The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Do you know how the Bible came to say gay sex is a sin?

The relevant chapter of the Bible, Leviticus, was composed by scholars in ancient Jerusalem. Its prejudice against LGBT+ individuals was simply down to the biases of ancient rabbis.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that I was in the presence of a biblical scholar. Here I ( and apparently almost the entirety of every practicing Christian and Jew over the last 3,000 years ) was thinking the divine instructions found in Leviticus ( which it is made clear throughout the entire book and in exodus ) were, in fact divine.

Thank goodness that a 16 year old atheist on the internet with a minecraft flag came along and corrected all that :^).

FTFY, as it was my 16th birthday a week ago

EDIT: Also, to back this up, biblical-era Judaism was a typical Iron Age cult based around sacrificing animals to a jealous sky god and everything. Scripture-based Judaism didn't begin until centuries after the Bible says Moses received the Torah.

[Republic of the Cristo]

FTFY, as it was my 16th birthday a week ago

Oops, my bad

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

FTFY, as it was my 16th birthday a week ago

Oops, my bad

Can't blame you for that

[Hakons]

It's a sin.

In a more contextual framework - priests are asked to abstain from sin. Activity and proudly participating in sin would kind of be antithetical to the spirit and point of the job.

Do you know how the Bible came to say gay sex is a sin?

The relevant chapter of the Bible, Leviticus, was composed by scholars in ancient Jerusalem. Its prejudice against LGBT+ individuals was simply down to the biases of ancient rabbis.

It is true that homosexual actions are first outlined as sinful in Leviticus, but that doesn't invalidate the moral law. Incest and adultery are first condemned here, and those are clearly sinful as well. The Apostles were clearly adiment on Christians avoiding sexual immorality. It's not "just" Leviticus that condemns sexual immorality, but nearly every incidence in the New Testament when sins are listed so that we may avoid them. The previous 2,000 years of Church tradition is also more than enough to overturn any notion that sexual immorality is not sinful. All Christians are called to chastity, whereas sex is performed in the marital bed and nowhere else.

[Lower Nubia]

Like I said - just another temptation. All priests having to forgo temptations.

And WTF is wrong about it? (through the "gay uncle effect" it actually benefited human reproduction)

What? because it aids reproduction it's acceptable? Sexual exploitation, child marriage (gotta' breed em' while their young!) and rape, all aid in sexual reproduction - they're all wrong.

Not to mention the gay uncle hypothesis is extraordinary nonsense. Specifically lacking any experimental support and defying the current understanding of how ancient people viewed their sexual orientation: where they still married and had their own children. One of the main problems with presuming the latent continuation of homosexual genes through the heterosexual's families offspring is that the gay uncle, had his own children, just because the 21st century disconnects this idea, doesn't mean it was disconnected for far older population. Which would suggest normal inheritance rather than some contrived instance of natural and sexual selection.

I was thinking about normal inheritance and the origin of homosexuality and for future generation a simple test will illuminate much of the matter:

As normal inheritance is the case, we should start seeing a decline in the number of homosexuals as a percentage of the population, as homosexual couples become a greater percentage of the overall couples, the inability to pass the gene through offspring should produce a 'homosexual bottleneck' where they become more insignificant as a percentage of the population as the centuries go on before plateauing off as an exceedingly low percentage of the total population. Even if the genes which increase affinity for homosexuality are germline mutations, it would be quite an obvious set of markers for detection and no doubt a paper exists, studying the effect in twins, on the matter and outlining the genes responsible, though I've never heard anyone bring up the actual genes, or even name them, before. If it's a unit of inheritance there shouldn't be a significant number of homosexuals in future centuries, but if there is and if it is a mutation, we should be able to identify it. Either way, 1) there will be a mutant origin in each homosexual person, explaining the population stability or 2) there won't be any meaningful number of homosexuals in the future because the gene won't be passed on to future generations. Of course 3) if neither of these things occur, but the homosexual population remains steady (similar or raised levels than today) I think that would be conclusive proof that homosexuality has a greater pathological and choice factor than is currently let on.

[United Muscovite Nations]

"Deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" means that they can't stop having homosexual attraction.

Why shouldn't celibate homosexuals be allowed to enter the seminary? Lust towards one's own sex is just another temptation - one which, though perhaps more targeted around a smaller group of people, is no worse than the lust you or I experience.

I fully agree. I'm simply explaining the position of the Catholic Church.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

And WTF is wrong about it? (through the "gay uncle effect" it actually benefited human reproduction)

What? because it aids reproduction it's acceptable? Sexual exploitation, child marriage (gotta' breed em' while their young!) and rape, all aid in sexual reproduction - they're all wrong.

