LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

I . . . But when you look at this issue, one thing you must consider is why there was no commentary on something that did exist, if it was indeed as important as current Christian thinkers often say it is.

No commentary? How can you say that? Paul, commissioned an apostle by the risen Savior (I know, I repeat myself), spoke directly about homosexuality in the NT in Romans, 1 Cor.,and 1 Tim.

 

[halleyscomet]

You do not know, nor do I, that every thing Jesus said or thought was preserved in writing. Is it logical/reasonable to assume that every thing he said or thought was preserved in writing? The logic operative in that position is what's "grossly faulty."

You seem to be missing the point people are trying to make.

The general idea is that if the Bible is divinely inspired, then everything Jesus felt we NEEDED to hear from him will be represented in it. If you take the Bible as divinely inspired then the absence of commentary on homosexuals by Jesus is in and of itself significant.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . The general idea is that if the Bible is divinely inspired, then everything Jesus felt we NEEDED to hear from him will be represented in it.

It's difficult for those who take your position to accept the fact that Paul was ordained an apostle by Jesus Himself, and it was Paul, commissioned (among others) to continue the work of Jesus, who forthrightly addressed the issue of homosexuality.

Jesus struck the match that ignited the Christian Era; his successors, acting under His influence, kindled it into a raging force that swept the world.

If you take the Bible as divinely inspired then the absence of commentary on homosexuals by Jesus is in and of itself significant.

As I have noted before, Jesus didn't address many issues of pressing concern in His day. Does that mean the Bible isn't divinely inspired?

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's obvious why you want to limit Biblical disapproval of homosexuality to what Jesus didn't say about it in the four gospels.

It would be refreshing if you would deal with what I actually say, instead of what you wish I had said.

This issue is not the "biblical" disapproval of homosexuality. The "biblical" disapproval of homosexuality is as casually dismissable as the "biblical" disapproval of eating shellfish ( called an "abomination" to the same degree, and in the same passages). A person who bases their own distaste for homosexuality on the OT law, but wears poly-cotton, or eats shellfish, or charges interest, or does not forgive every one of his debts in a jubilee year, is an intellectually dishonest quote-miner.

Why is it, I wonder,that the "homosexuality" thing conveniently stands out in the minds of believers, while the rest of the Law gets short shrift?

The NT doesn't end with the book of John.

And yet, the "authentic message" (you may have been confused by the terms, κήρυγμα, and εὐαγγέλιον) of Jesus (you remember, him said to be said to be "the christ"), does. After "John's" book, the record goes from things that are said to be attributed to Jesus, to things attributed to other people that are said to say they are things to be attributed to Jesus. "Authentic purity" means less and less, once the author of the "message" has been executed, and things get added to the "message".

The words attributed to Jesus (you know) are not recorded to say a single thing about homosexuality, or a single thing about "men becoming 'gods' "; and are recorded to specifically disallow marriage after the resurrection.

It is interesting that you, who say you believe the "message" and accept its authority, treat it with less respect and careful reading than I, who do not pretend the message is authentic, or true, or authoritative. You have need to make the "message" fit your doctrines; I have no such need, and can read what is written.

Which son did the father's will?

Saul (Paul), commissioned an apostle by the risen Savior...

Saul Tarsi, who brags about only knowing Jesus in a vision. Your superstition about the "risen saviour" carries exactly the same weight as your superstitions about the BoA and "New Egyptian".

...speaks clearly against the practice in Romans, 1 Cor., and I Tim.--a fact you prefer to ignore.

It seems you may be glossing over the fact that Saul Tarsi was not Jesus, and met "Jesus" only in a vision. Being said to add things "the risen saviour" is never recorded as having said to the "authentic" message of Jesus beggars the definition of authenticity. Of course, you are free to follow words that are said to be attributed to someone saying that the words Jesus did not say should be added to the "purity" of his message...well, it is not much more unreasonable than your ideas about life in the pre-Colombian Americas. I would expect an xian to treat the canon with a little more respect.

