|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 2, 2023 20:39:33 GMT
clusium Isn't it cute how they talk to each other, but it's really meant for you to read it and be influenced by it? isn't it cute how you don't understand irony and hypocrisy? Or Christianity. Christianity =/= anal sex. Didn't you have anyone to teach you that when you were younger?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2023 20:40:57 GMT
isn't it cute how you don't understand irony and hypocrisy? Or Christianity. Christianity =/= anal sex. Didn't you have anyone to teach you that when you were younger? In fact there is very very little you understand is there? Sad little man.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 2, 2023 20:42:18 GMT
clusium Isn't it cute how they talk to each other, but it's really meant for you to read it and be influenced by it? Yep. Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 2, 2023 20:45:53 GMT
I do not agree that the bible condemns homosexuality OK, but suppose that you DID agree. Would you then be opposed to legalizing gay marriage? Will that logically follow?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2023 20:54:46 GMT
I do not agree that the bible condemns homosexuality OK, but suppose that you DID agree. Would you then be opposed to legalizing gay marriage? Will that logically follow? No because I also do not agree that my beliefs are to be imposed on others and in any case I believe that Jesus' most important command was radical acceptance and love.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2023 20:55:16 GMT
clusium Isn't it cute how they talk to each other, but it's really meant for you to read it and be influenced by it? Yep. Definitely. Perhaps its because you dont answer questions directly?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 2, 2023 21:04:00 GMT
OK, but suppose that you DID agree. Would you then be opposed to legalizing gay marriage? Will that logically follow? No because I also do not agree that my beliefs are to be imposed on others and in any case I believe that Jesus' most important command was radical acceptance and love. Bravo. Now, where in the hell are the Christians who both believe that homosexuality is a sin AND agree that their beliefs are not to be imposed on others?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 2, 2023 21:07:58 GMT
No because I also do not agree that my beliefs are to be imposed on others and in any case I believe that Jesus' most important command was radical acceptance and love. Bravo. Now, where in the hell are the Christians who both believe that homosexuality is a sin AND agree that their beliefs are not to be imposed on others? I dont think they exist, you need to either be a follower and not a reader to think the bible condemns homosexuality and that means chances are you think your leader has the only handle on being right.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 2, 2023 23:38:49 GMT
I would take issue with you there. Why couldn't such a Christian, the " Beware you adulterers, sodomites, etc. lest you taste God's fearful judgment" type of Christian also believe that punishing sinners is God's business and, thus, not fret over what the state does or doesn't prohibit? Such a Christian does seem a rarity*, but he would be intellectually consistent compared with all those Christians who are outraged that gay marriage is legal but show no outrage that so many other sins ARE legal. That does not mean they would be intellectually consistent with scripture though. The fact that they follow the Bible more than other Christians isn't saying much if the other Christians aren't hardly following it at all. More to the point, any Christian can "believe" anything they want to believe. But the question was asking what a good Christian SHOULD do, not what many Christians WOULD do. *Edit: JWs would be an example. They don't concern themselves over whether the state outlaws sin. Do they even count as "Christian" though? I mean, I know they call themselves Christian, but the Watchtower organization is run more like a cult, with doctrines that depart significantly from mainstream Christianity. Either way, I could make the same argument about them. If you want to talk about what would make a "good Jehovah's Witness", then yeah - staying out of politics makes them good because that's one of their own doctrines. But that's not a "Christian" doctrine per se.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 3, 2023 0:03:58 GMT
That does not mean they would be intellectually consistent with scripture though. Maybe not, but those Christians who call for the state to make gay marriage illegal but don't insist on the same for other "sins" are flashing their bigot credentials.Some Christians won't count JWs as Christians because JWs reject the Trinity. Whether that should rightly be a disqualifier or not doesn't interest me. If a church calls itself Christian, I'm not going to challenge them on it. Whatever their reason to stay out of politics, at least they're consistent about not trying to make "selective sins" illegal.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 3, 2023 0:07:21 GMT
