically inaccurate. The entire world did not flood and some guy named Noah did not restart humanity and the animal kingdom with what he preserved on his boat. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a guy named Noah who had a boat and took an important voyage, but the provided specifics of that voyage don't past any sort of sniff test.

So the telephone game of the oral tradition clearly embellished some of the content in the book. It doesn't mean that you toss out the baby with the bathwater, but at some point you have to acknowledge that flawed creatures using a flawed method of passing down information would create a text with some flaws.

And we know that the New Testament was created by assimilating various second, third and fourth-hand texts. None of the documents used was the actual work of the Apostles who are credited with their authorship. They are scribed copies. The Catholic Church still owns the source documents. We also know that conflicting documents (the Gnostics for instance) were left out in the editing process. On top of that, we know that the concept of the Trinty didn't emerge until almost 400 years after the birth of Christ.

Beyond that, there parts of both texts that clearly involve the culture of the time when they were written and that no sane or devout person today would argue reflects proper or right-minded morality.

And, once you get past all of that, more people disagree about what the Bible says than agree on it. For instance, you and I have radically different interpretations of the book. Catholics and Protestants don't even agree on the fundamental cosmology of the Christian universe. Clearly it does not say one thing, to be taken only one way.

This doesn't even touch upon ironies such as the most famous version of the English Bible being named after a British king who was most likely a homosexual. And if God was micromanaging the holy text to such a fine degree and considered homosexuality such a grievous sin, then surely that would have been something He/She would have avoided.

I mean, imagine the confusion created by the ambiguity of the Carson Kressley Bible if such as thing were passed down to future generations.

What I'm driving at is that it certainly seems like some of our imperfections rubbed off on the Bible. If it's only our best attempt to capture the overarching moral law of the Divine, then I think it's fair to assert that we should strive to do better, to get closer to that natural law, especially when the topic at hand encompasses tolerance, civility, compassion and love.

[RedsBaron]

Originally posted by M2


And we know that the New Testament was created by assimilating various second, thrid and fourth-hand texts. None of the documents used to create was the actual work of the Apostles who are created with their authorship. They are scribed copies. The Catholic Church still owns the source documents. We also know that conflicting documents (the Gnostics for instance) were left out in the editing process. On top of that, we know that the concept of the Trinty didn't emerge until almost 400 years after the birth of Christ.

M2 had so many statements setting forth his opinions that he presumed were established facts which "we all know" that I hardly know where to begin. I finally decided to begin with the above paragraph.
The four gospels were written between sometime between the 50s A.D. and the 90s A.D. Matthew is credited with being the author of the gospel which bears his name; he was an apostle. Mark, the writer of the second gospel, was not an apostle, but was a friend of both Peter and Paul. Luke, the writer of the third gospel, traveled with Paul on many of Paul's missionary journeys. John, the writer of the fourth gospel, was part of Jesus's inner circle of disciples.
The trinity is depicted in the account of Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist. In Matthew 3:16-17 we are told that as Jesus went out of the River Jordan the Spirit of God descended upon him as a voice from Heaven proclaimed Jesus to be God's beloved Son.
Paul wrote that all Scripture is inspired by God, 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul also wrote that the Holy Spirit gives guidance in the interpretation of Scripture, 1 Corinthians 2:10-13.
In the end though, the debate over the Bible is probably pointless, at least here. Someone who regards the Bible as being just a flawed, man-made text will not be convinced otherwise by my posts. So I shall post no more on this topic.

[Redsland]

Killer post, M2.

