Christians: Would you be pro-gay if you weren't a christian?

[Jac3510]

I'm just saying that the speculation comment is rather meaningless, Philip. Do you take the Gospel of John to be Scripture? Unless you are Catholic, then guess what? You're speculating! There's nothing "strange" about it. And yes, I think that it was credible that it was taken out. In an age where people were a) more likely to argue that sin isn't a problem (gnosticism) and, frankly, where men were a lot more focused on controlling their lives, it's easier to just drop the passage. It's also very possible that this passage was left out due to the way that lectionaries worked, and it's easy to see them leaving that section out for the same reason.

Anyway, I don't think we should ignore those scholars who reject John 8:1-11. I'm saying we should interact with their arguments, and I've done so, and I think that they are probably wrong. I also tend to think that the longer ending of Mark is likely original, too.

[Philip]

Jac: I also tend to think that the longer ending of Mark is likely original, too.

Well, I'm sure quite a few dead Tennessee snake handling church members did, too!

Fortunately, for those reading this back and forth, these are some of the tiny few passages that scholars have seriously questioned - due to where and when they show up in the manuscript evidences.

[Jac3510]

Misinterpreting a passage doesn't give a license for rejecting its authenticity.

[Philip]

Misinterpreting a passage doesn't give a license for rejecting its authenticity.

I agree. But that has nothing to do with why the end passage in Mark has long been called into question and also is footnoted with a caution by Bible scholars, in the various Bible versions.

Really, if someone wants to further discuss this rabbit trail, a new thread needs beginning.

[Hortator]

I would probably be, yes.

Nah, probably not. I've seen too many insane statistics about diseases, crime rates, and a lot of other "things" I have to speak of in general terms in order to not break the rules.

You know, things having to do with.....

Besides, Rich covered this already, what it means to be "pro-gay".

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rance.html

Of course I tolerate them. If I was "unwilling to endure" the rainbow flag I see everyday on my way to college, I'd probably be locked up for property damage.

But do I respect their lifestyle? No, how can I respect a lifestyle that leads so many young men to an early grave?

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/h ... ality.html

But this is assuming I would still care were I not a Christian. Were I not a Christian, well, it's hard to say what I would be like. I shudder to imagine myself again in my rebellious, teenaged atheist years, when I was trying to shock people.

[Jac3510]

Misinterpreting a passage doesn't give a license for rejecting its authenticity.

I agree. But that has nothing to do with why the end passage in Mark has long been called into question and also is footnoted with a caution by Bible scholars, in the various Bible versions.

Really, if someone wants to further discuss this rabbit trail, a new thread needs beginning.

If someone wants to start a new thread on it, we can take it up there, fine. I'd only point out that the reason I brought up the interpretation of the longer ending of Mark is because you brought not only the passage itself up, but the fact that there are people who are dead from handling venomous snakes based on their taking that passage as Scripture and then (mis)interpreting it to say that they should therefore handle snakes also. My point, then, is that those folks' abuse and misinterpretation of the longer ending of Mark in no way suggests that the longer ending of Mark is not original. So we agree that such "has nothing to do with why the end passage in Mark has long been called into question." I take it, then, that you take back your comment about snake handlers.

I'd also point out, lastly, that it is not the case that the longer ending of Mark has "long been called into question." That's a fairly recent accusation, as it turns out. What has "long" been the case is the acceptance of the so-called longer ending. In fact, we have very early church fathers quoting the so-called longer ending, early enough that critical scholars claim that the fabrication happened as early as the second century. And yet, that goes against the general picture I pointed out that they want us to believe. They would have us accept the idea that the text was relatively stable for the first two hundred years, and then massive corruptions began creeping in over the next three hundred (and, thankfully they say, we can see what the original really looked like by checking out the "oldest" manuscripts (which date to about 300AD). And yet, here we have their own claim that we have a MASSIVE corruption during this time of relative stability?

Again, please, it's an argument that doesn't hold up to real scrutiny as far as I'm concerned. Makes a lot more sense to me that someone read those so-called "early manuscripts" back in the early 4th century, saw that they had corruptions like missing the ending of Mark, and decided NOT to copy them, NOT to use them in their textual tradition. That is, those very early Christians rejected what modern scholars say are the most important documents to accept, and those earliest Christians (in my view) are exactly the ones who were in the best position to decide whether or not those manuscripts were reliable or corrupted.

SO . . . I've stated my case. If you or anybody wants to pursue this further, I'm open to talking about it in another thread.

[Jac3510]

To the OP, btw -- just to make an on topic post -- I'd say "absolutely not."

I've always been interested in philosophy and natural law. I don't see why that would be any different were I not a Christian. Aristotle was not a Christian and he was interested. I've always preferred an Aristotelian system of ethics (virtue ethics) to command or consequence theories. Again, I don't see why that would be different if I were not a Christian. And the moment you go down that road, you end up with a firm natural law argument against not only homosexual marriage (you'd quickly affirm that such a phrase is a self-contradiction and thus nonsense), but pressed far enough you find it necessary oppose things like no-fault divorce and the general tendency to downplay or reject the idea of impediments to marriage. (In other words, following the system of ethics I follow and would follow were I not a Christian, you have to accept that there really are certain impediments to marriage that prevent a person from either entering into it at all or from entering into it with a specific person.)

[PaulSacramento]

Huh? I'm not following you Philip.