However, if by “good Christian” you mean a Christian who is trying to follow the Bible as accurately as possible, then the answer is not only yes - but you should be going much further. A “good Christian” in this context should not only be fighting to outlaw gay marriage, but also to criminalize homosexuality in general and be advocating for the death penalty to gays (as commanded in scripture). So here is the problem I have with those that rail against Christianity, I do not agree that the bible condemns homosexuality and, although I DO cherry pick (and in fact the bible is already cherry picked, Gospel of Thomas for a start), I understand that the references to homosexuality in the bible are not actually references to homosexuality. So as a good Christian (who actually takes the time to understand what is written) surely the rejection of homosexuality is an anathema ? So, a couple of things here. First let's acknowledge some of the claims you make about yourself: 1) You are NOT a Christian 2) You DO cherry-pick scipture 3) You do not agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality That's all well and good! And I'm sure you've done your due diligence in studying biblical history and hermeneutics before arriving at that conclusion. However, how many Christians have ever done this? And do most Christians arrive at the same conclusion that you have? The answer is obviously "no", and that's a huge problem for your argument. I'm not the one straw manning Christianity here. You on the other hand might be. There's two questions to consider at this point: A) Does the Bible actually condemn homosexuality? B) What do YOU consider to be "the Bible"? I guarantee you that the vast majority of conservative, fundamentalist Christians who have homophobic views (and you know who there are on this board) have not studied Bible history hardly at all, have not studied hermeneutics at all, do not read Biblical Hebrew or Greek, and have probably only ever read an ENGLISH translation of the Bible. And with that being the backdrop, the plain reading of scripture in English necessarily leads to a homophobic conclusion. The King James Bible and the NIV translation DOES condemn homosexuality! It's right there in plain English and you don't get to a non-homophobic interpretation by reading it in English. Now, you may personally understand that the Bible was not written in English, and you probably also don't accept any English translations to be "the Bible". But they do! That is the basis for their belief system, so that's what I judge. We can talk about the historical context of Temple Prostitution, and how Moses's commandments against homosexual behavior were actually commands against pederasty, and how the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality as recorded in Ezekiel, and not homosexuality, and debate Paul's usage of Malakoi and Arsenokoitai, and what they really mean. We can do all of that, but that all requires getting far outside of what these people think the Bible is. None of that matters if they have no such context when formulating their beliefs and accept that the English translation is "God breathed". It's THEIR religion, not yours or mine (anymore). They get to decided what doctrines are "Christian" and what version of a book is "holy". Their ignorance is their own problem, but it's a problem internal to their belief system. There is no point in two NON-Christians debating over what the Bible says when neither of us believe that it is an inspired work, or that it a source of morality. At best, the ONLY thing we can do is be fair and acknowledge that there are SOME Christians who are educated enough to have done the leg work here, and have also arrived at the conclusion you've arrived at. But they are the minority! For the record, I also think that they cherry-pick scripture (as you yourself have admitted to doing). Here is an interview I've did not to long ago with a gay Christian pastor, who tries to rehabilitate Christianity and save it from itself as you're trying to do. But in my opinion, he does not have the philosophical high ground here. Long story short, IF you and Pastor Robertson are "correct", and that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality - then the Christian God is a complete failure as a communicator! He allowed a FALSE belief masquerading as "his word" to infect the minds of the majority of his own followers, and has taken no steps to correct the error. This failure has led to the countless suffering of individuals and destruction of families - all based on a false understanding of what he intended to convey. That would theoretically make this God a failure. And if the Christian god failed to communicate his message to his own followers accurately, then that invalidates the viability of the entire religion. God is either NOT all-knowing, NOT all-powerful, or NOT all-good! And if he's not one of those things, then the Christian God which is defined with the omni-attributes does not exist. You have literally disproved the existence of the Christian god by positing that what is widely accepted to be his word is NOT in fact his true word. That one fact falsifies all of the claims that the entire religion rests on.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 3, 2023 0:19:37 GMT
That does not mean they would be intellectually consistent with scripture though. Maybe not, but those Christians who call for the state to make gay marriage illegal but don't insist on the same for other "sins" are flashing their bigot credentials.Some Christians won't count JWs as Christians because JWs reject the Trinity. Whether that should rightly be a disqualifier or not doesn't interest me. If a church calls itself Christian, I'm not going to challenge them on it. Whatever their reason to stay out of politics, at least they're consistent about not trying to make "selective sins" illegal. I agree with everything that you've said here. Whatever else we want to say about Jehovah's Witnesses, they are certainly more consistent at actually following the doctrines they believe in than any other Christians are. Having said that, I want to make it clear that many of their doctrines SUCK BALLS and end up being equally if not more harmful than those of mainstream Christianity. I don't want anyone to mistakenly thing that being more consistent with your doctrine makes you better. No, in some cases it actually makes you much worse (dogmatic).
