The Rapture Index

[Outrider]

Historical revisionism and a mealy mouth summation of the horror that was the cultural sexual exploitation going on.....

Nobody's 'revising' anything, and focussing on the aspect that's relevant to the discussion rather than being distracted by your ventures into 'please don't say bad things about my religion' isn't 'mealy-mouthed', it's sticking to the point. Try it.

added confirmation bias and the jobs a good'un.

Oh, look, cover your irony meters people, Vlad's just attempted to drop an accusation of a potential future logical fallacy as an argument...

This suggests a greater influence of Christianity than is the case and ignores long held relaxation of attitudes toward fornication and adultery and the hope that homophobia is due to Christianity and cannot exist without it. Good luck with that

How does it? No-one had a problem with gay people, Christianity came along and inserted itself into culture and law, and gay was bad. We're finally beginning to strip the religion away, and only now are we culturally coming to accept gay people and gayness. How is that 'overstating' Christianity's influence?

As to the notion that the relaxation of attitudes to 'fornication' is due to Christianity and not despite it... I'd welcome the argument, but you might need to wait a week or so until I stop laughing at the absurdity.

Yes British society has shown how appalling it is and that it's humanism is a sham.

And that's a demonstration that Christianity is somehow not misogynistic or homophobic because....

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody's 'revising' anything, and focussing on the aspect that's relevant to the discussion rather than being distracted by your ventures into 'please don't say bad things about my religion' isn't 'mealy-mouthed', it's sticking to the point. Try it.

Oh, look, cover your irony meters people, Vlad's just attempted to drop an accusation of a potential future logical fallacy as an argument...

How does it? No-one had a problem with gay people, Christianity came along and inserted itself into culture and law, and gay was bad. We're finally beginning to strip the religion away, and only now are we culturally coming to accept gay people and gayness. How is that 'overstating' Christianity's influence?

As to the notion that the relaxation of attitudes to 'fornication' is due to Christianity and not despite it... I'd welcome the argument, but you might need to wait a week or so until I stop laughing at the absurdity.

And that's a demonstration that Christianity is somehow not misogynistic or homophobic because....

O.

It's not that you say bad things about Christianity. It's the Christianity being the root of all evil implication as if homophobia was the Church's mission. It's whatever allows you to overlook sexual exploitation in the classic world and the horror with it as if any kick back against that is somehow misplaced, as if it was OK if being gay was OK. And you continue to do it with your assumption that Christianity introduced homophobia and that the classic world was OK with it. Yeah, as long as it could sexually exploit more people.

How the classic world was not misogynistic in the extreme over it's sexual exploitation of women, I can't figure out how you can skate over that.

[Outrider]

It's not that you say bad things about Christianity.

No, it's that Christianity does bad things. If I stopped saying it, the bad things would still happen.

It's the Christianity being the root of all evil implication as if homophobia was the Church's mission.

I didn't say all evil was down to the Church. I didn't even say that Christianity's net impact on the world was negative, though I might be tempted to argue that. I said that Christianity does evil in the world, and you've spent a lot of time implicitly accepting that and then either trying to deflect from that admission, cloud it with nonsense, divert the conversation to one of your favourite bugbears, or claim that it's only as bad as other examples.

It's whatever allows you to overlook sexual exploitation in the classic world and the horror with it as if any kick back against that is somehow misplaced, as if it was OK if being gay was OK.

I think it's probably the fact that anyone being affected by the classic world's view on sexual exploitation has been dead for longer than the religion we're discussing has existed that allows me to overlook their plight. It's not that it wasn't bad, it's that neither they, nor anyone who was inflicting this upon them, or the societies in which it was happening, exists any more. Unless you're making the case that Christianity is somehow a continuation of that tradition then I don't see the relevance, and if you are that's an even worse non-argument that you usually deploy.

And you continue to do it with your assumption that Christianity introduced homophobia and that the classic world was OK with it.

I didn't suggest that Christianity was necessarily the original source of homophobia; I suggested that it was one of the primary causes of it being exported from the middle-East to any number of regions that weren't displaying it previously to any great extent, and that it's been one of the stronger factors in maintaining it, and it's certainly one of the major retarding factors in getting rid of homophobia around the world. You aren't the only evil, you might not even have been the first evil, you're just one of the significant current evils.

Yeah, as long as it could sexually exploit more people.

Again, historic sexual exploitation, like current sexual exploitation, was terrible. I've not suggested that Christianity is a major factor in that now, or then, so I'm still failing to see what you're waving that particular waffle-bat at.

