Weren't homosexuals mentioned in the Old Testament only ?

Well...........no.
 

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." --- Romans 1:26-27

"But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted." I Timothy 1:8-11

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.' --- I Corinthians 6:9-10

But, the Corinthians verse is modified by Paul's observation in verse 11. "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

(All verses from the New American Standard Bible, identified by theologian Paul Enns as the most correct literal translation of the Greek Bible, while still being very readable.)

Carl in Tampa

.

Racism, Trump & Evangelicals
 

///

Catholic Version
 

While it is true that Catholics have not traditionally been encouraged to read the Bible and understand it for themselves, nonetheless they are not forbidden to read the Bible.

Here is that same Romans 1:26-27, in the Catholic translation.

Romans 1:26-27 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."


Carl in Tampa

.

You are correct. Not forbidden but not encouraged. Not a wise policy given that bible interpretation is, well open to interpretation.

Catholic Catechism
 

On the subject of Catholic Catechism and homosexuality, I found this in the Catechism.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Carl in Tampa

.

Racism, Trump & Evangelicals
 

The good sisters never covered THAT with us. Well, not in that way. Although 12 years of parochial brainwashing pretty much concurs what you have transcribed. Now I know why I think the way I do about this subject.

Thank you Carl

Not forbidden? Please!
 

Not forbidden? Perhaps we didn't read the same passages.

Characterizing certain actions as "indecent acts" hardly strikes me as an endorsement, but rather a condemnation.

Carl in Tampa

.

Believe me...we're ALL brainwashed as kids. They fill our brains with crap.

Of course I'm correct...

"Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians’ ancestry

Genetic analysis reveals a close relationship with Middle Easterners, not central Africans."

"The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans."

"Archaeological discoveries and historical documents suggest close ties between Egypt and the Middle East, but “it is very nice that this study has now provided empirical evidence for this at the genetic level”

"Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians."

"The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq."

Mummy DNA unravels ancient Egyptians’ ancestry : Nature News & Comment

It's ALWAYS the same...a successful people do well...UNTIL they start diluting themselves with outsiders...then everything goes to sh!t. We're doing...we've DONE the SAME thing!

“The other big surprise,” Krause said, “was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry.”

That's EXACTLY WHY they didn't want them reading the Bible...or even KNOW what they were saying! Everything was kept in Latin SPECIFICALLY to CONTROL what the congregation heard...and therefore believed. Why allow them to question the official party line?

I can't believe someone would be in a "religion" where everything was in a foreign language. You couldn't read the books, you didn't understand what the priests were chanting. ALL you had was what they told you it said/they were saying. Unbelievable what "intelligent" people will do/believe.

Edit:

A reason the Protestants..."protestors"...left and formed their own churches...they didn't agree with the party line that didn't agree with their "interpretation". So now we have over 5,000 different Christian sects.

Again, you are correct. Martin Luther was lucky he wasn't burned at the stake. Yet the Catholic Church has a billion followers. Far more than any other Christian sect.

"Not forbidden" referred to reading the Bible, not the homosexual act.

KARMA is alive and well....
 

God created Mother Nature and Man tore that God apart into pieces and made citadels of differentiation out of them.

Isn't it nuts? I can see being a Protestant...but a Catholic? Them boys are crazy! Some of the sh!t they believe and do. The Catholic Church may be the richest organization on the planet...and yet every Sunday they're begging for more.

I don't trust the judgment of the highly religious...what else do they blindly believe?

Misunderstood.
 

I misunderstood. And I agree with you.


Carl in Tampa

.

Well first remember that neither Paul, nor any of the writers of the Gospels, ever met the historical Jesus, so all of the Gospels are just hearsay. The oldest Gospel in the Bible is the Gospel of John, written no less than 85 years after the historical Jesus was dead. And anyway Paul was an old misogynist. Does your wife cover her head with a hijab, or are you forced to shave her bald? (1 Corinthians 11:6).

And do you know WHY you are a Protest-ant? Who was doing all the protesting? All Christians were Catholic until Luther. And two words: Joel Olsteen.

Seriously, a "foreign" language? The language was universally understood by all, everywhere in the world. But you remind me of the old saw: A trilingual person speaks 3 languages, a bilingual person speaks 2 languages, and an American only can handle one language.