At the Last Supper, Jesus encouraged his disciples to carry on his work, which some of them did, giving their lives for so doing. Then, too, there is condemnation of the practice in three books of the OT (multiple passages).

See above, for both points.

I must say again, however, that it is laughable that you--who considers the Bible a fraud--turns to it to prove that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

No, and it is dishonest of you to pretend so.

I, who am aware of the suspect provenance and spotty quality of what remains of the collection of inconsitently-edited, sectarially-redacted, contentiously canonized, copies of copies of copies of secoind-hand (at best) non-contemporary accounts dating from a half century or more after the"events" chronicled, do not say that the canon "proves" what Jesus did not say. That is your invention, a person of straw that you feel comfortable tilting at.

What I have said, over and over, is: Nowhere in the xian canon are recorded words attributed to Jesus (him said to be said to be 'the christ') that address homosexuality, or "men becoming 'gods' "; further, the canon does contain words attributed to Jesus that specifically disallow marriage after the resurrection. My point, as I have clearly stated, over and over, is that to pretend that the "authentic message" of Jesus "in its New Testament purity", unaltered by things invented (or pulled out of a hat) "hundreds of years later", contains things that are nowhere recorded in any canonic material, is to pretend that you, not the canon, are free to claim to be the source and the authentication of, and the authority for the "authentic message" of Jesus. No matter what the canon actually contains.

It is you who have said that I have said that the canon "proves" what Jesus said, which is dishonest.

It is the canon itself that shows that the canon itself does not contain, or record, words said to be said to be attributed to Jesus about homosexuality, or "men becoming 'gods'; on the other hand, the canon does, in fact, include words said to be said to be attributed to Jesus, specifically disallowing post-resurrection marriage, to say nothing of post-resurrection polygamy.

There is something intellectually aslant about that.

Then you should stop making those claims, and stop pretending that it is I who must wear the bend sinister. I can read the canon (I have translated much of it); odd that it is I who am holding out for its actual contents against the things you, who claim to follow the "authentic message" want to add.

Not surprising, at all; just...odd.

 

[halleyscomet]

But God obviously had strong enough feelings about homosexuals to have his prophets comment on them in four books of the OT (three passages in Gen., two passages in Lev., and one passage each in Deut. and Ezek.). He also had the resurrected Jesus call Paul to be an apostle--the same Paul who disapproved of homosexuality in the NT in Rom., 1 Cor., 1 Tim., and Jude. Anyone who doesn't believe that Paul was commissioned as an apostle by the Savior Himself, and that Paul said what he said about homosexuality with the approval of He who commissioned him, could well have his/her Christian credentials called into question.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was their treatment of strangers, violations of the hospitality codes prevalent at the time.

http://hartfordfavs.com/2013/06/19/the-real-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-radical-hospitality/

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/12/08/homosexuality-in-sodom-and-gomorrah/9051

However, most modern Old Testament scholars agree that that may not indeed be true, and that the point of the story was Sodom’s violation of the rather strict and universally acknowledged norms of hospitality – a code of ethics one still finds in Middle Eastern cultures today. This unwritten, but fiercely practiced, code of hospitality was a foundation of civil society in Biblical times. The desert is a harsh environment for travelers, and to deny hospitality to a stranger in such a setting was seen to be the height of cruelty.

As for Leviticus, there were a LOT of things that book declared "unclean" enough to be worthy of death. Between Peter's dream of the net and the Incident at Antioch, Gentile Christians are no longer bound by the Old Testament laws. By picking and choosing the parts of Leviticus you want to cling to you are being neither Jew nor Christian, but lukewarm, something God will spit out.

Then there's Paul. Remember, Paul advised total chastity, with marriage being a second rate compromise for those who were burning with lust. Unless you're a celibate preacher wandering from town to town, relying upon the charity of new converts for you sustenance and shelter, you're on the wrong side of Paul's description of an ideal Christian. His admonishments about homosexuality, such as they were, differed little from his admonishments against sex in general.