[M2]

"Matthew is credited with being the author of the gospel which bears his name"

IIRC, the Catholic Church, which owns the source texts, has never officially claimed that to be the case. No such claims are made on the books of Mark, Luke and John. Those are scribed copies and I believe most of the source texts for the gospels fall well past the 50-90 A.D. timeframe you mention. In some cases the source texts for the New Testment came 300 years after the birth of Christ. This also touches upon another matter, that there aren't single sources for the gospels. What they are is compilations of documents created over the course of more than a century by four different branches of Christianity, each one of which considered itself to be in possession of THE gospel. In fact, it wasn't until 185 A.D. when the Bishop Irenaeus, in what could best be described as a peacemaking venture, issued a proclamation that established the authority of the four gospels, that Christians began to accept those as the chief texts of the religion and to refer to them as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

You can say the Trinity is depicted all over the place, but it didn't become doctrine until the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Prior to that, the equality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was an area of contentious debate. Actually it was even after that. Many of the barbarians who opposed Rome over the next century were Arian heretics, who didn't accept the Trinity. Though "emerge" was a poor choice of words on my part, it's really more a matter when it became established by the Athanasian Creed.

There are extensive records on how the Bible was compiled and how the religion came into being thanks to the compulsive record-keeping of the Catholic Church (something it inherited from the Romans after Constantine converted the Empire). It was a lengthy and convoluted process and to claim that the gospels were taken from the pristine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John simply isn't true. In fact, it's completely false. At best the gospels are a later written record of the sermons that originated with those men.

[paulrichjr]

M2

I am not sure how you read into my statement that because of the bible "only" do we know that killing is wrong. I stated that it is just one reason but laws and morals are also reasons. That was in my original post. Maybe I worded it wrong. Without teaching morals... which many do come from religion but not all...we would have a scary world to live in.

Again I am not sure how you read this into what I said but you did so I am sorry for the confusion.

To everyone else...

I realize that homosexuality is an issue that many people have strong opinions on and I am not going to be able to persuade them differently. That is OK with me. Personally even if I weren't a Christian I don't think I would believe in homosexuality because of the - well just plain weirdness of it. I go back to what I have already said before... just look at a female and look at a male body.... do you see a plan to this or not? If you can't see an amazing God in just this let alone not even counting the moon, earth, oxygen, leaves, eyes, heart .................... I could go on a long time. I can't believe how delicate this world is and all the cool stuff that works and someone can still say "I don't believe in a creator."

Am I right on all my beliefs? No. I know this. That is why I discuss things and well also pray. I don't codemn the homosexual or even you for believing that it is OK. I truly believe that it is not God's will for a man to have a sexual relationship with another man or a woman to have a sexual relationship with another woman. I am not going to say that all homosexuals are doomed to hell. I truly don't believe that this sin is any bigger than lying. I believe that both are equally wrong. My son lies to me fairly often it seems, but I don't hate him. If my son were to come home and say that he was engaging in homosexual activities, I would not hate him then either. I would pray that he would change because I can assure you that it would be by choice not passed down from me or my wifes genes.

Now to be honest I am starting to miss the discussions on the Reds. I hope that all of us can agree on one thing. Go REDS!

[Johnny Footstool]

Did you see the link I mentioned above?

If you mean the link to johnankerberg.org, yes, I have visited it. It focused on homosexuality, not the origins of the bible.

If you believe in the divinity of the Bible, you do so on faith. Why is that such a bad thing? All religious beliefs are based on faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but believers undermine that faith when they try to point to "evidence" as to why they choose to believe. It's faith, plain and simple.

MWM's quote pretty much sums up my opinion about attempts to prove or disprove faith using science. IMO, they simply don't mix, and attempts to blend the two make both weaker. Darwin can't disprove the existence of God any more than the Bible can prove that Darwin was wrong.

[Redsland]

Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
Darwin can't disprove the existence of God any more than the Bible can prove that Darwin was wrong.

Yep. Only Kansas school boards have that kind of power.

[traderumor]

For instance, we know the Old Testament is a collection of stories passed down through the oral tradition over the course of generations. Some of it we know is historically inaccurate. The entire world did not flood and some guy named Noah did not restart humanity and the animal kingdom with what he preserved on his boat. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a guy named Noah who had a boat and took an important voyage, but the provided specifics of that voyage don't past any sort of sniff test.

No, we don't know that the Bible is based on oral tradition. That is liberal scholarship that sprung from "The Enlightenment" that some accept as the way it is, but we don't know that. I disagree on that point. Supposed historical inaccuracies have been supported by archaeological evidence. There is an ample body of evidence to support that claim, again that any interested party could find volumes upon volumes to examine.