Not to mention the gay uncle hypothesis is extraordinary nonsense. Specifically lacking any experimental support and defying the current understanding of how ancient people viewed their sexual orientation: where they still married and had their own children. One of the main problems with presuming the latent continuation of homosexual genes through the heterosexual's families offspring is that the gay uncle, had his own children, just because the 21st century disconnects this idea, doesn't mean it was disconnected for far older population. Which would suggest normal inheritance rather than some contrived instance of natural and sexual selection.

I was thinking about normal inheritance and the origin of homosexuality and for future generation a simple test will illuminate much of the matter:

As normal inheritance is the case, we should start seeing a decline in the number of homosexuals as a percentage of the population, as homosexual couples become a greater percentage of the overall couples, the inability to pass the gene through offspring should produce a 'homosexual bottleneck' where they become more insignificant as a percentage of the population as the centuries go on before plateauing off as an exceedingly low percentage of the total population. Even if the genes which increase affinity for homosexuality are germline mutations, it would be quite an obvious set of markers for detection and no doubt a paper exists, studying the effect in twins, on the matter and outlining the genes responsible, though I've never heard anyone bring up the actual genes, or even name them, before. If it's a unit of inheritance there shouldn't be a significant number of homosexuals in future centuries, but if there is and if it is a mutation, we should be able to identify it. Either way, 1) there will be a mutant origin in each homosexual person, explaining the population stability or 2) there won't be any meaningful number of homosexuals in the future because the gene won't be passed on to future generations. Of course 3) if neither of these things occur, but the homosexual population remains steady (similar or raised levels than today) I think that would be conclusive proof that homosexuality has a greater pathological and choice factor than is currently let on.

1. I'm saying that homosexuality in the long run aids reproduction to explain why it exists through natural selection.
2. I'm talking about ancient ancient people, e.g. 100,000s of years ago (evolution is a slow process, FYI). Marriages began as property agreements less than 10,000 years ago.
3. Read this. Also, relatives of LGBT+ individuals are more likely to be LGBT+, supporting the theory that homosexuality is genetic.
4. Technologies such as genetic engineering will make natural evolution obsolete within decades.

[Tarsonis]

What? because it aids reproduction it's acceptable? Sexual exploitation, child marriage (gotta' breed em' while their young!) and rape, all aid in sexual reproduction - they're all wrong.

Not to mention the gay uncle hypothesis is extraordinary nonsense. Specifically lacking any experimental support and defying the current understanding of how ancient people viewed their sexual orientation: where they still married and had their own children. One of the main problems with presuming the latent continuation of homosexual genes through the heterosexual's families offspring is that the gay uncle, had his own children, just because the 21st century disconnects this idea, doesn't mean it was disconnected for far older population. Which would suggest normal inheritance rather than some contrived instance of natural and sexual selection.

I was thinking about normal inheritance and the origin of homosexuality and for future generation a simple test will illuminate much of the matter:

As normal inheritance is the case, we should start seeing a decline in the number of homosexuals as a percentage of the population, as homosexual couples become a greater percentage of the overall couples, the inability to pass the gene through offspring should produce a 'homosexual bottleneck' where they become more insignificant as a percentage of the population as the centuries go on before plateauing off as an exceedingly low percentage of the total population. Even if the genes which increase affinity for homosexuality are germline mutations, it would be quite an obvious set of markers for detection and no doubt a paper exists, studying the effect in twins, on the matter and outlining the genes responsible, though I've never heard anyone bring up the actual genes, or even name them, before. If it's a unit of inheritance there shouldn't be a significant number of homosexuals in future centuries, but if there is and if it is a mutation, we should be able to identify it. Either way, 1) there will be a mutant origin in each homosexual person, explaining the population stability or 2) there won't be any meaningful number of homosexuals in the future because the gene won't be passed on to future generations. Of course 3) if neither of these things occur, but the homosexual population remains steady (similar or raised levels than today) I think that would be conclusive proof that homosexuality has a greater pathological and choice factor than is currently let on.

1. I'm saying that homosexuality in the long run aids reproduction to explain why it exists through natural selection.

Natural selection isn’t the end all and be all of explanations, nor is it a perfect system.

2. I'm talking about ancient ancient people, e.g. 100,000s of years ago (evolution is a slow process, FYI). Marriages began as property agreements less than 10,000 years ago.

One, you’re comparing biological evolution with anthropological and cultural development. They’re not remotely the same.

