Thread: Gay Marriage and Political Correctness Gone Mad

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Originally Posted by jshhmr

Originally Posted by dman1200

Originally Posted by jshhmr

Originally Posted by miguelina

The majority of Americans agree with her.

Yeah, and it's just sad that still, after thousands of years, humans STILL feel the need to hate and discriminate against one of God's creations. Homosexuality exists in nature. You can't change someone from being gay. Look at Ted Haggard. There is a guy so far in the closet it's not even funny. I might not like what gays do, but what right do I have to tell someone else what to do? God gave us freewill, yet we try to impose our own sense of what morality is on other people, especially when our own morality needs to be questioned.

Read the bible and you'll see how God feels about homosexuality. Personally I'm getting sick and tired of having that crap shoved in my face 24/7 by the gay mafia. I for one am not going to hate on somebody for being gay, but I sure as hell don't want their lifestyle rammed down my throat either.

That Perez Hilton is a low class scum of the earth. I have no respect for that vile piece of trash. Anybody who degrades people like he did her for disagreeing with his political agenda is outright evil IMO.

It's pretty pathetic that they want us to tolerate their point of view, but they don't want to tolerate those who disagree with it. Those who claim we are intolerant are the ones that are the most intolerant jerks around.

I do not believe in the Bible as truth, because it was written by man, and not God. The bible is a teaching tool. To think that God, creator of our vast multi-verse, has a beef against his own creation is against what God taught me. He is unconditional love, which includes Gays. To think that God has a brain like a human being, that has a capacity to judge and bring death and destruction to "non-believers" is against what God taught me.

Homosexuality isn't being rammed down our throats no more than black people were being rammed down our throats at a time when they were discriminated against by the same people that call themselves Christian.
That is not the way of God, or even the bible for that matter. We can't pick and choose what parts of the bible to abide by, just like the laws of our country. You either love your neighbor, or you don't. Judge not, lest ye be judged, but not if you are judging gays? God KNOWS what is in your heart, no matter what a person may proclaim to be.

I'm not looking for an argument, nor do I want to offend anybody. I just think that there needs to be other points of view from the subject, ESPECIALLY when religion is used to discriminate. It's an oxymoron in itself.

Who was the man who wrote the bible?

The bible was the work not of a single person, but rather of a community trying to give written form and substance to what it believed. If that's the case, the question of authorship in the usual sense evaporates.

The Pentateuch or Torah was accepted as Law very early--according to tradition, since the time of Moses, around 1250 BC, give or take a few decades. Most documentary scholars say bits and pieces were accepted as Law from early times, but that the books did not take final form until around 400 BC. Most traditionalist scholars say the whole Law dates to Moses, but agree that Ezra did some "editing" or clarification of minor discrepancies that had arisen, thus would also agree (roughly) on the date for final form. Whenever it was finalized--or possibly even before it was finalized--the Torah was accepted as canonical. For Judaism, it is the foundation.

The Old Testament books were all generally accepted as sacred by Jews from the time of their writing, but for a long time there was no formal determination of which books were essential (canonical), which were simply pious (though still sacred), and which were not sacred or divinely inspired at all.

In 70 AD, as a result of continuing tension between the Jews and their Roman overlords, Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed along with the Temple. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a turning point in Jewish history. It remade Judaism. Where before Jewish life revolved around the Temple, sacrifice, and the priests, it now became more fragmented, centering on local communities and prayer, led by rabbis. Fragmentation meant that there was no longer any central authority to which Jewish leaders could refer.

Around the time that Jerusalem was under siege, Rabbi Johannon ben Zakkai asked and received permission from the Romans to withdraw from Jerusalem and establish a place for Jewish study in a town near Jaffa that in Greek was called Jamnia (Jabneh in English, Yavneh in Hebrew--the current town of Yebna in Israel is built on the ruins). After Jerusalem fell, the academy became the center of Jewish learning. Scholars came there both to escape the destruction of Jerusalem and to debate how Judaism was to survive the loss of centrality. Naturally, a major point of discussion was what parts of Jewish literature were to be considered the word of God.

The Torah was accepted as the writings of Moses, and hence the basis of Jewish life. For the other books, the issue was primarily whether each agreed with Jewish law and history as found in the Torah. Each book had to be meticulously read and dissected and any anomalies resolved before it could be accepted as having the authority of Scripture. For some books, like Joshua, Judges, Kings, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, the discussion was brief. For other books, like Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, the discussion was lengthy.

One inevitable result of such critical investigation of existing material was the establishment of an officially recognized text, even if there weren't one before.

