Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Imperial Joseon]

"Hey, Dogmeat. I'm using the NRSV translation."

See? It's not hard.

What translation do you use? Answer my question.

[The New California Republic]

"Hey, Dogmeat. I'm using the NRSV translation."

See? It's not hard.

What translation do you use? Answer my question.

Answer the question, instead of refusing to answer it and then hypocritically asking the exact same question to someone else in the expectation that they will answer it.

[Tarsonis]

"Hey, Dogmeat. I'm using the NRSV translation."

See? It's not hard.

What translation do you use? Answer my question.

I use the Nestle Atland 25. How about you?

[New Visayan Islands]

Well, since we're talking about Bible versions, I usually use NABRE.

[Tarsonis]

Alright I'll bight, but this is why I was asking you to clarify, because the question isnt quite straightforward in the modern context. It depends on what you mean by "homosexuality," which can have several connotations. Clarify what you mean by homosexuality and I can better answer the question.

Well, one of the biblical versions suggest it's sexual intercourse between two men, stated both in the Old Testament.

About time.

Alright, Time to Expand.

So the question of Homosexuality, depends largely on what were talking about.

The Bible is specific on the act of homosexual sex, in the Old Testament.

" 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13, NRSVCE

"22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22 NRSVCE



Now several key notes here:

1. This is only referring to the act of Homosexual sex.
2. Both are considered guilty.


Number 2 is important, because sexual ethics in the ancient world were quite different. In general, sex wasn't so much understood as male and female in a basic sense, but rather as "penetrater" vs "Penetratee". The woman, being penetrated was considered the submissive sex, while the man being the penetrator, was considered the dominant sex. Therefore if two men had sex, it was generally considered embarrassing to be the penetrated one, while the penetrator had no embarrassment, not really anyway. LGBT activists try to use this fact to argue that the prohibition is on "forcible" homosexual sex, and cannot rightfully be applied to modern committed homosexual couples, but Leviticus 20:13 bellies that argument, as it states that both are guilty both penetrated, and Penetrator.


Now this is further upheld in the NT

'9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. NRSVCE

"8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." 1 Timothy 1:8-10.

Now, it's a fair argument on whether or not "Sodomite" is a proper term to use here, as there are some conflicting views on what truly the sin of Sodom was. However traditionally, Sodomite has meant as a pejorative for homosexual. As such, other translations use "homosexual" or another term. This is an issue with translation however and not the actual scripture. In both verses the word translated is ἀρσενοκοίτης. It's a neologism that St. Paul pretty much creates, from the words "ἄρσεν" (the nominative form of ἄρρην) meaning male, and "κοίτη" meaning bed. Effectively the word literally translates as "manbedder" or in linguistical context, "A male who has sex with a male." And since koine greek is male normative, we can further extrapolate that this refers to a person who has sex with a person of the same sex, rather than just be limited to males, (Just like how "mankind" doesn't refer to just men, but men and woman alike.)


SO, both the OT and the NT condemn the act of homosexual sex as sinful. ( It should be noted however, that this isn't seen as a special sin or anything, but rather presented alongside adultery, fornication, bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. It's seen as a sexual sin, no better or worse than the others of the same ilk. ) However when we talk about homosexuality, things get a bit complicated. In the modern sense, homosexuality can mean a couple things. In the most banal, it means being attracted to the same sex. This, and I cannot stress this enough, This cannot rightfully be considered sinful. Sin necessarily requires free will and choice to commit. Same Sex attraction is an innate quality, not a choice. Thus one cannot be held accountable in that regard.

However Homosexuality can also be used as a term for what I'd call, "LGBT" culture, which seeks to promote, normalize, and equalize same sex relationships in both the secular and religious field. While it can be a bit dicey, this would be considered sinful albeit for different reasons than the above. While the individuals would be committing the sin of same sex acts, they're also committing the sin of heresy in promoting false doctrine.



It's a dicey subject, but ultimately those who are same sex attracted should be treated with nothing but compassion and grace, while encouraged to remain celibate.

[Lower Nubia]

A real shame that the Dissolution of the Monasteries destroyed or displaced these communities. Glad they've returned. Hopefully this community lasts as long, or longer, than the original.

Minor point of historical order...

The Dissolution of the Monasteries, capitalised, describes the suppression of monasteries in Tudor England (and Wales, and those part of Ireland under effective English Crown control) under Henry VIII.