Two, you’re referring to economic marriages, which is arguably much younger than that. Family structures however are as old as humanity itself. There are variances sure, but couple based family structure has always existed.
3.

Read this. Also, relatives of LGBT+ individuals are more likely to be LGBT+, supporting the theory that homosexuality is genetic.

Not quite. Genetics are a factor, yes, but not a root cause. The cause of homosexuality is a complex integration between genetics, social and physical developments. It’s not nature or nurture, it’s both.
For example: twins where one is gay and the other isn’t.

4. Technologies such as genetic engineering will make natural evolution obsolete within decades.

Only if genetic engineering is embraced as an ethical practice.

[Povolzhye Khaganate]

Hello, Christian Discussion Thread regulars. Peace be with you.

See, I used to have a hobby interest in secular costume history in my spare time, and so I am generally familiar with the names of the secular clothing throughout history, and their terminologies. But, I was wondering: what are each of the vestments—and parts thereof—of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' are called, and who do the two pectoral icons he wears depict? I have poor eyesight, so I cannot see clearly. Also, this is not homework help—this is for a creative project of my own, and in my spare time; I have not studied theology for a long time—but I would like a model to generally work off, so I can better draw, if not describe—as an accompaniment to the former. See, the Orthodox vestments—with their emphasis on beauty, rather than humility—fascinate me, in their intricacy and elaborateness, as well as the ceremony associated with them.

Thank you for your time.

[Diopolis]

Hello, Christian Discussion Thread regulars. Peace be with you.

See, I used to have a hobby interest in secular costume history in my spare time, and so I am generally familiar with the names of the secular clothing throughout history, and their terminologies. But, I was wondering: what are each of the vestments—and parts thereof—of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' are called, and who do the two pectoral icons he wears depict? I have poor eyesight, so I cannot see clearly. Also, this is not homework help—this is for a creative project of my own, and in my spare time; I have not studied theology for a long time—but I would like a model to generally work off, so I can better draw, if not describe—as an accompaniment to the former. See, the Orthodox vestments—with their emphasis on beauty, rather than humility—fascinate me, in their intricacy and elaborateness, as well as the ceremony associated with them.

Thank you for your time.

UMN had a series on vestments a while back, didn't he?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Hello, Christian Discussion Thread regulars. Peace be with you.

See, I used to have a hobby interest in secular costume history in my spare time, and so I am generally familiar with the names of the secular clothing throughout history, and their terminologies. But, I was wondering: what are each of the vestments—and parts thereof—of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' are called, and who do the two pectoral icons he wears depict? I have poor eyesight, so I cannot see clearly. Also, this is not homework help—this is for a creative project of my own, and in my spare time; I have not studied theology for a long time—but I would like a model to generally work off, so I can better draw, if not describe—as an accompaniment to the former. See, the Orthodox vestments—with their emphasis on beauty, rather than humility—fascinate me, in their intricacy and elaborateness, as well as the ceremony associated with them.

Thank you for your time.

UMN had a series on vestments a while back, didn't he?

I did, but I'm really not sure which vestments he's referring to? If it's liturgical vestments, they are the same as those of Orthodox bishops, and can be found pretty easily with a google search. If the clerical clothing of the Patriarch of Moscow, that's a little harder to find the names for, but it's fewer stuff and so easier to name. The hat the Patriarch of Moscow wears is the only one that would present a problem and it is a stylized form of the koukoulion, which is a monastic hat worn by schemamonks (those who have achieved the highest level of Monasticism). The robe he wears is just a Russian cassock, composed of two parts; the podryasnik and the ryasa, the inner-and-outer cassocks, respectively. The icons he wears are, IIRC, one of Christ (Pat. Kirill's favorite is usually one of the "Made without hands" icon, which can be seen in pictures) and the Theotokos with the Child Jesus.

For what he wears in the liturgy, that can be found just by looking up what Eastern episcopal vestments.

[Povolzhye Khaganate]

UMN had a series on vestments a while back, didn't he?

I did, but I'm really not sure which vestments he's referring to? If it's liturgical vestments, they are the same as those of Orthodox bishops, and can be found pretty easily with a google search. If the clerical clothing of the Patriarch of Moscow, that's a little harder to find the names for, but it's fewer stuff and so easier to name. The hat the Patriarch of Moscow wears is the only one that would present a problem and it is a stylized form of the koukoulion, which is a monastic hat worn by schemamonks (those who have achieved the highest level of Monasticism). The robe he wears is just a Russian cassock, composed of two parts; the podryasnik and the ryasa, the inner-and-outer cassocks, respectively. The icons he wears are, IIRC, one of Christ (Pat. Kirill's favorite is usually one of the "Made without hands" icon, which can be seen in pictures) and the Theotokos with the Child Jesus.

