The bible says homosexuality is a sin, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter who's hand it was written by. The only thing that matters is if it's the word of God. And that is something only your faith can tell you. You either believe it is the word of God or you do no't.

I believe that the teachings of Jesus are divinely inspired.

I believe the letters Paul - or whoever wrote them in his name - are in the way of pastoral letters. I don't view them as divinely inspired any more than I view any other notable preacher's words to be so. In both instances there are aspects that are thought provoking and worthy of consideration. As another PP said, some of Paul's teachings reflected the times he lived (such as his views on the role of women).

OTOH, the teachings of Jesus are for the ages. There is little he said 2000 years ago that needs to be modified to reflect current thinking. Above all, he taught us to love, to forgive, have faith and not to judge others. I try and lead my life based on these fundamental lessons he taught us. To the extent that we are able to do so, I believe that salvation will follow.

At the church I attend there is a reading from the OT, one from the NT (that is not from the Gospels) and one from the Gospels. I give total credence to the lesson from the Gospels because it usually pertains to the teaching of Jesus. The OT and other facets of the NT are worthy of reflection but I absolutely don't take them literally.

Different poster here. You and I share very similar views. I'm the PP who wrote that Paul was engaged in forming Christian communities, and so he was anchored to the mores of his time period. I agree with you that his letters are pastoral in nature.

When I read Jesus' teachings, I'm amazed at how relevant they still seem today. In fact, I think the admonitions to love your neighbors and enemies, and not to judge, sometimes seem even more essential today when we're so connected to the rest of the world.

That's because they are a universal expression of human morality that existed long before Jesus (Buddha, 500 years earlier, said a lot of the same things) and still exist today.

Does it matter whether Buddha or anyone else said the same thing? In fact, there is a school of belief that Jesus spent some time in North India during the "missing years" and was influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Whether true or not, it does not take away from the essential message he was seeking to convey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's because they are a universal expression of human morality that existed long before Jesus (Buddha, 500 years earlier, said a lot of the same things) and still exist today.

Many people would disagree with you that there's an identifiable thing we can call "human morality." It's also true that many religions have very different moralities (Aztecs, anyone?) which also undercuts the idea of a single morality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's because they are a universal expression of human morality that existed long before Jesus (Buddha, 500 years earlier, said a lot of the same things) and still exist today.

Many people would disagree with you that there's an identifiable thing we can call "human morality." It's also true that many religions have very different moralities (Aztecs, anyone?) which also undercuts the idea of a single morality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's because they are a universal expression of human morality that existed long before Jesus (Buddha, 500 years earlier, said a lot of the same things) and still exist today.

Many people would disagree with you that there's an identifiable thing we can call "human morality." It's also true that many religions have very different moralities (Aztecs, anyone?) which also undercuts the idea of a single morality.

The number of people agreeing or disagreeing about something doesn't make it true. There are now experiments that indicate that other primates have morality, and that human babies have it before they are capable of understanding anything about religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timothy is another of Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter who's hand it was written by. The only thing that matters is if it's the word of God. And that is something only your faith can tell you. You either believe it is the word of God or you do no't.

I believe that the teachings of Jesus are divinely inspired.

I believe the letters Paul - or whoever wrote them in his name - are in the way of pastoral letters. I don't view them as divinely inspired any more than I view any other notable preacher's words to be so. In both instances there are aspects that are thought provoking and worthy of consideration. As another PP said, some of Paul's teachings reflected the times he lived (such as his views on the role of women).

OTOH, the teachings of Jesus are for the ages. There is little he said 2000 years ago that needs to be modified to reflect current thinking. Above all, he taught us to love, to forgive, have faith and not to judge others. I try and lead my life based on these fundamental lessons he taught us. To the extent that we are able to do so, I believe that salvation will follow.

At the church I attend there is a reading from the OT, one from the NT (that is not from the Gospels) and one from the Gospels. I give total credence to the lesson from the Gospels because it usually pertains to the teaching of Jesus. The OT and other facets of the NT are worthy of reflection but I absolutely don't take them literally.

Different poster here. You and I share very similar views. I'm the PP who wrote that Paul was engaged in forming Christian communities, and so he was anchored to the mores of his time period. I agree with you that his letters are pastoral in nature.

When I read Jesus' teachings, I'm amazed at how relevant they still seem today. In fact, I think the admonitions to love your neighbors and enemies, and not to judge, sometimes seem even more essential today when we're so connected to the rest of the world.

That's because they are a universal expression of human morality that existed long before Jesus (Buddha, 500 years earlier, said a lot of the same things) and still exist today.

Does it matter whether Buddha or anyone else said the same thing? In fact, there is a school of belief that Jesus spent some time in North India during the "missing years" and was influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Whether true or not, it does not take away from the essential message he was seeking to convey.

