Originally posted by Scribble
The whole idea of the NT is just not to be a dick to people and not to judge people, so from the NT onwards slavery and homophobia generally seem like no-nos. There are still some vague references that could be interpreted as to homosexuality not being a good thing, but Jesus himself never mentioned it.
"Slaves, obey your masters," is in Ephesians, which is in the New Testament, and "Those who practice [homosexuality] are worthy of death and shall receive the due penalty" is in Romans, also in the New Testament.
Originally posted by Scribble
Who said these things?
We do not know. Thirteen of the Epistles are attributed to Paul, but at least six of them are disputed. Four are considered pseudepigraphic, and opinions are even more divided about the other two.
But all of this is irrelevant, because Paul supposedly received the Epistles directly from God through divine revelation. So the "Jesus did not say it" loophole does not actually work unless you do not believe that Jesus and God are one.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEOr you know, that the NT isn't the direct word of God and as such is fallible. After Jesus' death, God took a passive role and became non-interventionist, so the story of Jesus was told by his followers. It's not hard to believe that some of them used it as a chance to further their own agendas. The anti-gay stuff is very un-Christ like, and anything NT that doesn't fit with the Christ's overall message of not being a dick is fine to cast suspicion upon.
We do not know. Thirteen of the Epistles are attributed to Paul, but at least six of them are disputed. Four are considered pseudepigraphic, and opinions are even more divided about the other two.But all of this is irrelevant, because Paul supposedly received the Epistles directly from God through divine revelation. So the "Jesus did not say it" loophole does not actually work unless you do not believe that Jesus and God are one.
Judging God by human standards is rather silly imo, considering he created the concepts we judge him by. Whilst I disagree with the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' stuff (due to not believing in an interventionist god), I do see God as a multifaceted entity, and Jesus represents his all-loving side. If Jesus is God, then God must be all-loving. And yet he did reprehensible things, if the literature we have is what we must judge him by. To sum it up as a Facebook relationship status: it's complicated. But so is everything. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be any fun.
Originally posted by ScribbleYou know I think we believe in the same god. hmm
Judging God by human standards is rather silly imo, considering he created the concepts we judge him by. Whilst I disagree with the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' stuff (due to not believing in an interventionist god), I do see God as a multifaceted entity, and Jesus represents his all-loving side. If Jesus is God, then God must be all-loving. And yet he did reprehensible things, if the literature we have is what we must judge him by. To sum it up as a Facebook relationship status: it's complicated. But so is everything. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be any fun.
Originally posted by Its2016
Why is it people point to the antihomosexuality part of the Bible? You do realise Aids spreads rapidly among homosexuals. I think the guy who wrote that seemed to know something we dont.
If your god were interested in stopping diseases, why single out gay people and fail to provide any reason for it beyond inspiring blind hatred? How about telling people about germ theory and genetics, and a host of other things that could've literally saved tens of billions of lives throughout history?
Originally posted by The Ellimistbecause science wasnt invented back then. Archimedes tried science, Gallileo tried science. People werent ready. They did however not like getting ****ed in the ass and getting STDs. Makes sense to discourage it.
If your god were interested in stopping diseases, why single out gay people and fail to provide any reason for it beyond inspiring blind hatred? How about telling people about germ theory and genetics, and a host of other things that could've literally saved tens of billions of lives throughout history?
Originally posted by Scribble
Judging God by human standards is rather silly imo, considering he created the concepts we judge him by. Whilst I disagree with the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' stuff (due to not believing in an interventionist god), I do see God as a multifaceted entity, and Jesus represents his all-loving side. If Jesus is God, then God must be all-loving. And yet he did reprehensible things, if the literature we have is what we must judge him by. To sum it up as a Facebook relationship status: it's complicated. But so is everything. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be any fun.
It's this simple: you practice what you preach, period. To me there is no "his cosmic powers give a special pass".
Practice what you preach. If you tell people it's wrong to kill? Yeah, you kinda don't kill. You simply can't set down a standard of morals and then act like an utter and complete monster with the excuse being "I'm complex". That isn't complexity, that's just a psychopath who is also bi polar.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We do not know. Thirteen of the Epistles are attributed to Paul, but at least six of them are disputed. Four are considered pseudepigraphic, and opinions are even more divided about the other two.But all of this is irrelevant, because Paul supposedly received the Epistles directly from God through divine revelation. So the "Jesus did not say it" loophole does not actually work unless you do not believe that Jesus and God are one.
Here is another question: although I'm shaky on the specific details, Moses was supposed to have been all about freeing people from slavery, right? With God apparently on his side. Yet the bible seems to also be pro slavery. So was this just about the specific treatment of slaves and not the idea of slavery itself?