Were Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad really homophobics?

[Kulindahr]

fixed that up a bit.

Nice of you to add material irrelevant to the point.

 

[Disturbance]

That's what you want to believe.

We all believe what we want to believe.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The only way to get a different meaning from those texts is to make it up.

As an expert on christianity, you ought to know that the scholarship around biblical prohibitions against "homosexuality" is anything but settled. The unequivocal assertion that the texts mean one thing, and one thing only, is your take on the issue. Happily, there are others in the field with better credentials who are countering this pernicious nonsense.

 

[Disturbance]

Also, I will consider taking the bible seriously when we can get our hands on the uncensored version and all the parts the Catholic Church Inc. decided NOT to include.

They quite possibly destroyed everything they didn't like and now they try to shove their twisted, arbitrarily pieced together version of "How to live for dummies" book down our throat... Well done.

 

[Kulindahr]

We all believe what we want to believe.

Not true. I know many people who would like to believe it's possible to go faster than light, but they don't believe it because the evidence says it isn't possible.

Now if you want to define what people do believe as being what they want to believe, you're actually not saying anything at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

As an expert on christianity, you ought to know that the scholarship around biblical prohibitions against "homosexuality" is anything but settled. The unequivocal assertion that the texts mean one thing, and one thing only, is your take on the issue. Happily, there are others in the field with better credentials who are countering this pernicious nonsense.

Countering what "pernicious nonsense"?

Anyone reading more than a condemnation of actions into the words of the text in question aren't experts, they're wishful dreamers imposing their feelings on the objective words. There's no possible way at all to get anything out of Leviticus except a condemnation of actions -- "homosexuality" isn't even a concept that society had in the first place, so there's no way it can be in those words.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, I will consider taking the bible seriously when we can get our hands on the uncensored version and all the parts the Catholic Church Inc. decided NOT to include.

They quite possibly destroyed everything they didn't like and now they try to shove their twisted, arbitrarily pieced together version of "How to live for dummies" book down our throat... Well done.

There was no "Catholic Church Inc." when the canon was established. No authorities decided on a version and forced it on anyone, for that matter. That wasn't attempted until the Council of Trent presumed to change what had always been held.

 

[bankside]

Not true. I know many people who would like to believe it's possible to go faster than light, but they don't believe it because the evidence says it isn't possible.

More to the point, when someone says "I can go faster than light!" those same people would say "Show me the math!" followed just as quickly by "or, show me the error in my math."

And when the person claiming to have gone faster than light says "Oh, you're just taking your math out of context" or "once again you repeat the errors of your math" without actually endeavouring to explain either their math or the error alluded to in the math of others, their credibility erodes at a speed up to, but not exceeding, the speed of light.

 

[Kulindahr]

More to the point, when someone says "I can go faster than light!" those same people would say "Show me the math!" followed just as quickly by "or, show me the error in my math."

And when the person claiming to have gone faster than light says "Oh, you're just taking your math out of context" or "once again you repeat the errors of your math" without actually endeavouring to explain either their math or the error alluded to in the math of others, their credibility erodes at a speed up to, but not exceeding, the speed of light.

Exactly.

So far, no one has ever made an argument that the words mean more than the condemnation of particular actions -- they just claim they do. They have no math to show.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Countering what "pernicious nonsense"?

Anyone reading more than a condemnation of actions into the words of the text in question aren't experts, they're wishful dreamers imposing their feelings on the objective words. There's no possible way at all to get anything out of Leviticus except a condemnation of actions -- "homosexuality" isn't even a concept that society had in the first place, so there's no way it can be in those words.

I find myself wondering who actually is the wishful dreamer here...the Christian scholar whose organizing principle is love? Or the Exile building edifices against homecoming? All of us are plagued by perverse instincts luring us away from the sacred truth, and love is at the center of it.

Anyway, that said, I'm curious about the Biblical notion of "actions" which you are referencing. Can you show your math, regarding that word vis a vis sexuality?

Is it an "action" to fantasize?
Is it an "action" to look directly upon the naked flesh of another?
Is it an "action" to have a passing sexual feeling while patting someone on the shoulder?
Is it an "action" to love someone?
Is it an "action" to love someone in response to their nearby presence?

Is it an "action" to masturbate about the same sex?
Does the prohibition begin with physical contact?
Does the prohibition begin with fucking?

So on and so forth.

 

[bankside]

I think they would have the lesson be that "action" is living one's life without shame.

 

[Disturbance]

There was no "Catholic Church Inc." when the canon was established. No authorities decided on a version and forced it on anyone, for that matter. That wasn't attempted until the Council of Trent presumed to change what had always been held.

The point is not that there were or were not a C.C. Inc., but the fact that they decided to hide the truth. I'm pretty sure it was either because it was embarassing, or because it would have been obvious for more intelligent people that it's all bullcrap.

Whichever the case, they committed a sin that they didn't take responsibility for. They should practice what they preach and shut up. They don't have the moral high-ground, they never had.

 

[Disturbance]

Not true. I know many people who would like to believe it's possible to go faster than light, but they don't believe it because the evidence says it isn't possible.

Now if you want to define what people do believe as being what they want to believe, you're actually not saying anything at all.

I once again took things to an extreeme, allow me to elaborate.

The whole point of faith is to comfort us, this is why we believe the most comfortable lies.

