Vatican says it will not bless same-sex unions, calling homosexuality a 'sin' and a 'choice'

[MplsGopher]

The arguments that there is a large gap between Jesus and writings is simply not accurate.

What is large?

How much time is needed for people to concoct ideas to append to writings?

 

[MennoSota]

---

What is large?

How much time is needed for people to concoct ideas to append to writings?

Do you realize that textual criticism is able to discover the variants and find when things were added? Go to Mark 16 and see that the last verses are not found in the earliest manuscripts so the translators let the reader know this.
The Bible has been researched more closely than any set of documents and holds up under this scrutiny. No other set of documents gets this level of criticism. I think this is a good thing. Both skeptics and non-skeptics scour the data. It's not something done in secret or without peer review.
I suggest, rather than toss out uninformed opinion, go do some research.

Loading…

www.blueletterbible.org

Loading…

faculty.wts.edu

 

[MplsGopher]

Do you realize that textual criticism is able to discover the variants and find when things were added?

They were added when the original was written.

Go get your time machine and disprove it.

 

[MplsGopher]

Even if the Bible was a perfect copy of everything Jesus said .... those things were said when he was alive on Earth, as a human.

Therefore, Jesus was fallible, as a human. I'm certain the Bible even says such things.


No human alive 2000 years ago could comprehend the realities of today. So no human then could've possibly said that such and such social act, which is common today, is acceptable or unacceptable, in any meaningful way.


It would be like saying now "no human should ever stick their pinky in any other human's ear! That shall be forbidden as sin!" , when it would be impossible to know that in 2000 years from now, that's the main way two people have sex.


Exactly the same nonsense as some 2000-year ago human saying "a man shall never be allowed stick his wiener in another man's butt!"

 

[MennoSota]

They were added when the original was written.

Go get your time machine and disprove it.

LOL

 

[MennoSota]

Even if the Bible was a perfect copy of everything Jesus said .... those things were said when he was alive on Earth, as a human.

Therefore, Jesus was fallible, as a human. I'm certain the Bible even says such things.

LOL, it's on you to prove this assertion.

 

[Wally]

As good as a game of telephone.

John is the only gospel not derived from the same source. Look up the gospel of Q. No, not that one, but the original. Not the Star Trek guy either.

What about the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[saintpaulguy]

What about the Gospel of Thomas.

The gospel of Thomas also suggests a Q source.

 

[MennoSota]

LOL, three atheists, who have never researched beyond tiktok, trying to discuss a gnostic writing that came 300 years after Jesus was on earth.

 

[saintpaulguy]

LOL, three atheists, who have never researched beyond tiktok, trying to discuss a gnostic writing that came 300 years after Jesus was on earth.

I'm not an atheist. The gospel of Thomas may be as old at 60 CE.

 

[howeda7]

I'm not an atheist. The gospel of Thomas may be as old at 60 CE.

I don't think anyone here is. But it matters not. Tiny has decreed it.

 

[MplsGopher]

I do not hold the belief that there cannot be any kind of higher power relative to our reality.

There easily could.


Was Jesus of Nazareth only a human who lived 2000 years ago and really thought he was the son of God? Of course.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm not an atheist. The gospel of Thomas may be as old at 60 CE.

Nope, not at all. It's much older.
Historically Thomas left Jerusalem and went east into Persia and ultimately to southern India.
The content of the gospel of Thomas is different than the other gospels and is much later. It was used by gnostic cults. Essentially it was like a Joseph Smith book of mormon.

 

[Wally]

Nope, not at all. It's much older.
Historically Thomas left Jerusalem and went east into Persia and ultimately to southern India.
The content of the gospel of Thomas is different than the other gospels and is much later. It was used by gnostic cults. Essentially it was like a Joseph Smith book of mormon.

Those in power only kept the books they approved of, that's the real story. Bible is just government.

 

[MennoSota]

Those in power only kept the books they approved of, that's the real story. Bible is just government.

A false statement.
The churches, before Christianity was legalized in Rome, were already using and distributing the 66 books to be read in their churches.
At this point you are simply grasping at straws.
The only point of this thread is really to point out that the Roman Catholic Church has a basis for its position and those who don't like it can leave. The church was never started to be a country club to make sinners feel good about their sin.