Finally, around 90 AD, after much debate, 39 books were declared to comprise the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the "Old Testament." To Jews, of course, it's just the Bible. In one of the greatest successes of Jewish tradition, the list of canonical books has remained constant to this day. There are three large sections: Law (Torah or Pentateuch), Prophets (books telling the history of Israel, both histories and prophetic works) and Writings (psalms, proverbs, and wisdom literature).

The first part of the Christian Bible is called the Old Testament, and is largely the Hebrew Bible. However, knowledge of Hebrew was rare among the early Gentile Christians. Rather than attempt to create their own version of the Hebrew canon, they seem to have adopted what is called the Septuagint translation--a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible plus some other books, dating from around 250 BC. The Septuagint apparently was the Greek version most commonly available (it was the basis for the earliest Latin translations as well). Manuscripts of the Septuagint include texts in Greek for which no Hebrew versions exist. These are now called the Apocrypha.

Origen was one of the very few early Christian scholars capable of working with Hebrew texts. He recognized that there were minor differences between the Septuagint text familiar to Christians and the Hebrew text used by Jews. He created the Hexapla, a massive "parallel columns" document comparing the Septuagint, other Greek translations, and the Hebrew versions.

Jerome, when he came to work on his translation (known as the Vulgate or "common tongue" translation), denied that any text other than the Hebrew canon was an authoritative basis for the Old Testament. But his view did not prevail.

The road to canonization of the New Testament was quite a bit rockier and quite the reverse of the Old. What ended in orthodoxy actually had its roots in heresy. While the Jews examined books to see if they were consistent with the main religious text (the Torah), the early Christians engaged in a more fundamental argument about what constituted Christianity and especially about the nature of Christ. Judaism was a centuries-old ancient religion with clear traditions. Christianity was new, had no tradition, and was torn with disagreement about what it was and what it should be.

The chief competitor to what would become mainstream Christianity was Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that one did not need the intermediary of the church to experience God; that one could and should experience him firsthand if one knew the "secret tradition." One can easily see how this would threaten the orthodox church.

But the Gnostics did give one important idea to the church. A second century Gnostic named Marcion gave us the first list of books he felt appropriate for a New Testament. It was very short, including only an edited Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's letters. Marcion was also extremely anti-semitic and thought that Christianity should be completely divorced from Judaism, going so far as to say that Jesus was not born of Jewish parents but sprang full-grown from the mind of God.

None of Marcion's writings survived, having been expunged by the orthodox church. The only record we have of his activities are the church's attacks on him. But in setting out a canon he had planted an important seed. A literary fragment known as the Muratorian canon (named after Lodovico Muratori, who first recognized its importance) gave a list of possibly four Gospels and a major part of the rest of the New Testament. Other early Christian writers compiled other lists. Eventually church councils were held to determine a single set of books.

The first officially sanctioned canon of the New Testament was attempted by Irenaeus of Lyon. Irenaeus saw the effect Gnosticism was having on Christianity and feared that the church was splintering into factions. Formalizing doctrinal authority seemed to be the answer. He felt there were two sources of authority: Scripture and the apostles. A work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers used it. He never really compiled a list of books, but he did establish the basis for subsequent determinations of orthodoxy.

The work of Irenaeus was solidified by Bishop Eusebius some 150 years later, early in the 4th century AD. Eusebius was a prolific church historian who gave us most of what we know of early church history. He also gave us the first surviving list of New Testament books that matches what we have today, putting them in thematic order as well. Relying on the tradition of the church, Eusebius created what was probably the first Christian Bible as we know it today.

In 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria under Constantine the Great, set forth what proved to be the final canon of New Testament books in a letter listing 27 works. In 382 AD, at a synod held at Rome under Pope Damasus, church leaders influenced by Jerome adopted this list. The list was affirmed in councils at Hippo in 393 and 419 AD under Augustine and was officially ratified at a council in Rome around 473 AD. However, that council added no books that had not already been included in most earlier lists, and excluded no books that had not already been excluded by most lists.

The Greek Orthodox Church did not finalize its canon until the tenth century (primarily in doubt was inclusion of the book of Revelation). The Syrian Church had an even more complicated debate, and today recognizes only 22 books in its New Testament (excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The Copts and Ethiopians have a few additional books included in their New Testament.

AND FINALLY THE PROTESTANT BIBLE

At the time of the Reformation, one of the main struggles between reformers and conservatives centered on the question of authority. To the reformers, the authority that had for centuries been held by the Church more properly rested with the Bible.

Early Christians regarded several Jewish religious books as the Word of God even though they had been denied a place in the Jewish canon--Maccabees, for example. The early Christian church accepted these books as Scripture, ignoring the pronouncements from Jamnia as irrelevant. Since they were Old Testament books (pre-dating Jesus), part of the Christian canon but not part of the Jewish canon, the Edicts of Trent in 1546 called them the Second or Deutero canon.