Are you advocating total celibacy and avoiding marriage? If not, why are you citing Paul on sex?

The Gospel writers are not the end-all of the NT, as you seem to suppose.

I suppose no such thing. You however seem to be unaware of the reasons why Christians don't follow all the same rules Orthodox Jews follow.

 

[catsmate]

But God obviously had strong enough feelings about homosexuals to have his prophets comment on them in four books of the OT

You have some evidence, other than the bible itself, for this claim?

The Gospel writers are not the end-all of the NT, as you seem to suppose.

If, as you appear to be claiming, the bible is the product of "divine" authority why does it need so many additions and "clarifications"?

<snip>
How does the LDS interpret Jesus' actions with the centurion's pais?

My belief is that, like most other xian derived faith systems, they ignore it or otherwise try and explain it away.

Saul (Paul), commissioned an apostle by the risen Savior, speaks clearly against the practice <snip>

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

You seem to be missing the point people are trying to make.

The general idea is that if the Bible is divinely inspired, then everything Jesus felt we NEEDED to hear from him will be represented in it. If you take the Bible as divinely inspired then the absence of commentary on homosexuals by Jesus is in and of itself significant.

Exactly.

 

[pakeha]

You seem to be missing the point people are trying to make.

The general idea is that if the Bible is divinely inspired, then everything Jesus felt we NEEDED to hear from him will be represented in it. If you take the Bible as divinely inspired then the absence of commentary on homosexuals by Jesus is in and of itself significant.

Apparently Jesus also made pronouncements after death, via prophets and visionaries.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the LDS stance is that if an established elder says so, that pronouncement's taken as sent by God.

So if an elder claims Jesus proclaimed against homosexuality, that would trump Jesus' recorded act of succouring a homosexual couple.

 

[Craig4]

No commentary? How can you say that? Paul, commissioned an apostle by the risen Savior (I know, I repeat myself), spoke directly about homosexuality in the NT in Romans, 1 Cor.,and 1 Tim.

So, what about it? Is being born with dark skin a "sore cursing".

 

[skyrider44]

It would be refreshing if you would deal with what I actually say, instead of what you wish I had said. This issue is not the "biblical" disapproval of homosexuality. The "biblical" disapproval of homosexuality is as casually dismissable as the "biblical" disapproval of eating shellfish ( called an "abomination" to the same degree, and in the same passages).

Why then is the fact that there are no recorded words about homosexuality in the NT attributable to Jesus a matter of surpassing importance to you? Why do you make an issue of it if it can be casually dismissed?

A person who bases their own distaste for homosexuality on the OT law, but wears poly-cotton, or eats shellfish, or charges interest, or does not forgive every one of his debts in a jubilee year, is an intellectually dishonest quote-miner.

Didn't you engage in quote-mining when you concluded that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality that was recorded? No? How then did you determine that He was silent on the subject?

Why is it, I wonder,that the "homosexuality" thing conveniently stands out in the minds of believers, while the rest of the Law gets short shrift?

Because both the NT and the OT condemn it.

And yet, the "authentic message" (you may have been confused by the terms, κήρυγμα, and εὐαγγέλιον) of Jesus (you remember, him said to be said to be "the christ"), does. After "John's" book, the record goes from things that are said to be attributed to Jesus, to things attributed to other people that are said to say they are things to be attributed to Jesus. "Authentic purity" means less and less, once the author of the "message" has been executed, and things get added to the "message".

Here, yet again, you denigrate he Bible but take the strange position that it is a reliable indicator of the "fact" that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

The words attributed to Jesus (you know) are not recorded to say a single thing about homosexuality, or a single thing about "men becoming 'gods' "; and are recorded to specifically disallow marriage after the resurrection.