Rick, it's because - and I was shocked back when I learned of it - but this passage of John 8:1-11 is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts. Virtually all study Bibles have a footnote that references this, warning to not make any doctrinal understandings based upon it. A similar and footnoted issue is with the ending of the Gospel of Mark - handling snakes, drinking poison, etc. - not in the originals. This is why textual criticism is so important, as it reveals not only what was (with the highest possible certainty), in the originals, but also helps weed out any possible additions to what was in the originals. The enormous number and wealth of ancient manuscript copies, from around the world, makes this possible.

Yes, this one is a shocker, as it just sounds so JESUS-like.

D.A. Carson writes:

Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that this narrative was originally part of John's Gospel, the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV). These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from John 7:52 to John 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at 7:53-8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular."[/color]

Bruce Metzger weighs in: http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb ... tzger.html

Sorry, back to the thread.

We discussed this one quote a bit in theology class and one of the questions was why did they keep it since it was well know, very early on, that it wasn't "probably" Johanine?
The answer was that it most probably was from a different tradition and kept because it wasn't in the "nature" of the GOJ.
I don't think that any doctrine was ever based up it OR any other SINGLE passage.

[Philip]

Paul: I don't think that any doctrine was ever based up it OR any other SINGLE passage.

Correct - perhaps using the term "doctrine" isn't best. None of the questioned passages impact any key doctrinal issue. But as to whether anyone should use one of these questioned passages to make a spiritual point of truth is the question.

[Nicki]

Thinking of gay people at church, since some have mentioned they've known of gays being shunned etc - if they're single it wouldn't have to be too obvious, would it? They might seem a bit gay but if they kept quiet on their feelings in that regard most people wouldn't know. Or were they all couples who were shunned? Even if someone had a partner they could come to church alone and not mention them - as long as the conversation didn't go that way I suppose. It's just that I've known people (not well, of course) whose orientation was not obvious. I knew one man who was originally married and ended up with another man - he identified as bisexual (that's a term you don't hear much these days! I think a lot of people say we're all on a spectrum or something )

[PaulSacramento]

RE: Bisexuality.
One can see the evolutionary "advantage" in bisexuality of course.
I recall reading that one biologist said that bisexuality is the more correct term since, according to him, all the homosexual people he had interviewed said that they would, with the right person, have sex with the opposite gender.
I don't know if that is right or wrong.

I think that there is an element of curiosity of course, most women I know have said that they would be bi with the right woman and even some couples are ok with a bisexual thressome if it "just happens".
Again, a curiosity thing more than a true sexual orientation.

It doesn't make it any less a sin of course.

[Hortator]

RE: Bisexuality.
One can see the evolutionary "advantage" in bisexuality of course.
I recall reading that one biologist said that bisexuality is the more correct term since, according to him, all the homosexual people he had interviewed said that they would, with the right person, have sex with the opposite gender.
I don't know if that is right or wrong.

I think that there is an element of curiosity of course, most women I know have said that they would be bi with the right woman and even some couples are ok with a bisexual thressome if it "just happens".
Again, a curiosity thing more than a true sexual orientation.

It doesn't make it any less a sin of course.

All of us are bisexual. But we get beet-red, look to the floor, and deny this when the topic is brought up. All of us have the same capacity for sin as anybody else. It's just some people are less disciplined with dealing with their personal demons than others are.

[melanie]

It's what is called apparently bi curious.
I think attraction is not black and white, without even getting into whether it's right or wrong.
Although attraction to the wrong people or person, regardless of gender can be very damaging.
I think you're right Hortator, some people are less disciplined at dealing with their personal demons whatever they may be.

[melanie]

I guess we often can't help but see things through our own lens.
When I really think about it I'm less tolerant to sins and struggles that I don't struggle with. An attitude of well come on people don't be like that, it's easy to choose a better path.
We all have struggles and triumphs over sin and temptation.
I tend to be not very judgmental, but ironically I probably view people most harshly who I see as being judgmental. I don't get it. I think it flies in the face of what Jesus taught.
So it's easy for me to get on my soapbox and preach against it.
I tend to have more compassion and understanding for people with addictions, for example alcoholic and drug using Christians because I relate to it. Honestly it's much the same with Christians struggling with their sexuality, even though homosexuality isn't my issue, I understand sexual desire can be hard to overcome.
So I'm more accepting of those that struggle with like minded issues.

I think sometimes we all can fall into this to some degree. We view most harshly and critically what is foreign to us and easily overcome then tend to be more understanding and tolerant of sins that we have previously or still struggle with.
I guess we can't really help but view life through our own personal lens, I guess the hardest thing, for myself included is to be more objective.

[abelcainsbrother]

I have not really given my opinion or belief on this topic but I would think homosexuality is wrong or not right if I was not a Christian. There is no ancient empire that sanctioned same-sex marriage either or allowed it in society,not Babylon,Greece,Rome,etc eventhough I'm sure there have always been gay people but it goes to show that you do not have to be a Christian to think it is wrong or not accept it.

What I don't like about it today is the political correctness surrounding it and the way it is forced onto us against our will,it really turns it off that much more for me.We now have same-sex marriages in America but it was never voted in by the will of the people still I don't judge a person just because they are gay and I've known gay people but it never made sense to me. I also know that today it is just another fulfilled bible prophecy and evidence that we are living in the last days. Jesus told us that it would be as in the days of Lot when he returns and it is and will be as we can now see.