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 3, 2023 0:30:59 GMT
So here is the problem I have with those that rail against Christianity, I do not agree that the bible condemns homosexuality and, although I DO cherry pick (and in fact the bible is already cherry picked, Gospel of Thomas for a start), I understand that the references to homosexuality in the bible are not actually references to homosexuality. So as a good Christian (who actually takes the time to understand what is written) surely the rejection of homosexuality is an anathema ? So, a couple of things here. First let's acknowledge some of the claims you make about yourself: 1) You are NOT a Christian 2) You DO cherry-pick scipture 3) You do not agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality That's all well and good! And I'm sure you've done your due diligence in studying biblical history and hermeneutics before arriving at that conclusion. However, how many Christians have ever done this? And do most Christians arrive at the same conclusion that you have? The answer is obviously "no", and that's a huge problem for your argument. I'm not the one straw manning Christianity here. You on the other hand might be. There's two questions to consider at this point: A) Does the Bible actually condemn homosexuality? B) What do YOU consider to be "the Bible"? I guarantee you that the vast majority of conservative, fundamentalist Christians who have homophobic views (and you know who there are on this board) have not studied Bible history hardly at all, have not studied hermeneutics at all, do not read Biblical Hebrew or Greek, and have probably only ever read an ENGLISH translation of the Bible. And with that being the backdrop, the plain reading of scripture in English necessarily leads to a homophobic conclusion. The King James Bible and the NIV translation DOES condemn homosexuality! It's right there in plain English and you don't get to a non-homophobic interpretation by reading it in English. Now, you may personally understand that the Bible was not written in English, and you probably also don't accept any English translations to be "the Bible". But they do! That is the basis for their belief system, so that's what I judge. We can talk about the historical context of Temple Prostitution, and how Moses's commandments against homosexual behavior were actually commands against pederasty, and how the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality as recorded in Ezekiel, and not homosexuality, and debate Paul's usage of Malakoi and Arsenokoitai, and what they really mean. We can do all of that, but that all requires getting far outside of what these people think the Bible is. None of that matters if they have no such context when formulating their beliefs and accept that the English translation is "God breathed". It's THEIR religion, not yours or mine (anymore). They get to decided what doctrines are "Christian" and what version of a book is "holy". Their ignorance is their own problem, but it's a problem internal to their belief system. There is no point in two NON-Christians debating over what the Bible says when neither of us believe that it is an inspired work, or that it a source of morality. At best, the ONLY thing we can do is be fair and acknowledge that there are SOME Christians who are educated enough to have done the leg work here, and have also arrived at the conclusion you've arrived at. But they are the minority! For the record, I also think that they cherry-pick scripture (as you yourself have admitted to doing). Here is an interview I've did not to long ago with a gay Christian pastor, who tries to rehabilitate Christianity and save it from itself as you're trying to do. But in my opinion, he does not have the philosophical high ground here. Long story short, IF you and Pastor Robertson are "correct", and that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality - then the Christian God is a complete failure as a communicator! He allowed a FALSE belief masquerading as "his word" to infect the minds of the majority of his own followers, and has taken no steps to correct the error. This failure has led to the countless suffering of individuals and destruction of families - all based on a false understanding of what he intended to convey. That would theoretically make this God a failure. And if the Christian god failed to communicate his message to his own followers accurately, then that invalidates the viability of the entire religion. God is either NOT all-knowing, NOT all-powerful, or NOT all-good! And if he's not one of those things, then the Christian God which is defined with the omni-attributes does not exist. You have literally disproved the existence of the Christian god by positing that what is widely accepted to be his word is NOT in fact his true word. That one fact falsifies all of the claims that the entire religion rests on. I am a Christian, I stopped reading after your fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 3, 2023 0:33:13 GMT
