Support NeoGAF

[Sye d'Burns]

Because the essay isn't necessarily correct. It's an opinion piece.

I'm kind of surprised that ones would accept a premise that Paul, who was a Roman who had a missionary campaign that covered all the pagan territories would not be familiar to some extent with homosexuality.

Now I can understand that Paul would not be able to deem homosexuality seperate from being gay. However, that is irrelevant since a gay person is not condemned in the Bible and Paul alludes to these ones becoming Christians. He goes on even more about how there is not a need to marry or have sex.

Paul does not see a problem with being gay and celibate or being straight & celibate. After all, he was.

It's a shame that this post on the first page was lost in the shuffle, because I thought it was insightful. It isn't the homosexuality that is being condemned; it's the fornication.

Love the sinner, hate the sin I suppose.

 

[Shanadeus]

.

 

[Raonak]

What a mess....

the bible seriously needs a reboot.

 

[neorej]

What a mess....

the bible seriously needs a reboot.

I'm still holding out for the rewrite by Dan Brown.

 

[JGS]

It fails in reaching the standards set by modern thinking, that hetero- and homo-sexual relationships are equal.

It can be assumed that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal when marriage s not involved. When marriage is involved, it isn't because there is no logical or spiritual reason for it to be. Interfaith marriages are frowned on too because they served no useful purpose. Love for love's sake isn't a good pragmatic reason.

It's silly to think that a book that champions relationships between men & women (Like all other civilizations up to the 21st century) is somehow out of the times back then in a world that largely didn't know the Scriptural stand and still didn't have gay marriage either. There was no reason to address gay marriage because no gay people were getting married period. If they were, it's likely it would have been addressed considering how much time is spent talking about marriage and/or singleness. It was a non-issue that people have decided to be mad about it not addressing.

A true blue gay marriage was not a cultural standard anywhere and barely is right now whether Christianity is present or not. In our very recent day and age, the reasons for marriage have simply expanded beyond original cultural intent to one of purely want which is OK- but it's also OK for a religion to not accept it.

I always have to add that this is all moot anyway since there are scores of Christian churches that accept gay couples and gay marriage (One of them is breaking church/state protocol by not marrying people until the law is changed). So gay couples who feel the need to be Christian can find a church that reconciles with their wishes. Further,, let's not forget the essay in the OP that clouds the subject further. If most people in the States are for gay marriage, then rest assured, this includes a lot of people claiming Christianity as their religion.

 

[Chaplain]

Paul, in te New Testament is simply describing something he sees, not passing on any message from jesus or god. It's a personal note. Not a commandement, or even a rule.

This is not accurate.

Paul wrote, "Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning. I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ." - Galatians 1:11-12

The Apostle Peter also wrote about Paul's writings:

"And remember, the Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction." - 2 Peter 3:15-16

 

[slidewinder]

Paul also believed that the second coming of Jesus was imminent, and so much so that he, Paul, would still be alive for it. That's if he wasn't just lying to further his ambitions, anyways.

And Peter, of course, never wrote anything whatsoever.

 

[JGS]

Paul also believed that the second coming of Jesus was imminent, and so much so that he, Paul, would still be alive for it. That's if he wasn't just lying to further his ambitions, anyways.

And Peter, of course, never wrote anything whatsoever.

Considering Paul died in prison and penniless, I'm not sure what kind of fame or fortune he would have expected going this route that he wouldn't have received as on his first career track of head of the Jewish Court.

In any event, all Christians, since they don't know the time or hour, are suppose to prepare for it. This wasn't a Paul teaching, it was a Jesus one. It served them well for when Jerusalem was finally destroyed.

Peter wrote the 2 letters from Peter.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Paul also believed that the second coming of Jesus was imminent, and so much so that he, Paul, would still be alive for it. That's if he wasn't just lying to further his ambitions, anyways.

And Peter, of course, never wrote anything whatsoever.

Yeah, I'm sure St. Paul was there thinking, "Gee, just imagine if I switched teams. I'd have it made. I'll bet those Christians would be rolling over and throwing me, a persecutor of Christians, all sorts of money and favors, hand over fist, if came up with a great story and I said I changed my mind."

Hogwash.

 

[slidewinder]

Oh, that bit about Paul lying is just conjecture, of course. It's infinitely more likely and realistic than the alternative in Christian dogma, but admittedly less so than that he was simply deluded. All of which should really be obvious.

And no, Peter never wrote anything, never mind rhetorically sophisticated Greek.

 

[JGS]

Oh, that bit about Paul lying is just conjecture, of course. It's infinitely more likely and realistic than the alternative in Christian dogma, but admittedly less so than that he was simply deluded. All of which should really be obvious.

And no, Peter never wrote anything, never mind rhetorically sophisticated Greek.

You may want to reveal your competent sources on either one of these conjectures.

There would be no reason outside of science fiction plot lines involving knowing the future to think that a more likely scenario than what's actually written would be a formerly prominent man downgrading to gain fame and fortune that he would have gotten in a shorter time frame.

Regarding Peter, we can keep this up until you provide a source as emphatic as your statement. Until then, Peter wrote 2 letters in the Bible.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Oh, that bit about Paul lying is just conjecture, of course. It's infinitely more likely and realistic than the alternative in Christian dogma, but admittedly less so than that he was simply deluded. All of which should really be obvious.

And no, Peter never wrote anything, never mind rhetorically sophisticated Greek.

Something else that should be really obvious: Lace enough of your posts with conjecture and people will begin to find difficulty in knowing when to take you seriously.

 

[slidewinder]

Something else that should be really obvious: Lace enough of your posts with conjecture and people will begin to find difficulty in knowing when to take you seriously.

But say far more ridiculous things, justifying them with an appeal to faith and complete and utter ignorance of the relevant history, and people are supposed to respect you and take you seriously.

 

[Chaplain]

Paul also believed that the second coming of Jesus was imminent, and so much so that he, Paul, would still be alive for it. That's if he wasn't just lying to further his ambitions, anyways.

Do you want to know one of the reasons all the Apostles believed this? The Apostle John gives the answer:

"And all who have this eager expectation will keep themselves pure, just as he is pure." 1 John 3

And Peter, of course, never wrote anything whatsoever.

This is always taught by those who do not believe the Bible is inspired.

 

[slidewinder]

How do you think the Christian Bible came to be, Game Analyst?

 

[Sye d'Burns]

But say far more ridiculous things, justifying them with an appeal to faith and complete and utter ignorance of the relevant history, and people are supposed to respect you and take you seriously.

Far more ridiculous than what you've said? That point is certainly open to debate, especially in light of what appears to be your complete and utter ignorance of the relevant history masked as conjecture. I do agree, however, that if you make enough outlandish and unfounded claims, it strains rationality to expect that people are supposed to respect you and take you seriously.

 

[Chaplain]

And no, Peter never wrote anything, never mind rhetorically sophisticated Greek.

This belief only came into being less than 65 years ago.

In the year A.D. 63 or 64, Peter wrote 1 Peter. As obvious as that may sound, in 1947, a school of thought developed that declared it would have been impossible for a fisherman like Peter to employ the complex sentence structure and sophisticated vocabulary found in the letter before us.

Yet 1947 was hardly the first year in which Peter’s credentials were called into question. Luke records that after hearing Peter speak, the learned men of the day (the priests, the captain of the Temple guard, and some of the Sadducees) wondered how he was able to speak with such clarity and authority—until they realized he had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13).