How the classic world was not misogynistic in the extreme over it's sexual exploitation of women, I can't figure out how you can skate over that.

I haven't tried to. I've not suggested that Christian misogyny is markedly different to classical misogyny, I've drawn the distinction between the classical European view of homosexuality and the Christian one.

I can talk to the difference between a modern depiction of a woman's place in the world and any number of current Christian doctrines to demonstrate that misogyny, but you've pretty much tacitly accepted that it's out there so I don't see much point in beating you over the head with that particular evil that you've already accepted Christianity is still perpetrating.

So... when it comes to the point I'm making, which is that Christianity continues to be an evil in the world, in particular in the way it attempts to proliferate misogyny and homophobia in the world against a growing tide of acceptance and equality... what's your actual argument, or are you willing to just openly accept that this is actually the case, even if it's a face of Christianity which you don't particularly like?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So... when it comes to the point I'm making, which is that Christianity continues to be an evil in the world, in particular in the way it attempts to proliferate misogyny and homophobia in the world against a growing tide of acceptance and equality... what's your actual argument, or are you willing to just openly accept that this is actually the case, even if it's a face of Christianity which you don't particularly like?

I disagree that it is a way of proliferating misogyny and homophobia.
A growing tide of acceptance and equality...I can't see it and I can't see it lasting, whatever it is you mean by it. It seems to be a distorted view of equality centred as it is around whether Gays should be married in church with other inequalities missing.

You already proved that you can forgive any amount of sexual exploitation by your mealy mouth concern over it as opposed to your condemnation of historic christianity vis ''Christianity continues being an evil.''(paranoid crap)

It seems your interpretation of Christian history matters but no one elses history does.

[Outrider]

I disagree that it is a way of proliferating misogyny and homophobia.

You don't see the explicitly homophobic 'Don't say gay' type laws coming from the American Christian Right? You don't see the Russian Orthodox church's vocal support for Russian laws against 'propoganda of non-traditional sexual relationships'? You don't see the African churches campaigning against the ordination of women, or for homosexuality to continued illegality? You don't see the Australian Christian Lobby's attempts to stop schools teaching about gay relationships?

You don't see the 'Quiverful' movement's drive to make women housebound and subservient? You don't see campaign groups trying to update rape laws to say that marital rape isn't possible?

Maybe you need to look harder.

A growing tide of acceptance and equality...I can't see it and I can't see it lasting, whatever it is you mean by it.

You don't think that gay people will continue to be allowed to marry and adopt? We're in the middle of a nationwide social debate on whether women can BECOME men, I don't think we're going to be back to being worried if they're not fucking them.

It seems to be a distorted view of equality centred as it is around whether Gays should be married in church with other inequalities missing.

Not in church, at all. That the church, in this country, is limited to fighting that front is not evidence of their acceptance of homosexuality across the board, but rather the pragmatic backstop of a movement that's already had to give up that ground. It's not the entirety of equality, and we've not achieved equality entirely, but it's one of the fights, and it's one of the fights that's currently being won by the right side.

You already proved that you can forgive any amount of sexual exploitation by your mealy mouth concern over it as opposed to your condemnation of historic christianity vis ''Christianity continues being an evil.''(paranoid crap)

Except that I've been giving you specific examples, and you've failed to really address any of them. You've dismissed, you've tried to deflect, you've tried to equivocate, but you've not offered anything that even vaguely resembles an argument.

It seems your interpretation of Christian history matters but no one elses history does.

My interpretation of Christianity is as irrelevant here as yours. It's the interpretation of Christianity amongst the people who then see it as a divine mission to try to spread homophobia and misogyny that's the issue.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

You already proved that you can forgive any amount of sexual exploitation by your mealy mouth concern over it as opposed to your condemnation of historic christianity vis ''Christianity continues being an evil.''(paranoid crap)

It seems your interpretation of Christian history matters but no one elses history does.

Whatever good Christianity may have done historically in other areas (and that comprises a whole basket of Curate's Eggs), it can be pretty well asserted that in its attitude to homosexuality its influence has been almost wholly pernicious. The continent of Africa and the Indian sub-continent offer numerous examples of homosexual behaviour being not only tolerated, but pretty much embraced in many societies. Historic Nigeria and Buganda and even the rock carvings of the Kalahari Bushmen offer numerous examples. That is, until the Catholic missionaries came, and homosexuality was condemned as being sin and evil. In modern times, such human treasures as Mugabe and Kenyatta have condemned homosexuality as being a degenerate  western import (as if it had never existed in Africa before the advent of the white man). Ironically, in present day Africa, part of the 'antidote' comes from another western import - fundamentalist Christianity of various types.