When Martin Luther reviewed Scripture during his break from Catholicism, he judged the contents of the Bible in the light of his convictions. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel--specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation. As the Cambridge History of the Bible puts it, "The test was whether a book proclaimed Christ. 'That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic, though it be the work of Peter or Paul; and conversely, that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod.'" Thus the differences between the Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox bibles.

Some English Protestants--specifically, the Presbyterians and Puritans--took matters a step further and rejected the Apocrypha. Article VI of the Anglican "Articles of Religion" says of the Apocrypha that "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, says the Apocrypha shall be "of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than any other human writings."

Consequently, Protestant bibles in English are most often printed without the Apocrypha. As a result, most Protestants in the U.S. are unfamiliar with the Apocrypha and consider it part of the Catholic Bible.

It should be noted that there are other canons as well. The Mormon Church, for instance, has additional books in its canon and believes that the canon is NOT closed, but remains open.

So as you can see, the bible wasn't written by a man, it was was written by several. The bible that is used today is only a representation of sparring religious factions, believing that the other is ungodly, and changing and interpreting these words to make people think that God wrote it. All written in a way to scare people into filling church pews so they can give their money to the religious industrial complex, all the while God is right there trying to show you who He really is, and how we are one with Him, not separate.

Human Beings and their issues .... Distraction from the borders and immigration is so easy they think.

jshhmr You could say that people just believe what they want to and until God shows us his true power we will always have to battle over what we believe, Personally I do know that the Bible has changed so many times over the course of history to suit the needs of these people in control its crazy! But if you think about it PC is out of control and so are the bible thumpers! I choose to believe in God and what I feel is right but organized religion for me is just a control device for people that need to feel a purpose in their life, on the other hand the venom that comes form non believers and the pride from those who think that they are better than God is just as bad! Its a never ending enigma that most always ends in tragedy.

dman1200.

My thoughts EXACTLY. And for those who say gayness is NOT being rammed down our throats is mistaken. PC is everywhere .....

Originally Posted by 93camaro

jshhmr You could say that people just believe what they want to and until God shows us his true power we will always have to battle over what we believe, Personally I do know that the Bible has changed so many times over the course of history to suit the needs of these people in control its crazy! But if you think about it PC is out of control and so are the bible thumpers! I choose to believe in God and what I feel is right but organized religion for me is just a control device for people that need to feel a purpose in their life, on the other hand the venom that comes form non believers and the pride from those who think that they are better than God is just as bad! Its a never ending enigma that most always ends in tragedy.

I agree with that. Your relation to God is personal. I just don't think it's fair to impose law based on religious beliefs. With that, I am done ranting. God bless

Originally Posted by jshhmr

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Who was the man who wrote the bible?

The bible was the work not of a single person, but rather of a community trying to give written form and substance to what it believed.

Which ancient source records this?

I don't think that any ancient source suggests that all the books of the bible were written by one person.

The road to canonization of the New Testament was quite a bit rockier and quite the reverse of the Old. What ended in orthodoxy actually had its roots in heresy.

The chief competitor to what would become mainstream Christianity was Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that one did not need the intermediary of the church to experience God; that one could and should experience him firsthand if one knew the "secret tradition."

This is not a good picture of gnosticism, and seems highly anachronistic.

But the Gnostics did give one important idea to the church. A second century Gnostic named Marcion gave us the first list of books he felt appropriate for a New Testament. It was very short, including only an edited Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's letters.

There is no trace of a canon drawn up by Marcion in any ancient text. Rather there is an existing collection of books, from which Marcion selected, and of which he edited some. This is shown, inter alia, because he idolised Paul, but rejected Acts; yet only from Acts could he have known who Paul was.

Marcion was not a typical gnostic, by the way.

None of Marcion's writings survived, having been expunged by the orthodox church.

Which ancient source records that the "orthodox church" "expunged" his writings?

The only record we have of his activities are the church's attacks on him. But in setting out a canon he had planted an important seed. A literary fragment known as the Muratorian canon (named after Lodovico Muratori, who first recognized its importance) gave a list of possibly four Gospels and a major part of the rest of the New Testament. Other early Christian writers compiled other lists. Eventually church councils were held to determine a single set of books.

This is not what the historical record says. The apostles who founded the churches, and their associates, composed various texts, often incidentally. After they departed these naturally assumed a scriptural importance to the new communities.