For what he wears in the liturgy, that can be found just by looking up what Eastern episcopal vestments.

Thank you so much, UMN and Dio, for the quick response! Much appreciated.

Now, to get down to my doodles...

[Tarsonis]

This is the quietest I’ve ever seen this thread in summer

[Guelder]

This is the quietest I’ve ever seen this thread in summer

I know right

[Auze]

This is the quietest I’ve ever seen this thread in summer

I know right

I wonder, did you ever get baptized? We talked on why you can't baptized yourself, so I'm curious.

[Guelder]

I know right

I wonder, did you ever get baptized? We talked on why you can't baptized yourself, so I'm curious.

No i am still not baptized, but i think i am going to let me baptize into the Protestant Church since the Mormon temple is in Zoetermeer and i live on the other side of the Netherlands, thus too far from it. But i saw this video about baptizing yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQz0tLatooA&t=708s This let me into questioning myself since i can't find anywhere in the bible about baptizing yourself.

[Auze]

I wonder, did you ever get baptized? We talked on why you can't baptized yourself, so I'm curious.

No i am still not baptized, but i think i am going to let me baptize into the Protestant Church since the Mormon temple is in Zoetermeer and i live on the other side of the Netherlands, thus too far from it. But i saw this video about baptizing yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQz0tLatooA&t=708s This let me into questioning myself since i can't find anywhere in the bible about baptizing yourself.

Where do you live, exactly?
Here is a map where you can find Meetinghouses.

[Guelder]

No i am still not baptized, but i think i am going to let me baptize into the Protestant Church since the Mormon temple is in Zoetermeer and i live on the other side of the Netherlands, thus too far from it. But i saw this video about baptizing yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQz0tLatooA&t=708s This let me into questioning myself since i can't find anywhere in the bible about baptizing yourself.

Where do you live, exactly?
Here is a map where you can find Meetinghouses.

Eastern Netherlands, in the province of Gelderland

[Auze]

Where do you live, exactly?
Here is a map where you can find Meetinghouses.

Eastern Netherlands, in the province of Gelderland

Are you within driving distance of any of the meetinghouses here?

[Guelder]

Eastern Netherlands, in the province of Gelderland

Are you within driving distance of any of the meetinghouses here?

Sadly no, i have only a bycicle

[Negarakita]

Are you within driving distance of any of the meetinghouses here?

Sadly no, i have only a bycicle

Bus?

[Hakons]

Are you within driving distance of any of the meetinghouses here?

Sadly no, i have only a bycicle

How far it is to travel should not determine what religion you join. Join the Church that God calls you to, the Church that spreads and maintains the message of Christ.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend being baptized into Mormonism, since they haven't maintained the Gospel. I would stick to your course and get baptized at the Protestant Church. There you will be baptized and filled with the spirit of the one triune God, something the Mormons forsake.

[Tarsonis]

Sadly no, i have only a bycicle

How far it is to travel should not determine what religion you join. Join the Church that God calls you to, the Church that spreads and maintains the message of Christ.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend being baptized into Mormonism, since they haven't maintained the Gospel. I would stick to your course and get baptized at the Protestant Church. There you will be baptized and filled with the spirit of the one triune God, something the Mormons forsake.

That being said, I wouldn’t recommend being baptized into Protestantism, since they haven’t maintained the Gospel. I would change gears sand get baptized into the Catholic Church. There you will be educated, baptized and confirmed into the one true Church, something the Protestants forsake.

[The Archregimancy]

How far it is to travel should not determine what religion you join. Join the Church that God calls you to, the Church that spreads and maintains the message of Christ.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend being baptized into Mormonism, since they haven't maintained the Gospel. I would stick to your course and get baptized at the Protestant Church. There you will be baptized and filled with the spirit of the one triune God, something the Mormons forsake.

That being said, I wouldn’t recommend being baptized into Protestantism, since they haven’t maintained the Gospel. I would change gears sand get baptized into the Catholic Church. There you will be educated, baptized and confirmed into the one true Church, something the Protestants forsake.

That being said, I wouldn’t recommend being baptized into Protestantism, since they haven’t maintained the Gospel, or Catholicism, since they're schismatics. I would change gears sand get baptized into the Orthodox Church. There you will be educated, baptized, and confirmed into the one true Church, something the Protestants and Roman Catholics forsake.

<waits for a stray Copt to add to the chain>

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Are there even any Copts active in NSG?