The monastery described by The New California Republic is in Orkney, Scotland; the Dissolution of the Monasteries therefore isn't applicable. While broadly contemporaneous, the end of monasticism in Scotland was a different historical process. Scotland went through a Calvinist Presbyterian Reformation under the Stuarts, rather than the Anglican Settlement eventually reached under Henry VIII's daughter Elizabeth I. Perhaps counterintuitively, the end of Scottish Catholic monasticism was a far less revolutionary process than the English Dissolution of the Monasteries. Where in England the government actively suppressed monasteries, confiscating and redistributing most of their property (except where monastic churches were allowed to continue as local parish churches) and forcing the monastic brotherhoods to disband, in Scotland (where monasticism seems to have already been in decline) the government usually just allowed the monasteries to wither away without the need for direct Crown intervention - though some urban monastic houses were sacked by more active followers of Knox and his circle.

You are of course right, I was, foolishly, being anachronistic with the ‘ownership’ of Orkney.

[Hakons]

From the thread for everyone to make their complaints about the Catholic Church, errr, excuse me, the thread "discussing" the Church and her teaching on contraception:

Hence I argued that christianity is an abrahamist religion.

Are protestants removing books?



I've had pointed out that it's an intrinsic part of it, despite some christian sects have been in the past rejecting it on similar arguments as mine, despite I am not christian. Which I found to be interesting.

New Haven America earlier said that the OT doesnt applies to christians and generally doesn't matters. It seems to be a topic of contention.

OT doesn't apply to Christians. To acknowledge the OT as still being applicable completely rejects Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross as being valid, thereby denying His salvation. You can't deny the salvation of Christ and be a Christian. End of story.

Nothing to do with contraception lol, but still a useful topic. Something along the lines of this is frighteningly common among Christians, though it barely exists among their respective priests and pastors for good reason. Briefly, acknowledging the Old Testament of course doesn't reject the Crucifixion and Resurrection. The whole reason we have the Old Testament is because it's what led some Jews to believe a Messiah would come to them. The Apostles used the OT to understand who Jesus was and how His plan for the history and future of salvation will play out.

"End of story"? Let's go to the start of the story for a quick example.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We quickly see it's ridiculous to throw out the OT because that would be throwing the massive acknowledgment that God is the Creator of all that exists.

[Rentandy]

Good evening, lads.

[Neanderthaland]

Dogmeat's post was directed towards your claim that you possess a uniquely accurate Bible that Tarsonis does not. And nothing else.

You are dodging the question.

What bible do you have? Tell me. We can compare.

I have an NRSV Bible, a King James Bible, and a Koine Bible that I used to be able to read a little bit, before I forgot all my Greek.

Now stop dodging the question. What Bible are you using?

[Sundiata]

1. I would like to continue this conversation in earnest but I doubt this is the appropriate location to discuss nuanced theology. Ultimately, my basis for trying to do what's right in this life is God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit whom I love with my whole heart.

2. Let's carry this portion of our conversation elsewhere. Please.

1. Well then how do you know God didn't invent abortion and intend it to be used considering actually aborting a fetus nearly as difficult as it apparently should be.
2. No, this is how it's going to go: You either prove your argument correct with your chosen viewpoint (Religion) or you don't and prove to the rest of us that religion isn't a good reason to oppose abortion.

Your call.

To answer your first question, God did not invent abortion. We were endowed by God with freedom of will and the capacity for reason. If we did not have free-will, we wouldn't have the ability to make any choices whatsoever, good or evil. God gave us free will so we could choose good, and ultimately, freely choose to love him as he freely loves us.

[Dogmeat]

"Hey, Dogmeat. I'm using the NRSV translation."

See? It's not hard.

What translation do you use? Answer my question.

You never asked me. But since you did just now, NRSV.

See how easy that was? Now stop dodging. Everyone has answered the question but you. Are you embarrassed of your Bible? You're acting like it.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Something along the lines of this is frighteningly common among Christians,

Probably because it's true.

though it barely exists among their respective priests and pastors for good reason.

Catholic clergy, maybe. But I stopped trusting the Catholic Church as an authority on the Word of Christ when they started burning people alive for "heresy".

Briefly, acknowledging the Old Testament of course doesn't reject the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Can't reject something that happens after it was written so this is a moot point to make, especially considering I never said that.