During the second century, outside groups then attempted to forge various texts in order to insinuate their own teachings. The effort was bound to fail, since the presence of those teachings would reveal their authorship. During this period, people like Polycarp, the disciple of John the apostle, were around and so in a position to say just who was pulling the wool. Marcion indeed attempted to introduce himself to Polycarp, when the latter was in Rome in 150-ish AD; and was snubbed as "first born of Satan" by the old man.

Because of these attempts at deception, the church evolved creeds, rather than canons. They relied on the teaching transmitted at churches that were founded by the apostles and had a clear personal link to them. (This is explained at some length in Tertullian, de praescriptione haereticorum 8, with reasons why this is the only possible strategy).

They also from time to time drew up lists of authorised books. These always included the texts known to all; 4 gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, 1 John. But the church was still an illegal organisation, and it was impossible to organise any world-wide council. So texts that were only known in a limited geographical area remained suspect elsewhere. After 313, gradually every text with any real claim to apostolic authorship became accepted everywhere. But there was never any one time at which this happened; since, of course, no-one but an apostle could ever have the necessary authority. Rather councils contented themselves with issuing lists of books when they found that fakes were circulating. Augustine tells us of finding old gnostic gospels for sale in the bookstalls on the wharves of Carthage, and so the council of Carthage in 394 issues just such a list. The Decretum Gelasianum of the 6th century makes an effort to list the fakes as well -- which makes it a long list!

The first officially sanctioned canon of the New Testament was attempted by Irenaeus of Lyon.

Irenaeus did not compose a canon. He was a pupil of Polycarp, and simply reflects the teaching of the latter.

Irenaeus saw the effect Gnosticism was having on Christianity and feared that the church was splintering into factions. Formalizing doctrinal authority seemed to be the answer. He felt there were two sources of authority: Scripture and the apostles. A work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers used it. He never really compiled a list of books, but he did establish the basis for subsequent determinations of orthodoxy.

None of this is what Irenaeus wrote.

The work of Irenaeus was solidified by Bishop Eusebius some 150 years later, early in the 4th century AD.

One senses that the author only knows of Irenaeus and Eusebius, among the church fathers. Eusebius did no such thing. He does discuss the canon in use in his day, in his church history, book 3; the text is online and well worth reading, as an anti-dote to all this fiction.

Eusebius was a prolific church historian who gave us most of what we know of early church history. He also gave us the first surviving list of New Testament books that matches what we have today, putting them in thematic order as well. Relying on the tradition of the church, Eusebius created what was probably the first Christian Bible as we know it today.

All of these statements are misleading or untrue.

In 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria under Constantine the Great...

Constantine died in 337-ish, tho...

Athanasius... set forth what proved to be the final canon of New Testament books in a letter listing 27 works.

He issues a list in one of his festal letters. As usual, this means only that fakes were being circulated. The Manichaeans were trying it, this time.

In 382 AD, at a synod held at Rome under Pope Damasus, church leaders influenced by Jerome adopted this list.

No ancient source records any of this, and the synod of Damasus has left no such record.

The list was affirmed in councils at Hippo in 393 and 419 AD under Augustine

Certainly the local council of Carthage issues *a* list.

The Greek Orthodox Church did not finalize its canon until the tenth century (primarily in doubt was inclusion of the book of Revelation). The Syrian Church had an even more complicated debate, and today recognizes only 22 books in its New Testament (excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The Copts and Ethiopians have a few additional books included in their New Testament.

If we're going to be silly, we might suggest that since RCC's and Protestants differ about whether the OT apocrypha are scriptural or not, then the canon is not settled even today. This, of course, is being silly.

So as you can see, the bible wasn't written by a man, it was was written by several.

No-one suggested that it was written by one man, tho; that the books were written by a number of men, humanly speaking, was where we started.

And... nothing in what was written above establishes that, if we didn't know it already.

What we have, I think, is a fraud here. The first half of this post consists of a very long collection of half-truths about the origin of the canon.

The second part consists of ranting that the bible is not the word of God.

The logical connection between these two is unstated, insinuated, and non-existent.

The bible that is used today is only a representation of sparring religious factions, believing that the other is ungodly, and changing and interpreting these words to make people think that God wrote it.

No evidence for this absurd position has been offered, and it is in fact untrue.

All written in a way to scare people into filling church pews so they can give their money to the religious industrial complex,

Knees jerking freely, it seems.

Since someone knows how each author of each book of the bible composed it, and his motivation for his way of writing, perhaps you would share with us the ancient sources for your information on this? <hint>

...all the while God is right there trying to show you who He really is, and how we are one with Him, not separate.

I don't know this god of yours might be, other than a rather 60's-sounding bit of self-indulgence, but if you can prove he exists then we might discuss him. Not otherwise.

And let me guess... your 'god' isn't against fornication. <grin>

All the best,

Roger Pearse