More self-imposed contradiction. Above, in the paragraph that begins "And yet, the authentic message. . . .," you state, in effect, that the Bible is a totally unreliable document. It is truly odd that your dismiss the Bible on the one hand and embrace it on the other hand to prove your arguments.

It is interesting that you, who say you believe the "message" and accept its authority, treat it with less respect and careful reading than I, who do not pretend the message is authentic, or true, or authoritative.

I repeat my earlier question: If the Bible's message isn't "authentic, or true, or authoritative," why do you rely on it to validate your argument?

It seems you may be glossing over the fact that Saul Tarsi was not Jesus, and met "Jesus" only in a vision.

More "evidence" that the Bible is a fraud, yet you continue to use it to justify your claim that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality that was recorded.

I, who am aware of the suspect provenance and spotty quality of what remains of the collection of inconsitently-edited, sectarially-redacted, contentiously canonized, copies of copies of copies of secoind-hand (at best) non-contemporary accounts dating from a half century or more after the"events" chronicled, do not say that the canon "proves" what Jesus did not say. That is your invention, a person of straw that you feel comfortable tilting at.

And it is your invention that just such a document proves that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

 

[skyrider44]

So, what about it? Is being born with dark skin a "sore cursing".

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The general idea is that if the Bible is divinely inspired [...snip...]

That's the problem. It looks as if that omnipotent god is rather impotent when it comes to speaking clearly. It's more like someone listening to a distant radio station with heavy static and intermittent reception, and then writing that down and claiming to be the word of some god. While having only understood a fraction of it, whereas that "understanding" already involved heavy imagination about what it was.

Quite a poor feat for some supposedly omnipotent being. But who knows, maybe that god was partying for days, heavily drunk, and could only mumble at that time....

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's difficult for those who take your position to accept the fact that Paul was ordained an apostle by Jesus Himself, and it was Paul, commissioned (among others) to continue the work of Jesus, who forthrightly addressed the issue of homosexuality.

In what is said to be Paul's account of Paul's opinion...Paul who never met Jesus (him said to be said to be 'the christ') and whose message is so oddly different form what is said to be attributed to Jesus, in the canon.

Jesus struck the match that ignited the Christian Era; his successors, acting under His influence, kindled it into a raging force that swept the world.

...a raging force which resembles in no particular the actual teachings attributed to Jesus (him said to be said the be the "x" in "xian"); and in several extreme sectarian perversions actually teach things specifically disallowed in what is actually said to be attributed to Jesus in the canon.

As I have noted before, Jesus didn't address many issues of pressing concern in His day. Does that mean the Bible isn't divinely inspired?

No, not at all. That has very little to do with the reasons that it is patent that the inconsistent, poorly-edited, sectarially-redacted, contentiously canonized, ascientific, ahistorical, and ageographical tabloid-quality rag sheet that is called "the bible" is not, and was not, "inspired" by a "god".

 

[arthwollipot]

As I have noted before, Jesus didn't address many issues of pressing concern in His day. Does that mean the Bible isn't divinely inspired?

That's not the reason the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

 

[halleyscomet]

It's difficult for those who take your position to accept the fact that Paul was ordained an apostle by Jesus Himself, and it was Paul, commissioned (among others) to continue the work of Jesus, who forthrightly addressed the issue of homosexuality.

Jesus struck the match that ignited the Christian Era; his successors, acting under His influence, kindled it into a raging force that swept the world.

Then you admit married heterosexual Christians are as great a religious failure as a homosexual, having engaged in one of the sexual excesses Paul advises against. If you're going to bring Paul into this, then bring ALL of Paul into this, not just the parts that make gays look bad but not us.

Remember 1 Corinthians 6:18. Sexual sin is committed against yourself, no one else. Holy matrimony, the thing so many people want to deny homosexuals, is ALREADY second rate trash according to Paul. According to Paul, marriage is for people who lack the will and moral character to be celibate.