The whole reason we have the Old Testament is because it's what led some Jews to believe a Messiah would come to them.

Not really relevant but okay.

The Apostles used the OT to understand who Jesus was and how His plan for the history and future of salvation will play out.

That doesn't mean they got it right. Apostles or not, they were men and men are fallible.

"End of story"? Let's go to the start of the story for a quick example.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We quickly see it's ridiculous to throw out the OT because that would be throwing the massive acknowledgment that God is the Creator of all that exists.

Except this is covered by the Ten Commandments, which do still apply. As well as anything that was originally in the OT that was then repeated in the NT. Every that wasn't, however, is not still applicable.

Unless you're trying to tell me we should still be sacrificing lambs in the name of God and abstaining from pork.

[Camelone]

Alright when you say that the Old Testament doesn't apply anymore what exactly do you mean? Do you mean the civic and temple laws only or are you also lumping in the moral laws as well, or what exactly do you mean? So that we do not end up talking past one another.

[Tarsonis]

Apparently the rapture is real. I just went to a gas station and there was nobody there. Everything was on, the door was open, just devoid of people.

[The New California Republic]

Apparently the rapture is real. I just went to a gas station and there was nobody there. Everything was on, the door was open, just devoid of people.

Heaven must be full of toilet rolls at the minute, as the Rapture seems to be affecting those the most...

[Neanderthaland]

Apparently the rapture is real. I just went to a gas station and there was nobody there. Everything was on, the door was open, just devoid of people.

Heaven must be full of toilet rolls at the minute, as the Rapture seems to be affecting those the most...

Let he who is without quilt cast the first roll.

[Tarsonis]

Heaven must be full of toilet rolls at the minute, as the Rapture seems to be affecting those the most...

Let he who is without quilt cast the first roll.

This. This is why I come here.

[Northern Davincia]

Catholic clergy, maybe. But I stopped trusting the Catholic Church as an authority on the Word of Christ when they started burning people alive for "heresy".

The charge was correct but the punishment was excessive. It is not a deciding factor on whether or not something is true.

[Luminesa]

I have just arrived! Hallo! I could not find the new Christian Thread!

I hope all of you are doing okay during this time of deep tribulation in our world. Please remember to follow the CDC's guidelines, but also do not forget your personal spiritual devotions in your own homes. We are in the desert with Jesus, and hopefully we will all come out singing praises to Him together.

While many of us are stuck indoors during these quarantines, I'm reminded that Constantinopolis used to take every Sunday to post a reading from the Gospels and a homily to go along with them. Well...for the great Orthodox feasts anyway. Would ya'll be okay if I posted a meditation of the Gospel for the next couple Sundays, while we're in our houses trying to figure ourselves out? You can always tell me whether or not you like them or not, I'm not a priest by any means, but I would like to keep everyone's spirits up!

Also, be sure to check your churches for online services, a lot of churches are doing online Masses and services! Catholics, remember that if you have EWTN, they have daily Masses every day at 11 AM Central Time.

[Tarsonis]

Something along the lines of this is frighteningly common among Christians,

Probably because it's true.

Except for the fact that it isn't. Case in point you even said in this post,

"Except this is covered by the Ten Commandments, which do still apply. As well as anything that was originally in the OT that was then repeated in the NT. Every that wasn't, however, is not still applicable.

Unless you're trying to tell me we should still be sacrificing lambs in the name of God and abstaining from pork."

So the OT does still apply, but not all of it? yeah.

See, the issue here is created when you make a blanket statement like "The OT doesn't apply to Christians" but really mean, "the ceremonial law doesn't apply to Christians." The OT is not just a book of rules, it's the entire prophetic history of Israel. As the inheritors of said nation, the OT very much applies to Christians and Christianity. The NT is practically meaningless with out the OT, and thus it cant be tossed out. Christians settled this issue 1700 years ago when dealing with the Marcion heresy. Granted he went full on bananas, but still the inclusion of the OT was a part of the issue.

though it barely exists among their respective priests and pastors for good reason.

Catholic clergy, maybe. But I stopped trusting the Catholic Church as an authority on the Word of Christ when they started burning people alive for "heresy".

You better throw out your bible whole sale then, because it was that same Church that codified what constituted the Bible in the first place. Further that's a bit of a cherry picked accusation. Every Christian denomination has blood on its hands over the preservation of doctrine. They've even fought wars over it.