Not really - just some people trying to make excuses for why BUddha and Jesus are so much alike. I doubt the Jews of Jesus' time even knew there was an India. Plus if that did happen, then Jesus borrowed his morality from Buddha so Jesus wasn't a great teacher after all -- and it would be pretty weird for God to send his son to get educated by the descendants of another great teacher in a distant land. Very convoluted and certainly nothing in the bible about that.

What lengths people will go to believe things that make them feel good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People seem to spend time interpreting the Bible to make it make sense to them, but when confronted with facts like Exodus being a myth and the virgin Mary being a mistranslation, they just ignore it and move on like it never happened.

Can you give a citation for this?

just google virgin mary mistranslation.

also google Exodus myth

There are plenty of citations for both. Of course, you can't believe everything you read on the internet, so check the sources carefully - some are academic and some reported in respectable news sources. You could go to the library too, or a theological library, or ask a theologian. It's no secret -- it's taught in seminary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Does it matter whether Buddha or anyone else said the same thing? In fact, there is a school of belief that Jesus spent some time in North India during the "missing years" and was influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Whether true or not, it does not take away from the essential message he was seeking to convey.

Not really - just some people trying to make excuses for why BUddha and Jesus are so much alike. I doubt the Jews of Jesus' time even knew there was an India. Plus if that did happen, then Jesus borrowed his morality from Buddha so Jesus wasn't a great teacher after all -- and it would be pretty weird for God to send his son to get educated by the descendants of another great teacher in a distant land. Very convoluted and certainly nothing in the bible about that.

What lengths people will go to believe things that make them feel good.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the Jewish presence in India and when it occurred.

I always find it interesting how Christians in the west find it impossible to relate to Jewish presence in other countries - outside of their usual orbit of understanding - and especially how Christianity may have spread well before the advent of missionaries to countries like India. It is this bias that has most images of Jesus as a white, blonde, blue-eyed man. It is an easier image in the West with its historical prejudices to absorb than having Jesus look like the the more typical Middle Easterner with darker skin.

Anyway, google is your friend:

https://www.google.com/#q=when+did+jews+arrive+in+india

Here is one link - among many on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

And while you are at it, you may be interested to know that tradition in a part of India believes that the disciple Thomas came to South India after the crucifixion of Christ and converted the locals. Again there are many references to this on the net. Here is one:

http://www.srite.de/index?id=2&cikk=84

The role of Thomas has not been proven and is more a belief based on tradition. There is also the belief based mainly on tradition that Thomas of Cana arrived in India between the 4th and 8th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_of_Cana

[Anonymous]

PP, pretty sure you're responding to an atheist not a Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, pretty sure you're responding to an atheist not a Christian.

so what?

[Anonymous]

Probably that she bashed Christians in the first para ("you need to educate yourself", "Christians find it impossible to believe") but, if it was appropriate to bash anyone, the object of the bashing should have been the atheist PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Does it matter whether Buddha or anyone else said the same thing? In fact, there is a school of belief that Jesus spent some time in North India during the "missing years" and was influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Whether true or not, it does not take away from the essential message he was seeking to convey.

Not really - just some people trying to make excuses for why BUddha and Jesus are so much alike. I doubt the Jews of Jesus' time even knew there was an India. Plus if that did happen, then Jesus borrowed his morality from Buddha so Jesus wasn't a great teacher after all -- and it would be pretty weird for God to send his son to get educated by the descendants of another great teacher in a distant land. Very convoluted and certainly nothing in the bible about that.

What lengths people will go to believe things that make them feel good.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the Jewish presence in India and when it occurred.

I always find it interesting how Christians in the west find it impossible to relate to Jewish presence in other countries - outside of their usual orbit of understanding - and especially how Christianity may have spread well before the advent of missionaries to countries like India. It is this bias that has most images of Jesus as a white, blonde, blue-eyed man. It is an easier image in the West with its historical prejudices to absorb than having Jesus look like the the more typical Middle Easterner with darker skin.

Anyway, google is your friend:

https://www.google.com/#q=when+did+jews+arrive+in+india

Here is one link - among many on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

And while you are at it, you may be interested to know that tradition in a part of India believes that the disciple Thomas came to South India after the crucifixion of Christ and converted the locals. Again there are many references to this on the net. Here is one:

http://www.srite.de/index?id=2&cikk=84

The role of Thomas has not been proven and is more a belief based on tradition. There is also the belief based mainly on tradition that Thomas of Cana arrived in India between the 4th and 8th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_of_Cana

checked your wikipedia source and it says this at the end "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2011)"

Before that in the text, it mentions "claims" of Jews arriving in the distant past and a "tradition" of believing that Jews settled there very early. But there's no verification via historical records until after the diaspora when the temple was destroyed in the 60's of the first century AD and Jews were forced out. That would be 60 years after Jesus came.