Maybe not, but those Christians who call for the state to make gay marriage illegal but don't insist on the same for other "sins" are flashing their bigot credentials.Some Christians won't count JWs as Christians because JWs reject the Trinity. Whether that should rightly be a disqualifier or not doesn't interest me. If a church calls itself Christian, I'm not going to challenge them on it. Whatever their reason to stay out of politics, at least they're consistent about not trying to make "selective sins" illegal. I agree with everything that you've said here. Whatever else we want to say about Jehovah's Witnesses, they are certainly more consistent at actually following the doctrines they believe in than any other Christians are. Having said that, I want to make it clear that many of their doctrines SUCK BALLS and end up being equally if not more harmful than those of mainstream Christianity. I don't want anyone to mistakenly thing that being more consistent with your doctrine makes you better. No, in some cases it actually makes you much worse (dogmatic). When a JW was a poster on the old board we got into discussions about various ball sucking teachings on several occasions.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 3, 2023 0:39:58 GMT
So, a couple of things here. First let's acknowledge some of the claims you make about yourself: 1) You are NOT a Christian 2) You DO cherry-pick scipture 3) You do not agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality That's all well and good! And I'm sure you've done your due diligence in studying biblical history and hermeneutics before arriving at that conclusion. However, how many Christians have ever done this? And do most Christians arrive at the same conclusion that you have? The answer is obviously "no", and that's a huge problem for your argument. I'm not the one straw manning Christianity here. You on the other hand might be. There's two questions to consider at this point: A) Does the Bible actually condemn homosexuality? B) What do YOU consider to be "the Bible"? I guarantee you that the vast majority of conservative, fundamentalist Christians who have homophobic views (and you know who there are on this board) have not studied Bible history hardly at all, have not studied hermeneutics at all, do not read Biblical Hebrew or Greek, and have probably only ever read an ENGLISH translation of the Bible. And with that being the backdrop, the plain reading of scripture in English necessarily leads to a homophobic conclusion. The King James Bible and the NIV translation DOES condemn homosexuality! It's right there in plain English and you don't get to a non-homophobic interpretation by reading it in English. Now, you may personally understand that the Bible was not written in English, and you probably also don't accept any English translations to be "the Bible". But they do! That is the basis for their belief system, so that's what I judge. We can talk about the historical context of Temple Prostitution, and how Moses's commandments against homosexual behavior were actually commands against pederasty, and how the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality as recorded in Ezekiel, and not homosexuality, and debate Paul's usage of Malakoi and Arsenokoitai, and what they really mean. We can do all of that, but that all requires getting far outside of what these people think the Bible is. None of that matters if they have no such context when formulating their beliefs and accept that the English translation is "God breathed". It's THEIR religion, not yours or mine (anymore). They get to decided what doctrines are "Christian" and what version of a book is "holy". Their ignorance is their own problem, but it's a problem internal to their belief system. There is no point in two NON-Christians debating over what the Bible says when neither of us believe that it is an inspired work, or that it a source of morality. At best, the ONLY thing we can do is be fair and acknowledge that there are SOME Christians who are educated enough to have done the leg work here, and have also arrived at the conclusion you've arrived at. But they are the minority! For the record, I also think that they cherry-pick scripture (as you yourself have admitted to doing). Here is an interview I've did not to long ago with a gay Christian pastor, who tries to rehabilitate Christianity and save it from itself as you're trying to do. But in my opinion, he does not have the philosophical high ground here. Long story short, IF you and Pastor Robertson are "correct", and that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality - then the Christian God is a complete failure as a communicator! He allowed a FALSE belief masquerading as "his word" to infect the minds of the majority of his own followers, and has taken no steps to correct the error. This failure has led to the countless suffering of individuals and destruction of families - all based on a false understanding of what he intended to convey. That would theoretically make this God a failure. And if the Christian god failed to communicate his message to his own followers accurately, then that invalidates the viability of the entire religion. God is either NOT all-knowing, NOT all-powerful, or NOT all-good! And if he's not one of those things, then the Christian God which is defined with the omni-attributes does not exist. You have literally disproved the existence of the Christian god by positing that what is widely accepted to be his word is NOT in fact his true word. That one fact falsifies all of the claims that the entire religion rests on. I am a Christian, I stopped reading after your fallacy. Oh, well you shouldn't have because it was an honest mistake. I didn't realize you were still a Christian. If I had, I would have simply challenged your belief that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Yes, it does! Certainly the English translations of it do and you're being intellectually dishonest by pretending otherwise. Your only way out of that is to appeal to original languages and historical context. So is that what you're gonna do?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 3, 2023 0:56:08 GMT