As I have noted before, Jesus didn't address many issues of pressing concern in His day. Does that mean the Bible isn't divinely inspired?

Irreverent. Please stay on topic. We're discussing this from the standpoint of someone who DOES believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, at least the Gospels.

Apparently Jesus also made pronouncements after death, via prophets and visionaries.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the LDS stance is that if an established elder says so, that pronouncement's taken as sent by God.

So if an elder claims Jesus proclaimed against homosexuality, that would trump Jesus' recorded act of succouring a homosexual couple.

Which makes me wonder why Skyrider44 didn't bring up that point of Mormon mythology.

 

[Pup]

Apparently Jesus also made pronouncements after death, via prophets and visionaries.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the LDS stance is that if an established elder says so, that pronouncement's taken as sent by God.

So if an elder claims Jesus proclaimed against homosexuality, that would trump Jesus' recorded act of succouring a homosexual couple.

Something vaguely like that. It does seem odd to be arguing precise interpretation of scripture from an LDS view, when the whole point of the LDS church is that there's a living prophet to make new proclamations from God as necessary.

The above, though, isn't quite right. "Established elder" is neither specific nor broad enough. Specifically, the prophet can supposedly receive revelation for the whole church, and each person below him can receive revelation for what they're over, from a branch president receiving revelation for his church, right down to a mother receiving revelation for her children.

Needless to say, that means only the prophet could receive revelation for a church-wide policy stance, such as what God says about homosexuality. However, I'd be surprised if any prophet since the days of Joseph Smith actually tried to change Biblically-recorded things with revelation. In other words, the prophet wouldn't say, "Jesus actually preached for/against homosexuality during the Sermon on the Mount but it got left out of the Bible," he would say, "God wants us to love/hate homosexuals," with the implication that it was a message for members today that might even contradict something that God (or another LDS prophet) had said previously.

 

[halleyscomet]

In other words, the prophet wouldn't say, "Jesus actually preached for/against homosexuality during the Sermon on the Mount but it got left out of the Bible," he would say, "God wants us to love/hate homosexuals," with the implication that it was a message for members today that might even contradict something that God (or another LDS prophet) had said previously.

That's pretty much what the LDS has done with regard to race relations.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why then is the fact that there are no recorded words about homosexuality in the NT attributable to Jesus a matter of surpassing importance to you? Why do you make an issue of it if it can be casually dismissed?

It was, in fact, you who posted the quote that claimed that your mob proclaims the authentic message of the "x" in "xian" in its original purity, instead of doctrines that had been invented hundreds of years later...do you even remember that?

If that were in the least true, a claim that anti-homosexuality is a piece of the purity of that message (instead of being added by others) is not supported by the canon. You are, of course, free to justify your opposition to marriage equality, and justice; and your distaste for, and propensity to promulgate badly-done (and dishonestly presented) "research" about, homosexuals; in any way you like. However, when you pretend that your opinion is based on the authentic teaching of Jesus, when in fact no such is recorded in the canon as attributed to the "JC" in C"JC"LDS, you are (charitably) mistaken.

I emphasize: You and your club may proclaim any doctrine you choose to pull out of any hat you choose to select. When you claim that all of those doctrines (the ones that are not attributed to Jesus in the canon, and the ones that directly contradict what is, in fact, attributed to Jesus in the canon) are, in fact, part of his authentic message in its unaltered purity, you are, at best, sadly mistaken. It is as demonstrably incorrect as saying that Abraham's autographic diary appears in standard Egyptian funerary texts in an authentic language. It is as demonstrably incorrect as claiming that horses were kept, and domestic cattle were husbanded, in the pre-Colombian Americas.

As an analogy, you and yours may play Monopoly^® by accumulating fines into the middle of the board, to be collected by a player who lands on the "Free Parking" space. Many people play that as a "house rule". However, when you claim that it is part of the "authentic rules" of Monopoly^®, in their "original purity", you run up against the problem that that "rule" is not in the actual, recorded, canonic rules. You may, I say, play that way--but you may not, with any honesty, claim to be following the authentic rules in their original purity.