And we know that the New Testament was created by assimilating various second, thrid and fourth-hand texts. None of the documents used to create was the actual work of the Apostles who are created with their authorship. They are scribed copies. The Catholic Church still owns the source documents. We also know that conflicting documents (the Gnostics for instance) were left out in the editing process. On top of that, we know that the concept of the Trinty didn't emerge until almost 400 years after the birth of Christ.

That entire paragraph is contrary to church history. Not the RCC version of church history, but the orthodox version of church history.

[Johnny Footstool]

Yep. Only Kansas school boards have that kind of power.

Thanks for mentioning that shining example of enlightenment in my home state.

Between that and Topeka's own Reverend Fred Phelps, we've forged a great little niche for ourselves.

[Far East]

A simple search engine would reveal hundreds of links that provide evidence that the Scriptures are divine rather than human in origin

Here are just 3 quotes and their links which indicate otherwise:

"The assigning of the authorship to the gospels was likely a matter of guesswork and the desire of later church officials to impart the gospels with apostolic authority." Found in -- http://www.mystae.com/restricted/ref...testament.html

"Greenberg spells out 101 theories about certain Bible stories, and then shows what their Egyptian antecedents may have been." Found in --
http://www.religion1.com/101_Myths_o...570718423.html

"The writing of the Gospels has thus not come about from an inquiry into the historical Jesus but rather as a result of the Gospel writers creating a legend that fits in with their communities view of the personality and nature of Jesus."
Found in --
http://www.religion1.com/Gospel_Fict...879755725.html

[Red Heeler]

Originally posted by traderumor
No, we don't know that the Bible is based on oral tradition. That is liberal scholarship that sprung from "The Enlightenment" that some accept as the way it is, but we don't know that. I disagree on that point. Supposed historical inaccuracies have been supported by archaeological evidence. There is an ample body of evidence to support that claim, again that any interested party could find volumes upon volumes to examine.

I don't care to dispute whether or not Noah existed, nor whether or not he may have survived a big flood by building a boat. However, surely you aren't arguing that the Noah story in the Bible is a historically accurate account. From the Bible itself, we have the measurements of the ark. We also know that a pair of all of the land dwelling animals in the world would not fit on a ship that size (not thousands of ships that size).

[M2]

tr,

A) The RCC owns the documents, kept the records and did the work to produce what we now call the New Testament in the first place. Those who weren't there and for whom it's expedient to reinvent the history can claim otherwise, but the Catholics were there, they wrote down everything did and they've preserved it. It's kind of like arguing the U.S.A. went straight from revolution to Constitution. It's a nice romantic notion, but the record of events states otherwise.

And there's very good reason why the RCC kept those records and makes them widely accessible in the first place. It's the belief that religion has to built on a foundation of truth, that you can't pretend everything came together in this nice, neat package from day one just to make the faith convenient. In short, the strength of faith should be able to withstand the light of truth and reason.

B) There is no evidence that since the advent of land-based lifeforms that the entire planet has been covered by a flood. This goes past the dawn of humanity, past the dawn of mammalian dominance and past the dawn of the dinosaurs. There is also zero evidence to suggest that the animal kingdom had ever been whittled down to single ur-pairs located on a single spot of the globe at any point during the time period in which something that looked generally like a human walked the globe. That isn't liberal scholarship, that's a simple statement of facts. There is no viable evidence to the contrary and the archaelogical record on these points is overwhelming.

I have no problem with people having a strong belief in the moral primacy of the Bible. What bugs me is when people want to ignore documented history and established science in an untenable stand for literalism. Nowhere in that good book will you read passages exhorting the virtues of self-deception.

[44Magnum]

"Unfortunately, the notion of being gay and of upstanding moral character is still an oxymoron to many in our society."

That is the most ignorant comment I have ever seen on any forum. You can't be upstanding morally if you are a sinner. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

[savafan]

Topic: Homosexuality, baseball's biggest taboo


Homosexuality is no where near the Bible's biggest taboo!