My wife is Lutheran. I fu ck with her all the time. Her guy started this whole mess. If Luther wasn't such a malcontent you wouldn't have those idiots dancing with venomous snakes. We'd still all be Catholics and the universe of faithful as we know it would be as one.

You quoted the wrong guy. *see Don Baldwin.

Bull****. The only reason your church or any evangelical goes abroad is to continue the systematic brain washing that religious cults need to expand and survive. You go where education is minimum and people are most vulnerable. If you really want to do good work, volunteer locally. With no payback. Keep your beliefs to yourself.

Anabaptists
 

There is a lot of history to be understood in order to comprehend the reach of the Catholic Church. Mainly, remember that as the Church flourished in Europe, the Catholics practiced infant baptism, so virtually everyone thought of themselves as Christian, no matter how little instruction they had received.

They were also almost all illiterate. The educated were Roman Citizens, so the language was Latin, which became the language of the priesthood. So, wherever a Church was established, the service was in Latin. The change to allow Catholic Mass to be observed in local languages has occurred in my lifetime. So, you see, the use of Latin in church was perhaps less sinister than you might think.

Martin Luther's break with the Catholic Church was triggered by the sale of Papal "indulgences" which were sort of "get out of purgatory free" cards. He challenged the concept, as well as being saved by good works. His great awakening was reading the scripture that said "The Just shall live by faith."

It is noteworthy that although Luther is credited as leading the Protestant Revolution, there was another group that already opposed the Catholic Church. It was a group called Anabaptists (Re-baptizers.) They rejected infant baptism and insisted that a Christian should be baptized when he had attained the maturity to make his own decision about becoming a Christian. To his discredit, Luther approved of burning Anabaptists at the stake.

I am a Baptist. One who believes that baptism should be after committing to be a Christian.

Carl in Tampa

.

The sacrament of Confirmation covers that problem.

Xtians treating the bible like a smorgasbord. Picking out only the parts they find taste good. Blinded by brainwashing. Convinced by connivers. Shafted by shysters.

Racism, Trump & Evangelicals
 

Now, tell us how you really feel. Is it really that hard to type "Chris" rather than an X ?

Inspiration
 

You sound like someone who gets his facts from Wikipedia, where anyone can go and edit the material.

This subject is too complex to debate in a forum format. The content can easily take an entire semester in college to study and discuss.

Besides which, your assertions do not prevent the belief that the books of the Bible were inspired by God.

Carl in Tampa


.

History
 

The difference being that a belief that infant baptism saves is incorrect.

And an insincere Confirmation is ineffective.

I wasn't arguing theology, but explaining why there was a time in Europe when everyone in the uneducated and illiterate masses considered themselves to be Christians.

Carl in Tampa

Disaster Relief
 

Every Southern Baptist Church is an independent, autonomous, self-governing congregation, and Evangelical efforts do nothing to expand the local church.

Volunteer locally, with no payback?

Maybe you mean by establishing and financing a new congregation in a predominately Black neighborhood in Tampa, with a Black minister.

Or financially rescuing the only church on Davis Islands several years ago as it was being forced to close because it was so deep in debt.

Or, revitalizing another failing church in the Ballast Point area.

Or, establishing a Spanish language service church, using our facilities for their services.

Or, operating a mission church in Sulphur Springs where our pastor goes to preach a sermon every Sunday, after already preaching in our own facility twice that morning. This would be in the poorest section of the Springs, where our members visit the area and try to physically improve the living conditions of the residents.

And guess what. Our members also periodically go to the Sheriff's Office District III office and provide meals for the deputies. In the last few weeks we even went out and washed their patrol cars to express our appreciation for their service.

And today, this very moment, there are uncounted numbers of Southern Baptist Disaster Relief volunteers in Texas, providing thousands of hot meals every day to victims of the Hurricane and record rains that are pounding the area. Our volunteers are unpaid, and will never accept payment for what they do for the disaster victims.

Consider that perhaps you do not know whereof you speak.


Carl in Tampa

.

Hearsay that has been rewritten over and over. There are NO contemporary records/writings on Jesus. Christianity is PAUL.

Yes a foreign language...do you speak latin? Mass was in latin until quite recently.

Relativism...it's why there are more than 5,000 sects. Each "interpreting" as they wish to interpret.

"I'll "save" you...for 10%.

There's a reason they start them off as infants...they have no defense and will believe it for life.