I am a Christian, I stopped reading after your fallacy. Oh, well you shouldn't have because it was an honest mistake. I didn't realize you were still a Christian. If I had, I would have simply challenged your belief that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Yes, it does! Certainly the English translations of it do and you're being intellectually dishonest by pretending otherwise. Your only way out of that is to appeal to original languages and historical context. So is that what you're gonna do? Yes the mistranslations do include a word that had no meaning to the authors of the works themselves.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 3, 2023 1:48:39 GMT
Oh, well you shouldn't have because it was an honest mistake. I didn't realize you were still a Christian. If I had, I would have simply challenged your belief that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Yes, it does! Certainly the English translations of it do and you're being intellectually dishonest by pretending otherwise. Your only way out of that is to appeal to original languages and historical context. So is that what you're gonna do? Yes the mistranslations do include a word that had no meaning to the authors of the works themselves. But now you run into the problem of explaining God's failure to communicate the CORRECT message in English. Let me ask you this, why does the majority of Christianity (across not just the English speaking world but across the world in general) disagree with you? Why is it that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Presbyterians, ALL believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality? How is it that only a small minority of you got it "right", but everyone is wrong and accepts the "mistranslation"? Wouldn't that speak to the failure of the Christian God to preserve and transmit a correct message to his followers?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 3, 2023 5:37:08 GMT
Yes the mistranslations do include a word that had no meaning to the authors of the works themselves. But now you run into the problem of explaining God's failure to communicate the CORRECT message in English. Let me ask you this, why does the majority of Christianity (across not just the English speaking world but across the world in general) disagree with you? Why is it that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Presbyterians, ALL believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality? How is it that only a small minority of you got it "right", but everyone is wrong and accepts the "mistranslation"? Wouldn't that speak to the failure of the Christian God to preserve and transmit a correct message to his followers? God is not some kind of talking stick, it was mistranslated a long time ago, and in any case I feel like I follow the idea of a loving God and the message was certainly communicated to me. Just to be clear, the majority of the catholic church support gay marriage in most countries, so God may well have helped them to get it right too. Also understand the bible is not the entirety of Christian writing, not even at the time it was formalised.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 3, 2023 14:04:26 GMT
But now you run into the problem of explaining God's failure to communicate the CORRECT message in English. Let me ask you this, why does the majority of Christianity (across not just the English speaking world but across the world in general) disagree with you? Why is it that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Presbyterians, ALL believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality? How is it that only a small minority of you got it "right", but everyone is wrong and accepts the "mistranslation"? Wouldn't that speak to the failure of the Christian God to preserve and transmit a correct message to his followers? God is not some kind of talking stick, Yes he is! At least according to the Bible (he was actually a talking burning bush at one point). So what are you talking about? Why is your god so incapable of communicating clearly and directly today when according to the source of doctrine for your religion he did this all the time in the past? it was mistranslated a long time ago, and in any case I feel like I follow the idea of a loving God and the message was certainly communicated to me. Well who’s fault is it that it was mistranslated in the first place? Why did your god allow his word to be mistranslated at all? Why is he okay with so many of those professing his name teaching a false belief in his name? 2 Timothy 3:16 says that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED…and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Well that’s not really true then is it? If the “mistranslation” of God word (according to you) has led to the majority of Christianity