Homosexuality in ''the' books.

[JRT]

After recent discussions I find myself a little confused, I always thought both the Christians and Muslims took their homophobic stance form Leviticus 18:22, but have been informed that it comes from the Pauline epistles for the Christians.

Is this just away of moving the goal posts again, to rid themselves of all in the old testament?

Are these part of the rewritten bible that many of the church wanted to leave out? My knowledge on this subject is poor to say the least and I have only heard about it on debates mainly from Hitch.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Your statement of "moving the goal posts" pretty well encapsulates this ex-theologian's take on how the xtians dodge the Leviticus question.

The Fantasy Island thread "JesusIsLord" attempts to retell the history of marriage might give you a bit of a working example, as our captive xtian, Mike, tries to use Genesis, then skip the Moses stuff, when justifying his marriage-inequity stance.

Don't be silly, Mr B - JiL doesn't need the bible to justify why homosexual marriages are wrong.. He said so!. Any day now, he's going to tell us why. Soon.. Maybe.

[JRT]

I have battled my way through most of that discussion, i'm losing my way (mind) after the page 30 mark.

I've also tried reading through the Pauline epistles but google being google I cant get away from from evangelists babbling on without providing them.

Regarding the book the some of the church tried to leave out, is it Revelations?

[JRT]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Re your question in last sentence: more info please.

As far as the rest goes, you could waste a considerable time systematically learning theology, and you'd still be stuck with a load of historically-dubious wibble which can be interpreted a number of ways.

If what you're reading from Believer-Land looks like somebody started with an agend, and then went fishing for scriptural justification, there could well be a good reason.

I'm starting to realise this, they learn evolution and science and change their beliefs to suit, I read their scriptures and get a head ache.

I was watching a debate with Hitch when he said that when the bible was getting reassembled the majority of the 'committee' wanted the evil part left behind only to be over ruled. I'm sorry I can only provide very little (if any) info on this, i'm hoping to jog somebody's mind as I can't of my own.

[JRT]

No, it was one that was left in, I'll have a look and see if I can find the quote.

Although it was when I was watching of lot of Hitch's debates so it may take some time.

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by JRT

No, it was one that was left in, I'll have a look and see if I can find the quote.

As Mr Black is alluding to, albeit from his position of someone who, unlike me, was from a church that didn't share in the full truth of the gospel: perhaps you are thinking of that bunch of books in the Bible that Catholics and Orthodox think are part of the bible proper, and that all the other xians don't. Those 'other' xians dropped them out during the Reformation. Catholics and Orthodox call these books "deuterocanonicals", or, roughly, "books wot got added to the canon later". Later than Nicea, that is, as Mr Black notes. Those who don't consider them part of the bible proper either include them in their bibles labelled "apocrypha" - the term used by Mr Black - meaning exactly what it says, or leave them out altogether.

As well as the links Mr Black has provided, you may also look up the entry for "biblical apocrypha" in wikipedia if you have time to spare and that wouldn't be better spent sticking pins in your eyes.

***

On other matters, yes, st Paul says teh gay is bad, though pro- and anti-gay xians debate that too. Xians started focusing on that when they got tired of being reminded of all the other stuff in the OT they don't obey, usually combined with some waffle about the "new covenant" and how the OT doesn't count any more (unless they can get away with it). The problem with the new testament is that xians don't do a particularly good job of obeying that either. Except for exlusive brethren, for example, how many xian churches require their women to have their heads covered?