Oh come on Carl...any SERIOUS religious scholar knows all this. The Books attributed to John, Luke, Mathew...etc...are all anonymous, bits and pieces from various authors over the years. Whole books were deleted out of the Bible because they didn't conform to the "message" they wanted.

You REALLY believe the Bible is the "Word of God"? Literally?

They spend whole semesters studying OTHER works of fiction too.

Barnum was right...

This guy is contemporary and PT Barnum would like.


Anton LaVey - Wikipedia

This guy is contemporary and PT Barnum would like.


Anton LaVey - Wikipedia

Yes, REALLY.
 

Good try, Don. But, as I said, the discussion is too complex for a discussion on a social media forum.

And, yes, I REALLY believe the Bible is the "Word of God." Literally? you ask. I would say rather, "true," but expressed in a variety of literary styles, suitable to the various authors and periods in which they wrote.

Beyond that, I see no purpose in debating an entrenched unbeliever. Converting you is not my responsibility once I know that you know where to find the truth. The Bible.

Carl in Tampa

.

No wiotte...contemporary to Jesus. There is NOT ONE record from that time of Jesus. Josephus doesn't write of "Christ" until well after Jesus' death. Jesus is not mentioned by name.

Well...you can't show me the black villages...the black Oxford...the black IBM.

How about showing me proof that Jesus existed. Contemporary records from the time of Jesus. The earliest record I know is Josephus and it's 30 some years after the fact and doesn't mention Jesus by name as the Christ.

What about the reshuffling of the Bible? The removing of "difficult" books? All the different translations? How many versions are there?

"Currently, there are more than 40 different versions in English, from the King James Version, which was published in 1611 and is still going strong, to modern versions, some of them in very simplified English."

They're ALL the direct word of God? I don't think so.

There IS no purpose debating me. ALL you have is faith.

Saddened for you......
 

You are wasting your time trying to bait me into a big debate, Don.

The New Testament testimony does contain eyewitness authors who were with Jesus and who knew him, including the Apostle Peter, the Apostle John, and the brothers (family members) of Jesus. And of course the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, Peter's scribe, who got his information from eyewitness Peter. The Synoptic Gospels do not all contain the same stories because they are written for different audiences; I will not detail them here.

And here is the most convincing fact. Most of Jesus' Apostles died as martyrs rather than renounce their faith in Him, because they had seen him Risen after His death. People do not take such strong stands without strong motivation.

And, finally, there is, as you say, Faith. Thank God, I have been granted this gift. (John 6:65) I would wish the same for you. It would surely change your unfortunate attitude towards people of other races. (Galatians 3:28)


Carl in Tampa

.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c8f28de424.jpg

Don's fishing charter

Racism, Trump & Evangelicals
 

If you've never had it, how does a person acquire faith ? What if it isn't gifted to you ? And how would you know if it were gifted or know if it wasn't ?

Scholarship
 

This response is not for Don, who knows the answers to many questions that he asks, just to be argumentative. But, for others who are curious about the decision of what books were included in the Bible, and the different versions, I offer this.

First, those who believe in the Bible being literal and inerrant only believe that this was true of the original text, and they acknowledge that there are not original texts still in existence. They acknowledge that copying mistakes might have crept into the many copies, which were made by hand, but do not believe that it has made a significant difference in the message.

Of course the original books of the Bible were not written in English. Much of the Old Testament originated in Hebrew; much of the New Testament in Greek. Since the major international language at the time that the Christian Church began to grow in Europe was Latin, translations into Latin were frequent.

At the time of the Protestant Revolution, Luther translated the Bible into German. In England, in the 1300's, John Wycliffe translated the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible into English. He was often in conflict with the Catholic Church and after his death he was declared a heretic and his writings were burned.

But by 1611, England's King James authorized an English translation of the Bible, which is, in updated versions, still used in the United States today. This version is considered to be suitable for people with a 12th grade education. There are other, simplified versions for people with less reading skill.

There have been a number of translations over the years, some simply upgrading existing translations, others going back to the oldest available copies in Greek, and trying to be as literal as possible, while still readable. The New American Standard Bible is one such translation.

What is noteworthy, is that none of these various translations have produced any significant difference in the understanding of Christian Doctrine. They are simply directed towards audiences of varying reading skills.

With regard to what books were selected to become the "Canonized" books of the Bible, your web browser will take you to many articles on the subject. See the last paragraph in the linked article.

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?


Carl in Tampa

.