Be careful when you read and please note that the terms "claim" and "traditional" mean "people say it but there's no verified historical record"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably that she bashed Christians in the first para ("you need to educate yourself", "Christians find it impossible to believe") but, if it was appropriate to bash anyone, the object of the bashing should have been the atheist PP.

why does anyone need to be "bashed?" What's so bad about educating yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably that she bashed Christians in the first para ("you need to educate yourself", "Christians find it impossible to believe") but, if it was appropriate to bash anyone, the object of the bashing should have been the atheist PP.

why does anyone need to be "bashed?" What's so bad about educating yourself?

Dunno why she got all snarky. We aren't her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Does it matter whether Buddha or anyone else said the same thing? In fact, there is a school of belief that Jesus spent some time in North India during the "missing years" and was influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Whether true or not, it does not take away from the essential message he was seeking to convey.

Not really - just some people trying to make excuses for why BUddha and Jesus are so much alike. I doubt the Jews of Jesus' time even knew there was an India. Plus if that did happen, then Jesus borrowed his morality from Buddha so Jesus wasn't a great teacher after all -- and it would be pretty weird for God to send his son to get educated by the descendants of another great teacher in a distant land. Very convoluted and certainly nothing in the bible about that.

What lengths people will go to believe things that make them feel good.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the Jewish presence in India and when it occurred.

I always find it interesting how Christians in the west find it impossible to relate to Jewish presence in other countries - outside of their usual orbit of understanding - and especially how Christianity may have spread well before the advent of missionaries to countries like India. It is this bias that has most images of Jesus as a white, blonde, blue-eyed man. It is an easier image in the West with its historical prejudices to absorb than having Jesus look like the the more typical Middle Easterner with darker skin.

Anyway, google is your friend:

https://www.google.com/#q=when+did+jews+arrive+in+india

Here is one link - among many on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

And while you are at it, you may be interested to know that tradition in a part of India believes that the disciple Thomas came to South India after the crucifixion of Christ and converted the locals. Again there are many references to this on the net. Here is one:

http://www.srite.de/index?id=2&cikk=84

The role of Thomas has not been proven and is more a belief based on tradition. There is also the belief based mainly on tradition that Thomas of Cana arrived in India between the 4th and 8th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_of_Cana

did you even read any of these articles that you referred readers to? Here's an excerpt from one of them:http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.553350

“After 2,000 years in exile we would have lost our community,” Lhundgim said. “All of our lives were about how to move to Israel and keep the commandments.”
It’s not hard to understand why Lhundgim sees his life story as one of biblical prophecy fulfilled. Until age 24, he lived in a remote corner of northeast India in a community that believes itself to be descended from the ancient Israelite tribe of Menashe. Ritual similarities to Judaism — such as an animal sacrifice around Passover time — strengthened those beliefs.

Today, Lhundgim is among some 2,000 Bnei Menashe that live in Israel; another 5,000 are in the pipeline waiting to immigrate. This week, the Israeli government gave approval for 899 more Bnei Menashe to come.

The community has been permitted to move en masse despite practicing rituals in India with only glancing similarity to Judaism and claims of ancient Jewish ancestry that some politicians and experts find dubious.

“This is a bluff,” said Avraham Poraz, a former Israeli interior minister who temporarily halted Bnei Menashe immigration a decade ago. “They don’t have any connection to Judaism.”

The Bnei Menashe are hardly the first group to make claims of ancient Jewish ancestry in a bid to gain Israeli citizenship. The Falash Mura, Ethiopians who claimed to be descendants of Jews who converted to Christianity more than a century ago, were brought to Israel starting in the early 2000s.

-----
remember, google is your friend - but posting links just tells you that information exists -- it doesn't say anything about the content or the veracity of the information. You have to click on the links and read them for that.

[Anonymous]

^^So you choose to identify one of the groups - the Bnei Menashe - to question the veracity of the link I posted and decide to ignore the very first one in that link, the "Cochin Jews" whose antecedents are less in question.

The origin of the Jewish community in India is not certain. Traditionally Kochi Jews trace their lineage back to the time of the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. Some even claim to go as far back as the Assyrian exile in 722 B.C.E. The Book of Esther actually contains the first written mention of Jews in India when King Ahashverosh refers to the Jews dispersed across his wide empire from Hodu (Hebrew for India) to Kush (Ethiopia)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-jewish-planet/cochin/about/cochin-jew-town/

The other PP who questioned the use of tradition made a more legitimate and valid point.

Google is no friend if one chooses to be biased and selects the more questionable claims to challenge the antecedents of Jews in India while ignoring those that may have more basis.