In India, the evidence of ancient rock-carvings indicates a toleration of homosexuality which was present until the advent of the British. At first a political take-over, it was not long before many aspects of Indian society were altered in line with the Christian values held by the British imperialists, among which was the idea that homosexuality was an evil not to be tolerated.

Noted historian Harbans Mukhia says one has to know India's history to understand why the British made gay sex illegal.

"The British brought their own rules to India, including the Section 377 which banned homosexuality and made it a criminal act. This law was enforced by them but it didn't conform with India's attitude toward homosexuality. It was more to do with their Christian belief systems," he says.

He adds that the court's decision has taken India back to its roots.

Other experts also believe that India had a more open attitude to homosexuality before the Raj and there is ample evidence of it in medieval history and mythology.

 

[Dicky Underpants]

Can you give examples of this?

Do you mean the biological explanations or the 'arcane mystic scenarios'? If you mean the former, then the idea that mankind evolved from some kind of killer ape-like creature still has some traction. Other anthropologists, like Richard Leakey, put the violence down to population pressure. It can't be doubted that others fight for some ideal or other, be it Christian, Muslim, or communist, or imperial. I'm not saying it's a uniform thing.
As for the 'arcane mystic scenarios' - I'm of course referring to St Paul's bizarre idea that God by sacrificing his Son (who is also part of himself) is able to wipe away the mark of 'original sin' - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". There is also the concomitant idea that Christ by his death somehow wiped away the application of the Jewish law - "Christ became a curse for us".

Not as a whole and certainly it isn't essentially 'christian'. The better model is political pressure and personal power which overrides the Christ like in people.

As I said above, it's a mixed bag, and that truest of Hamish Macbeths lifts up his kilt again in your first sentence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't see the explicitly homophobic 'Don't say gay' type laws coming from the American Christian Right? You don't see the Russian Orthodox church's vocal support for Russian laws against 'propoganda of non-traditional sexual relationships'? You don't see the African churches campaigning against the ordination of women, or for homosexuality to continued illegality? You don't see the Australian Christian Lobby's attempts to stop schools teaching about gay relationships?

I see people who, like yourself seemed to have wandered from the heart of the matter who is Christ himself. It doesn't trouble me, or should it you if people express doubts about teaching gay relationships. It does worry me when people try to change christianity into an anti gay crusade and I include you in that not so illustrious company.

You don't see the 'Quiverful' movement's drive to make women housebound and subservient? You don't see campaign groups trying to update rape laws to say that marital rape isn't possible?

Peripheral to Christianity I'm afraid. I think we are getting back to the position where, as far as those like yourself are concerned, Fred Phelps was the architypal christian.

Maybe you need to look harder.

I certainly feel that none of the positions you put forward are necessarily Christian, They are not at the heart of the matter. I am quite happy to discuss these and I can assure you I have spent time studying the American Christian right. When Trump enters people's theology you know you have a real live heresy. When TV evangelists start using divination and numerology, astrology and necromancy you know they are spiritually off the rails and the normal christian experience has become boring for these thrill seekers, similarly if you turn Christianity into an anti gay crusade as you have in your own way.

[Outrider]

I see people who, like yourself seemed to have wandered from the heart of the matter who is Christ himself.

Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm sure they'd be equally as dismissive of your perniciously liberal take on the 'Lion of Judaea'.

It does worry me when people try to change christianity into an anti gay crusade and I include you in that not so illustrious company.

Please, I'm trying to turn Christianity into a vaguely interesting cultural footnote alongside Zeus and Odin, fit for re-interpretation in graphic novels as an alien/robot/superhero/mutant story.

No-one's trying to turn Christianity into an anti-gay crusade, it's already an anti-gay crusade.

Peripheral to Christianity I'm afraid. I think we are getting back to the position where, as far as those like yourself are concerned, Fred Phelps was the architypal christian.

I think you're mistakenly considering that the fact that modern liberal values have muted the nonsense coming out of the Church of England that therefore the rest of Christianity has been taught better as well.

I certainly feel that none of the positions you put forward are necessarily Christian.

Unfortunately for everyone, the Christians that espouse those positions do feel that they are necessarily Christian. And they appear to feel that strongly, in a wide range of places around the world, to the point that they are prepared to elect lawmakers, in part, on those platforms.

They are not at the heart of the matter.

Which matter? The homophobia and misogyny of the Christian church, they're sort of the entirety of the point, those misogynist homophobic Christians who espouse their misogyny and homophobia as the tenets of their Christian faith.... you know, the matter that we're talking about.