It puzzles me that you find that simple fact so difficult.

Didn't you engage in quote-mining when you concluded that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality that was recorded? No? How then did you determine that He was silent on the subject?

No. Quote mining, as you have demonstrated, is taking a quote out of context, spinning it to seem to mean what it does not.

If there were, in fact, words attributed to Jesus (him said to be said to be 'the christ') said to address homosexuality, and included in the canon, and I ignored them while quoting other words said to be attributed to him in the canon, that would constitute quote mining. If one, for instance, ignored a teaching of Jesus (you know, said to be the "x" in "xian") that is actually said to be attributed to him, and is recorded in the canon; while, instead, proclaiming a teaching that does, in fact, directly contradict words in the canon said to be attributed to him, and continuing to claim that one was following the unchanged authentic message attributed in the canon, that could be called quote mining. That could, in fact, be called spin doctoring.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

What I am doing is just the opposite. I will happily call "christian" any doctrine said tobe said to be directly attributed to "christ", and recorded in the canon. If it is there, I will not gainsay it; if it is not, I will not pretend so.

Because both the NT and the OT condemn it.

Jesus is not recorded as having condemned homosexuality in the NT. Saul Tarsi is not Jesus, never met Jesus other than in an hallucination, and at least according to what is recorded in the canon in its "new testament purity", could not be said to have become a 'god' after he died.

If you want to claim to be part of the C"P"LDS, go ahead. If you want to add new doctrines, pulled out of a hat hundreds of years later, go ahead. Neither of those changes the observable fact that there is no canonic instance of words said to be attributed to Jesus addressing homosexuality, or stating that men could "become 'gods' ", or recanting the statement said to be said to be attributed to him that those of the resurrection would neither marry nor be given in marriage.

As for the OT, why does the condemnation of homosexuality matter more to you than the condemnation of eating shellfish, or charging interest, or mixing fibres in a cloth; to name but a very few of the other things called "abominations", in the same passages that are claimed to condemn homosexuality? I wonder if you are aware that you have never addressed that...

Here, yet again, you denigrate he Bible but take the strange position that it is a reliable indicator of the "fact" that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

You misrepresent my point. Is it on purpose?

It was, in fact, you who posted the link to your club's himukkimuk claiming that you and yours follow the authentic message of Jesus, with nothing added...yet you and your do not scruple to add things to the only canonic record of words said to be attributed to him. What does "authentic" mean, if you can change the canon to suit your sect?

More self-imposed contradiction. Above, in the paragraph that begins "And yet, the authentic message. . . .," you state, in effect, that the Bible is a totally unreliable document. It is truly odd that your dismiss the Bible on the one hand and embrace it on the other hand to prove your arguments.

You must be misrepresenting me on purpose. What other canonic record of words said to be attributed to Jesus is there, that was not pulled out of a hat "hundreds of years later"?

My issue is not with the odd things you and yours claim were "revealed" to you. My issue is with the arrant, errant, arrogance of claiming that things Jesus is not said to be said to have said (other than "hundreds of year later") represent the "authentic" message of Jesus. My issue is with the silliness of claiming that just because a teaching is nowhere canonically said to be attributed to Jesus, you and yours are free to claim it is authentic. If you mean "revealed" to you, say so. If you mean "interpreted" by you, say so. If you mean "pulled out of a hat hundreds of year later", say so. You should not, if honesty were a virtue to you and yours, claim that something that is not recorded is "authentic".

Were your approach congruent, fruitful, and luminous, what could not be said to be part of the "authentic" teaching of Jesus? You are on record as adding to the recorded and canonically-attributed "message". You are on record as disagreeing with the recorded and canonically-attributed "message". What is there to constrain such a careen, once you begin?

