"So you still think homosexuality is sinful?"

Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: "So you still think homosexuality is sinful?"

#16

Post by Ivellious » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:18 pm

So, if I understood that correctly, there are certain parts of the NT that certain denominations take issue with to some degree? That would seem a little confusing and I would think that in this day and age determining which parts may have been added later might be difficult, and open to interpretation/subjectivity. I mean, clearly if Bibles are still being printed with these interpolated passages intact, that appears to show that some people find them canonical regardless. In that case, anyone who isn't a biblical scholar (like myself) might find it difficult to pick out parts that aren't necessarily accepted my different branches of Christianity.

Is this part of how different denominations get slightly different versions of the Bible? Do some pull out these interpolated verses and some don't?

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: "So you still think homosexuality is sinful?"

#17

Post by Jac3510 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:43 pm

Ivellious wrote:So, if I understood that correctly, there are certain parts of the NT that certain denominations take issue with to some degree? That would seem a little confusing and I would think that in this day and age determining which parts may have been added later might be difficult, and open to interpretation/subjectivity. I mean, clearly if Bibles are still being printed with these interpolated passages intact, that appears to show that some people find them canonical regardless. In that case, anyone who isn't a biblical scholar (like myself) might find it difficult to pick out parts that aren't necessarily accepted my different branches of Christianity.

Is this part of how different denominations get slightly different versions of the Bible? Do some pull out these interpolated verses and some don't?
No one ever said theology was easy! (Or if they did, they should be smacked. Hard. Repeatedly. Until the repent. :twisted: )

But seriously, most interpolations aren't a big deal, theologically speaking. Some create big debate, but even then only among a minority of Christians. So you have your snake handlers who get their doctrine from the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (probably not original). A very few hyper legalistic churches take 1 Cor 14:34-35 to deny women the right to speak at all in the church assembly. But for the most part, even those people who accept those passages as canonical don't agree with those conclusions (so see the alternative understanding of 1 Cor 14:34-35 cheezerox offered above).

So in one sense, the fact that some interpolations are still found in modern NT texts can make your job more difficult. But take heart. It makes mine more difficult, too! On the other hand, it doesn't really, because the issue isn't as it seems--it isn't a problem of figuring out which texts are to be believed. The issue is really far more about the old, thoroughly discussed issue of subjectivity in interpretation. If you can get a good, objective interpretation of 80% of the NT text, then even if you aren't aware of the interpolations and regard them as authoritative, you won't find much, if any, real theological disagreement with the main and widely accepted doctrines of the faith--what Lewis called Mere Christianity.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of getting these things right. Again, some of them are important. Whether or not women can speak in church is affected by how one reads 1 Cor 14:34-35! But important is just that--important. And important is on a scale. Even if we accepted 1 Cor 14:34-35 as canonical (original or not), I would put it much lower on the list than other important issues.

Just trying to offer some perspective is all! :)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8943
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 333 times

Re: "So you still think homosexuality is sinful?"

#18

Post by PaulSacramento » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:47 am

Jac3510 wrote:
Ivellious wrote:Forgive me, but I'm confused...If Paul did not write the sexist remarks in the Bible, is that really relevant at all? I mean, I presume it is still biblical law regardless? Most scholars don't think Moses actually wrote the entire Old Testament, despite the OT being "officially" credited to him. But it all still counts. So why would it matter if Paul only wrote damning things about homosexuality and not the bits about women being quiet and obedient to their husbands and all that?
Depends on who you ask. A Catholic will just ask the magisterium if the passage in question is canonical. A Protestant obviously has no such authoritative body. But I don't think we are lost in a sea of subjectivity.

The important thing here is that the processes of canonization for the OT and NT were different. Frankly, the OT admits quite a bit of editing. It was written over a much longer period of time and put a much heavier emphasis on tradition. It is important, I think, that later OT books (particularly the writing prophets) admit much less editing; that is, the historical books admit much more editing than do the writing prophets.

That is not the case, however, with the NT. None of the books admit the kind of editing we see in the OT historical books. All were written under apostolic authority. As such, later edits are considered non-inspired additions to what were previously fully accepted inspired texts.

All that is rather clear when you look at the three basic texts of canonicity applied to NT texts: apostolic authority, doctrinal consistency, and universal acceptance. Later additions would have violated the first of those; passages like 1 Cor 14:34-35 even appear to violate the second (for instance, where in the Law does it state that women are to remain silent? No such law exists in the OT text! Such a "law" does exist, however, in the rabbinic oral law, something Paul never quotes; moreover, Paul never appeals to the OT Law anyway as prescriptive for moral or ecclesiastical behavior . . . the arguments go on and on). So there is a rather clear difference in OT additions and NT additions.

The bottom line is that OT additions were part of the composition of the text. Only the final version is considered inspired and canonical, and many of those edits are part of the final version, since they were part of the compilation process of the final editor/redactor. Likewise, only the final version of the NT texts is considered inspired and canonical, but unlike the OT texts, all of the NT texts were written and completed by their original authors. Those, later edits to them are additions to the final form, not additions of a draft that became part of the final form.

edit:

There are other NT interpolations as well. Here's a decent article you can read that helps explain some of this:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/ency ... iii.xi.htm
Quite correct.
That said we must always remember also that the writers of the variosu letters were writing to specific congregations and many times dealing with specififc issues that at times are not as clear as we would like them to be.
To take a specific recommendation about a specific situation and create a generalized theology or doctrine or rule with it, is not appropriate.
Cults do that.
Look at the example of Paul admonishing the sexual immorality of that ONE situation in Corinth, where a man married his fathers wife ( presumably NOT his mother), Paul admonishes to cast him out if he doesn't repent, to "not even eat with such", certainly a far cry from Christ's teaching of forgiveness it seems BUT under the context of that ONE case, it is a valid approach and let us NOT forget that Paul, in his follow up letter, makes not of the remorse He feels about that advice and for them to accept the repentant sinner back into their hearts.
WIth Paul, as with all writers, we MUST work with the TOTALITY of His message and the context of his letters, to whom he sent them and why.

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: "So you still think homosexuality is sinful?"

#19

Post by CallMeDave » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:11 am

Stygian wrote:So, this popped up on Facebook earlier today.

Image

What do you all think? I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

How i would respond to a person holding to the things in this chart, is : Why are you morality-phobic ?
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

Post Reply