Briefly, acknowledging the Old Testament of course doesn't reject the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Can't reject something that happens after it was written so this is a moot point to make, especially considering I never said that.

Oh, but you did. You said, " acknowledge the OT as still being applicable completely rejects Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross as being valid, thereby denying His salvation. You can't deny the salvation of Christ and be a Christian. End of story." This proposition is of course, let's say, misapplied. Arguing that Christians are still under the Law would be denying said death an resurrection. But pointing out that the OT is still applicable, would not be. As even you yourself pointed out that some parts of the OT are still binding.

The whole reason we have the Old Testament is because it's what led some Jews to believe a Messiah would come to them.

Not really relevant but okay.

But it is because you made it relevant by casting such a wide blanket as "The OT isn't applicable to Christians." To reiterate, the OT is the entire prophetic history of the nation of Israel. Without it, the NT has no context, and thus no meaning. You can't dismiss the OT and just hold on to the NT. They go together like rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong.

The Apostles used the OT to understand who Jesus was and how His plan for the history and future of salvation will play out.

That doesn't mean they got it right. Apostles or not, they were men and men are fallible.

Well this is the most limp wristed attempt. The word Apostle literally means "The Sent" They were the ones hand picked by God Himself to deliver the Gospel. If they got it wrong, or were even capable of getting wrong then we need to close up shop. Saying the Apostles might be wrong, would be like saying George Lucas doesn't understand Star Wars. That's not how this works.

"End of story"? Let's go to the start of the story for a quick example.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

We quickly see it's ridiculous to throw out the OT because that would be throwing the massive acknowledgment that God is the Creator of all that exists.

Except this is covered by the Ten Commandments, which do still apply.

No that was Covered in Genesis, a book in which the Ten Commandments do not appear.

As well as anything that was originally in the OT that was then repeated in the NT. Every that wasn't, however, is not still applicable.

Again, no that's not how that works. Some have been pointedly revoked a la Ephesians 2:15. Case in point:

Unless you're trying to tell me we should still be sacrificing lambs in the name of God and abstaining from pork.

However to say that the entire Collection of Laws, Prophecies, and Histories have no bearing on Christians, and by extension Christianity, is utter hogwash.







Anyway, I think the real issue here is the ambiguous words choices you're making. In a subject as complex as theology, you must be specific in regards to what you're talking about.

[Salus Maior]

Fun fact, if you google the Marcionites, the first image to pop up associated with them are Nazi German banners.

[Sundiata]

Ok, this is where I'll answer your thoughts, questions, and concerns regarding the Catholic church, faith, and Catholic social teaching to the best of my ability.

Full steam ahead!

[Amaabj]

Ok, this is where I'll answer your thoughts, questions, and concerns regarding the Catholic faith.

Full steam ahead!

Ok, Question 1, Why do Catholics think the pope, a human, can understand God Better than Ordinary Catolics, a Human.

My belief on that is God granted us each of us the ability to Read and that he gave us the Ability to Read and Learn his word.

[Sundiata]

Ok, this is where I'll answer your thoughts, questions, and concerns regarding the Catholic faith.

Full steam ahead!

Ok, Question 1, Why do Catholics think the pope, a human, can understand God Better than Ordinary Catolics, a Human.

My belief on that is God granted us each of us the ability to Read and that he gave us the Ability to Read and Learn his word.

You're absolutely right that the pope is a human.

Catholics don't believe that the pope can understand the Bible better than any of us by virtue of his title alone. In fact, any practicing Catholic male can become the pope. However, the pope certainly is special. This is due to apostolic succession, every bishopric, priesthood, deaconate, can be traced back to the 12 disciples starting with St. Peter who Jesus declared "The rock of the church."

We believe that as the rock of the church, St. Peter was declared the first pope by Christ himself. Therefore, every pope after that designation descends from St. Peter.

[Northern Davincia]

Ok, this is where I'll answer your thoughts, questions, and concerns regarding the Catholic faith.

Full steam ahead!

Ok, Question 1, Why do Catholics think the pope, a human, can understand God Better than Ordinary Catolics, a Human.

My belief on that is God granted us each of us the ability to Read and that he gave us the Ability to Read and Learn his word.

If you were correct, God would not have sent us apostles. Ordinary human understanding gets you folks like Joseph Smith.