I repeat my earlier question: If the Bible's message isn't "authentic, or true, or authoritative," why do you rely on it to validate your argument?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

It was you who supported the claim of following the "authentic" message--while adding to the canonic record, and disagreeing with parts of it. Its manifest macularity notwithstanding, the canon is claimed, by xians, to consist in part of words said to be said to be attributed to Yeshua. No other record of attributions is considered canonic by xians. How then, is a teaching that is not said to be attributed to Jesus in the canon, "authentic"? How then, is a teaching that directly contradicts words that are, in fact, said to be attributed to Jesus, in the canon, authentic? How then are teachings that were, in fact, invented hundreds of years after the canon was closed, "authentic"?

One does not have to accept as divine, or revealed, or true, the Diné story of how Changing Woman told the People to celebrate a young girl's Kina'alda with a cake "a shovel handle wide, and studded with raisins" to point out that, before the 1800s, the Diné knew neither shovels nor raisins.

More "evidence" that the Bible is a fraud, yet you continue to use it to justify your claim that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality that was recorded.

No. You keep misstating that. I "keep saying" that the only recorded, canonic words said to be said to be attributed to Jesus do not include a single reference to homosexuality; do not include a single reference to men "becoming 'gods' ", and specifically disallow marriage in the afterlife.

If the canon accepted by xians does not contain, or record, these things, what source of the "authentic message of Jesus" (that was not added "hundreds of years later") do you pretend does? Or, after all, are you simply saying that the "authentic message of Jesus" is whatever your himukkimuk says it is, in the fastness of your ebenezers, and here's a honey badger for reality?

And it is your invention that just such a document proves that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

No. It is reality that Jesus, him said to be said to be "the christ" is nowhere in any canonic record, ever said to be said to have said a word about homosexuality. You have the onus probandi to demonstrate where, in fact, he is said to be said to have done so.

It is reality that Jesus, him said to be said to be "the christ" is nowhere in any canonic record, ever said to be said to have said a word about men "becoming 'gods' ". You have the onus probandi to demonstrate where, in fact, he is said to be said to have done so.

It is reality that Jesus, him said to be said to be "the christ" is, in the canonic record, said to be said to have said that those of the resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage. You have the onus probandi to demonstrate where, in fact, he is said to be said to have repudiated the teaching said to be said to be attributed to him.

It is, in fact, your alterations to what is recorded in the canon that are "inventions". Feel free to demonstrate, chapter and verse, otherwise.

 

[skyrider44]

No, not at all. That has very little to do with the reasons that it is patent that the inconsistent, poorly-edited, sectarially-redacted, contentiously canonized, ascientific, ahistorical, and ageographical tabloid-quality rag sheet that is called "the bible" is not, and was not, "inspired" by a "god".

Little wonder then, is it, that if Jesus did speak against homosexuality, his words cannot be found in the Bible.

You're in the position of the defense attorney who finds it necessary to call on an ex-con with a rap sheet a yard long as a character witness. You have said repeatedly (you say it again here) that the Bible is a fraud, but you make a major issue of the fact that it contains no words spoken by Jesus about homosexuality.

 

[Craig4]

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

Do you believe that being born black or with a color of skin that's not white is a curse from god as described in the Book of Mormon?

 

[bruto]

Skyrider, it is clear that Slowvehicle does not give credence to what Jesus did or did not say, not believing in the divinity of Jesus or, perhaps even the existence. However, this does not invalidate the point he seems to be making, that people who do believe in Jesus and do consider his utterances and their accuracy and provenance to be of utmost importance also have a tendency to attribute ideas to Jesus which are not recorded as having that holy provenance.

Of course you can interpret, and attribute wisdom and inspiration and truth to Paul and others, and find corroboration in the Old Testament (while trying to ignore the inconsistency of doing so), but one thing you cannot do is attribute a quotation on homosexuality to Jesus. It's problematic even if you consider you've solved the problem, and it's entirely proper for Slowvehicle or any other atheist to point that problem out.