 

[howeda7]

Those in power only kept the books they approved of, that's the real story. Bible is just government.

Folks love to pretend our ancestors were perfect inerrant human beings, whether the Apostle Paul or Thomas Jefferson. As long as it fits their preconceived beliefs and biases.

 

[GoldenRodents]

Beats having a very small mind

I don't know any religious people in my life who call homosexuality a "sin".

They haven't seen visions

 

[GoldenRodents]

Folks love to pretend our ancestors were perfect inherent human beings, whether the Apostle Paul or Thomas Jefferson. As long as it fits their preconceived beliefs and biases.

We are here because they were a combination of smart, strong, beautiful, and wise. Our ancestors fought the tough battles against nature, and tamed them so we don't have to. We shouldn't be judging people who had no electricity, engines, or modern medicine.

 

[Spoofin]

I don't think anyone here is. But it matters not. Tiny has decreed it.

Oh hell, really? From the guy who decreeds what people think based on what thread they do/don’t post in. Your hypocrisy really has no limits. You are truly a douche bag.

 

[RememberMurray]

We are here because they were a combination of smart, strong, beautiful, and wise. Our ancestors fought the tough battles against nature, and tamed them so we don't have to. We shouldn't be judging people who had no electricity, engines, or modern medicine.

Tamed "them"? Now, that's mighty interesting.

Thank God our white ancestors had slaves to 'help' them — yes? And, they had their Bible, which told them that owning slaves was a good, acceptable way to go.

From this, a nation was born.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The thread title is silly, it's essentially, Vatican agrees with Catholicism.

Who cares? If you don't agree, don't be Catholic.

 

[MplsGopher]

Vatican agrees with Catholicism.

Vatican/Pope define Catholicism, and are allowed to change it.

If you don't like their changes, don't be Catholic.

 

[GoodasGold]

Vatican loves them some alter boys.

 

[MennoSota]

Even if the Bible was a perfect copy of everything Jesus said .... those things were said when he was alive on Earth, as a human.

Therefore, Jesus was fallible, as a human. I'm certain the Bible even says such things.


No human alive 2000 years ago could comprehend the realities of today. So no human then could've possibly said that such and such social act, which is common today, is acceptable or unacceptable, in any meaningful way.


It would be like saying now "no human should ever stick their pinky in any other human's ear! That shall be forbidden as sin!" , when it would be impossible to know that in 2000 years from now, that's the main way two people have sex.


Exactly the same nonsense as some 2000-year ago human saying "a man shall never be allowed stick his wiener in another man's butt!"

Apparently you have never read the entire Bible, thus you don't know how far back same gender sex is recorded in history. Nor are you aware of the restrictions that are assigned.

Now, you don't have to agree with those restrictions, nor do you have to obey those restrictions. However, the Roman Catholic Church is following the text it considers sacred and thus, if you are going to be a member in the Roman Catholic Church, you will need to abide by their teaching.

 

[MennoSota]

Vatican/Pope define Catholicism, and are allowed to change it.

If you don't like their changes, don't be Catholic.

This is not correct.

The Bible defines Catholicism and neither the Vatican nor the Pope are allowed to change it.
If you don't like the Bible, don't be a Catholic.

 

[Nax5]

Has anyone here seen "The Keepers" on Netflix?

 

[MennoSota]

Has anyone here seen "The Keepers" on Netflix?

No. Tell us how it changes the Bible.

 

[MplsGopher]

thus you don't know how far back same gender sex is recorded in history.

As I said correctly in the post you quoted, and is still correct now:

no human then could've possibly said that such and such social act, which is common today, is acceptable or unacceptable, in any meaningful way.

 

[MplsGopher]

The Bible defines Catholicism and neither the Vatican nor the Pope are allowed to change it.

The Vatican/Pope, literally define what Catholicism says are its official positions.

If you don't like that, then get out. Start some other religion.

 

[RememberMurray]

Apparently you have never read the entire Bible, thus you don't know how far back same gender sex is recorded in history. Nor are you aware of the restrictions that are assigned.

If you consider the Bible to be an accurate portrayal of the entirety of world and human history, you're ignoring quite a lot of archeology, paleontology, geology, etc.