Dammit Max I have work to do... I was not trying to make any special sort of significance out of the gospel of Thomas as opposed to any other gospel; in fact, it's kind of an arbitrary example meant to show an aspect of "finding god" via an individual endeavor as opposed to a statement regarding gnosticism. I'll refrain from any further commentary with respect to Thomas because I was reading about it in detail (Pagels' book) but got sidetracked and have forgotten much of what I read and would not feel comfortable responding atm without the research to reinforce my opinion. Anyhow yes, what was and was not considered canonical in the early stages of the church certainly makes my statement "believe in the bible" crude, but the point is similar. I'd argue it's actually more insidious honestly, in that what church leaders were really arguing was "believe in the church". The gnostics refused any sort of limitations on finding the "secret" knowledge of Jesus' teaching, looking and discussing on their own, outside the church, and even in the literature of other religions etc. So I don't think you're disagreeing with me here, Max. Your just making sure that I'm honest in stating that the bible was not really "the bible" at that point. Which, I suppose further reinforces my other argument about biblical accuracy, but...well...I think I've said enough on that.
i will not be satisfied until you've responded in full with 20 citatitions to scholars and authorities...and spent at least 5 hours in preparation. good luck. :grin:
I don't have a dog in this fight, it doesn't make much of a difference to me if the Bible does or doesn't actually say homosexuality is a sin, but I find this a very interesting discussion. Anyone who's studied more than one language will realize just how important metaphor is to one language that might have a different meaning to another language so even literal translation can lead to a failure to actually relate the meaning of what is being translated across. At the same time relating something orally, even with the best intention to be objective, will inevitably introduce copying errors everytime something is repeated so I have no doubt that even by the time of Jesus what the Old Testament meant might not have been what it originally was.
they are encouraged to spend time with other "healthy men," and deny themselves of their true emotions. they need to be "indoctrinated into masculinity" in order to "fulfill their heterosexual potential" <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ckz3e_X2q-4" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe> <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c2ycSiO-sVY" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe> a submissive wife doesn't hurt, either.
do you wonder why the church has adapted their beliefs to the world around them? because it didnt take long for them to realize that they can't adapt the world around their beliefs. if you'd rather me just call it BS from the start....six, one half dozen.
see...i'd say that little group of mostly poor folx who were following Jesus (whatever that meant) after his crucifixion pretty much changed the world. certainly the Roman world. they went from being lion food to the empire's dominant faith group in a relatively short amount of time. they ushered in an end to a ton of barbarism that the roman empire engaged in. they introduced concepts like "caring for the sick at the risk of getting sick" that Roman doctors wouldn't even participate in. Jesus' followers included women in leadership roles. the idea that every life, even the poor, had great meaning was revolutionary to that day's mindset.
I was having a discussion with someone else regarding a similar topic. I have been told that Zen Buddhism faith isn't very important. It doesn't really matter whether a North Indian Prince named Sakyamuni 2,500 years ago spent three days meditating under a Bodhi tree and learned to escape the cycle of rebirth, what matters though is the teachings that he may, or may not, have come up with and the practice of those teachings. In that sense you could even have another faith like Christianity as long as you followed Zen practice and still consider yourself a Zen Buddhist. Zen and many other aspects of Buddhism aren't exactly deistic based religions but it seems like if faith is the practice and what is important about a deistic religion then the facts of the mythology (not in the sense of them not being true but in the sense the basic stories that make up the belief) aren't that important. So if somehow you could scientifically prove that Jesus didn't actually make water into wine that wouldn't overthrow the whole idea of Christianity. Especially since we already have an owners manual for life. Spoiler
I will read up on that without doubt. I think the greatest revelation in this path Ive wandered lately is that it's not good to be 100% locked into a belief. I think doubt is a really good attribute. So, for me to say that I am even 100% agnostic is foolish. Who knows, maybe I will be a christian again before I buy the farm. (unlikely cheetah.jpg) this has nothing to do with Osteen or homosexuality/the church Later yall!
If that bothers you, then all of the major monotheistic religions are going to bother you. The doctrine of Christianity for example is basically that you believe in Christ or you are out. There must be 10 quotes from scripture to that effect about Christ being the gatekeeper or there being no way to Heaven but through him. Islam is the same way, with Muhammed being the last prophet of Allah. Judaism is about the chosen people. Generally scripture is held onto because it is believed to be divinely inspired. There is the ten commandment given to Moses, the words of Jesus, or the dictation of the Koran to Muhammed. Preacher Joel didn't mention anything in this interview about who is going to hell, and in fact said he was not judging anyone, nor did he feel qualified to be the judge. I don't know the doctrines of other religions well enough to comment, but that seems to be in line with Christianity. That seems to be just what he is saying. Nowhere in Jesus' words does it say that you should consider all the actions taken by anyone to be good. In fact, Jesus said he did not come to get rid of the law, but rather that he was the fulfillment of the law. I know that buddha was big into peace and harmony, as well as non-violence. I don't know buddhist philosophy well enough to say that he wanted you to love your neighbor, or just tolerate him. There is plenty in the Koran that is quite the opposite of the love thy neighbor philosophy. I can understand that. But the post just seems senseless. To say that you don't like a preacher to rely on scripture because not everyone follows the same scripture, to me, seems like saying I don't like Lowry to dribble the ball up the court because in other sports you are not required to dribble. While it may be true, other religions/sports have no bearing on what is happening there. What mean is, a non-Christian would not believe in the same things as Osteen, but then why would they care what he says about the tenants of his faith, so long as they are not affecting anyone else (something he was making pretty clear that they should not). Non-religious posters are alright with me, generally. I don't see why they would care if Joel Osteen thinks homosexuality is a sin, nor would I expect them to be surprised that a Christian preacher that relies on scripture would believe that. According to the scripture it is a sin, just like not honoring your father or working on the sabbath or gluttony or heterosexuality outside of wedlock.
Could've sworn there was a thread in D&D about Uganda's homophobia, but anyway, thought I'd post here: "A prominent gay rights activist, whose photo was printed on the front page of a Ugandan newspaper that called for homosexuals to be hanged, was bludgeoned to death at his home after weeks of death threats and harassment." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afri...gay-activist-David-Kato-sends-chill-in-Uganda http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-paper-then-murdered-in-his-home-2196700.html RIP
A month or two ago Rachel Maddow did an interview with the creator of Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill. As you can imagine, it was quite the interesting dynamic (given that Maddow, herself, is a lesbian). This douchebag, among other things, made the accusation that homosexuals are taking American money, going into Ugandan schools and "paying" children to become homosexual. I wish I was kidding.
pretty much my stance in this thread from the beginning... there is also plenty of that lovey stuff as well.
Other than the fact that he's a businessman, who has becometh wealthy by spreading the words of our father, I have no problem with how he responded. He basically craig biggio'd the question. But I hate Osteen preaching at a church! Can't he just be the speaker at self help seminars? "Hey, mr. Osteen how do I learn to play better help defense out on the court?" -kevin Martin-
He found truth, and was bold enough to try and share it with those around him. He died a hero in my book.