We choose beliefs that can't be proven wrong, and sound good. Obviously, the example about light speed travel is extreeme, as there are reasonable arguments against it being possible/true.

But there is no proof that gods don't exist, thus you can have the comforting belief of a higher power that cares for you.
It is either true or it isn't. We can't prove either way.

But if you look at the options you have, you'll always choose to believe in what you want to believe. You believe in hell, because it comforts you that your enemies get there when they die. You believe in heaven, because you are afraid of death, and it is much more relaxing to think about eternal happiness than the scary unknown.

The problem starts when belief becomes more important than reality, when someone clings to the comforting beliefs of an idea, spitting the truth in the face. That is what's happening now.

Homosexuality is one example. We have very good arguments that support homosexuality as an equal and natural form of human sexuality, but the catholic belief system is very comfortable. This comfort is threatened by our "sin", but there is no real arguments that support homoseuality being a sin other than your big book of cookies and dark magick. Basically some catholics believe that gayness is a sin because the big book of the holy and transcendent whatever tells them so. They choose belief over reason, but faith is an acceptable alternative, only when there are no reasonable paths to take. Basically they believe what they WANT to believe, because they want to believe that they will get to heaven and they believe that the way to that state of bliss is to follow the intructions of the recipe to the letter.

Beliefs are all about comfort and fear. And the Catholic Church Inc. managed to control the population through fear (fear of hell and eternal damnation) for 2 thousand years.

 

[TX-Beau]

Said it before and I'll say it again, it's utterly irrelevant what Christ said. We don't know what he said actually, he didn't write anything to begin with.

But even if he did, the religious would think what they want to think and say he said it anyway., Case in point, this thread.

Kuli says you simply can't get homophobia from Christ if you just "understand" the language and context (all of which he's guessing about just like all the other "experts" since NONE of them lived then,) century upon century of Christianity impeaches him - obviously you CAN get homophobia from Christ if you just put in a little effort.

He says they're wrong, they say he's wrong, Bob over there is saying something else entirely different while Suzy sits reading her bible wondering at the lack of understanding of all men.


The only practicable way to deal with religions is current practice - what are they DOING!?!

And yes, the great majority of Christianity is very homophobic. If they are in error - you'll have to talk to them.

 

[Benvolio]

The concept of homosexuality as a phenomenon did not exist until quite recently; a hundred years or so. Homosexual acts were regarded as something which some people did, but it was not recognized that it resulted from a difference in the people who did it. For that reason, it would have been an anachronism for Jesus to have been homophobic as being against homosexuals. We can ask how he would have viewed same sex acts or the people who did them, but he said nothing specifically against the acts.

 

[TX-Beau]

No the concept of "GAY" is a modern definition - homosexuality is documented in just about every culture for which we have documents. The Greco-Roman world was permissive of certain kinds of homosexual acts and relationships, but was also quite a homophobic place as well. Especially in Rome, where being known to be homosexual was just as much of a career killed as it was in the US of forty years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd have to ask about ancient Jews - but I suspect they were quite homophobic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Anyway, that said, I'm curious about the Biblical notion of "actions" which you are referencing. Can you show your math, regarding that word vis a vis sexuality?

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination," (Lev. 18:22, NASB).

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them," (Lev. 20:13, NASB).

It talks about actions -- nothing else.

 

[Kulindahr]

The point is not that there were or were not a C.C. Inc., but the fact that they decided to hide the truth. I'm pretty sure it was either because it was embarassing, or because it would have been obvious for more intelligent people that it's all bullcrap.

Whichever the case, they committed a sin that they didn't take responsibility for. They should practice what they preach and shut up. They don't have the moral high-ground, they never had.

No one decided to hide anything. The books that didn't make it were rejected pretty much universally, because they didn't measure up.

That you can call the process of all Christian congregations vetting the available writings and pretty much unanimously arriving at the same list "sin" indicates you're totally out of your depth here. You're actually doing the very same thing here that the so-called "Intelligent Design" people -- simple-minded fundamentalists -- do: insisting that because you think something belongs in a category that it must. The writings that were rejected have no more place in the New Testament collections than the views of Lamarck or Morris have in science.

 

[zoltanspawn]

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination," (Lev. 18:22, NASB).

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them," (Lev. 20:13, NASB).

It talks about actions -- nothing else.

I don't find that very clear. It's not apparent that actions are intended specifically as opposed to orientation, or whatever anything "else" might refer to. Qualified scholars have suggested other interpretations. Some have suggested the prohibition is significant only as identifying Hebrew culture...others that the prohibition was done away with via JC...others that the passage merely seeks to include same-sex relationships under the same principles of virtue that apply to different-sex relationships...others that the intention is not to distinguish same-sex love, but same-sex abuse.

What a shame.

 

[Kulindahr]

The concept of homosexuality as a phenomenon did not exist until quite recently; a hundred years or so. Homosexual acts were regarded as something which some people did, but it was not recognized that it resulted from a difference in the people who did it. For that reason, it would have been an anachronism for Jesus to have been homophobic as being against homosexuals. We can ask how he would have viewed same sex acts or the people who did them, but he said nothing specifically against the acts.

Exactly. The concept of homosexuality would almost certainly have been laughed at -- everyone "knew" males were attracted to females, period. Roman and Greek culture had more of a clue, but first-century Jews . . . no.