coming to a wrong conclusion about gays, then doesn’t that falsify the entire narrative? You brought up your feelings (as if facts care about your feelings). Well, these other Christians FEEL like God has communicated to them. They feel like THEY are the ones following a loving God, and you are not. So what do you say to them? Why is your feeling more valid than theirs? How is it that YOU were able to arrive at a “correct” conclusion (despite the mistranslation) when most Christians were convinced of the opposite because of the mistranslation? Why did this supposedly “loving” God communicate his message correctly to you, but failed to communicate his message correctly to them? What makes you so goddamn special? Just to be clear, the majority of the catholic church support gay marriage in most countries, so God may well have helped them to get it right too. Bullshit! The Vatican does NOT support gay marriage. This was the Pope’s position as recently as 2021! Pope Francis Won’t Budge on LGBTQ Marriage Also understand the bible is not the entirety of Christian writing, not even at the time it was formalised. Really? Tell me, what other “Christian writing” informs Christian doctrine besides the Bible? And which of these writings were translated perfectly enough for you to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is not condemned? Can you point to a single Christian writing that approves of homosexuality?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 5, 2023 18:58:59 GMT
God is not some kind of talking stick, Yes he is! At least according to the Bible (he was actually a talking burning bush at one point). So what are you talking about? Why is your god so incapable of communicating clearly and directly today when according to the source of doctrine for your religion he did this all the time in the past? it was mistranslated a long time ago, and in any case I feel like I follow the idea of a loving God and the message was certainly communicated to me. Well who’s fault is it that it was mistranslated in the first place? Why did your god allow his word to be mistranslated at all? Why is he okay with so many of those professing his name teaching a false belief in his name? 2 Timothy 3:16 says that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED…and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Well that’s not really true then is it? If the “mistranslation” of God word (according to you) has led to the majority of Christianity coming to a wrong conclusion about gays, then doesn’t that falsify the entire narrative? You brought up your feelings (as if facts care about your feelings). Well, these other Christians FEEL like God has communicated to them. They feel like THEY Z are the ones following a loving God, and you are not. So what do you say to them? Why is your feeling more valid than theirs? How is it that YOU were able to arrive at a “correct” conclusion (despite the mistranslation) when most Christians were convinced of the opposite because of the mistranslation? Why did this supposedly “loving” God communicate his message correctly to you, but failed to communicate his message correctly to them? What makes you so goddamn special? Just to be clear, the majority of the catholic church support gay marriage in most countries, so God may well have helped them to get it right too. Pope Francis Won’t Budge on LGBTQ Marriage Also understand the bible is not the entirety of Christian writing, not even at the time it was formalised. Really? Tell me, what other “Christian writing” informs Christian doctrine besides the Bible? And which of these writings were translated perfectly enough for you to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is not condemned? Can you point to a single Christian writing that approves of homosexuality? "as if facts care about feelings" - Your whole argument about how god talks to people is based on feeling, that feeling is fundamentalism. You are a fundamentalist, progressive Christians have moved on from your interpretation of the bible. I wont argue fundamentalist arguments, you will have better luck with Erjen. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/Well first off lets talk about all the gospels that never made it into the bible, then we can talk about the corpus of Christian writers in the last 2000 years as well, Aquinas, Spong, Rohr. We can also talk in a esoteric way about the Jews and their writings as they contribute to the basis of Christian thought, especially metaphysically, and then we can talk about about the writings of the various popes and scholars, not to mention, priests throughout the ages. If you happen to be an esoteric (or mystical) Christian then there is also the stream of writing around that, which includes hermetic texts, writings out of the temple of light, and various 'occult' writings throughout history, of course given that Christianity is not a monolith, we also have the writings or the Jehovah's witnesses, the ratana church, and even the book of Mormon. I think you think that Christian means Catholic in this regard, and even then you are ignoring the writings and proclamations on behalf of god from the various popes through the ages, which is what Papal Infallibility is about. Christianity is huge, and varied, I'm not interested in your dictating my belief from your fundamentalist stance.
|
|