I am quite happy to discuss these and I can assure you I have spent time studying the American Christian right.

Then it's a bit rich of you to try to deny that they exist. You might not like them, you might disagree with their stance on what Christianity should be, but I don't see that you can say that they aren't there, aren't exactly as misogynist and homophobic as I've been attesting to, and aren't vocally trying to spread that as far and wide as they can.

When Trump enters people's theology you know you have a real live heresy.

This spite was there before Trump was, and I don't see any sign yet that it's going to diminish just because he does.

When TV evangelists start using divination and numerology, astrology and necromancy you know they are spiritually off

They should be relying on good, old-fashioned divine revelation, right, because real magic is reserved for Jesus?

the rails and the normal christian experience has become boring for these thrill seekers,

Worldwide you appear to be in the minority. This isn't shunning the normal Christian experience, this IS the normal Christian experience. At best you can hope that it's merely one of the normal Christian experiences, and that there are others.

similarly if you turn Christianity into an anti gay crusade as you have in your own way.

I can't 'turn Christianity' into anything, I don't have any of my own. All I can do is recognise it where I see it.

It doesn't trouble me, or should it you if people express doubts about teaching gay relationships.

It does trouble me if people express doubts about gay relationships, as it should anyone - however, people who express doubts are engaging with the topic, and can be talked to. People who have absolutely no doubt, because they know in their heart of hearts that God and Jesus despise homosexuality to the extent that they don't have a bad word to say about rape, they'll actively advocate genocide, but a bit of man on man action merits being described as abomination... those people do more than trouble me, they cause actual real-world problems for actual real-world people in their everyday lives.

It does worry me when people try to change christianity into an anti gay crusade and I include you in that not so illustrious company.

No one is changing Christianity into an anti-gay Crusade. Christianity brought the anti-gay crusade to innumerable places, and doesn't show any signs of wanting to let go.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. I'm sure they'd be equally as dismissive of your perniciously liberal take on the 'Lion of Judaea'.

First off, how is this a no true scotsman fallacy when I haven't stated that a true christian cannot wander off from the heart of the Christian matter.

Please, I'm trying to turn Christianity into a vaguely interesting cultural footnote alongside Zeus and Odin, fit for re-interpretation in graphic novels as an alien/robot/superhero/mutant story.

Whatever floats your boat

No-one's trying to turn Christianity into an anti-gay crusade, it's already an anti-gay crusade.

Even a pessimist about Christianity would say it is an anti many things crusade. You are doing a special plead which ends updistorting the truth.

I think you're mistakenly considering that the fact that modern liberal values have muted the nonsense coming out of the Church of England that therefore the rest of Christianity has been taught better as well.

I am not bothered that in the world there are people who challenge whatever and neither should you you be. The Church exists in a secular society where the majority are not christian. You want a secular hegemony over everything though.

Unfortunately for everyone, the Christians that espouse those positions do feel that they are necessarily Christian.

Again they may be Christian but have wandered from Christianity. If a marxist rolls up in a top hat with a gold watchchain and cigar for a big spend up at Harrods, nobody would accuse him of marxism. And yet you are specially pleading Christianity i.e. However somebody who calls themself a christian however they behave that is what christianity is.

And they appear to feel that strongly, in a wide range of places around the world, to the point that they are prepared to elect lawmakers, in part, on those platforms.

And in the UK secularists are prepared to elect right wing lawmakers.

Which matter? The homophobia and misogyny of the Christian church, they're sort of the entirety of the point, those misogynist homophobic Christians who espouse their misogyny and homophobia as the tenets of their Christian faith.... you know, the matter that we're talking about.

I thought we were talking about the central tenets of the christian faith, the bare minimum

Then it's a bit rich of you to try to deny that they exist.

I'm not trying to deny they exist

You might not like them, you might disagree with their stance on what Christianity should be,

I don't and I do.

but I don't see that you can say that they aren't there, aren't exactly as misogynist and homophobic as I've been attesting to, and aren't vocally trying to spread that as far and wide as they can.

Your anti misogeny and anti homophobia may probably be merely cover for hysterical antichristianity. Both are in society in Britain, a secular society. Where Homosexuality is accepted it is on a live and let live basis, in other words Homosexuality is not celebrated iMHO. You seem to blame the church on this rather than secular society. I think that is no longer feasible.

This spite was there before Trump was, and I don't see any sign yet that it's going to diminish just because he does.

Trump seems to have become necessary for one's salvation in certain quarters you mention. That ain't Christianity

[Outrider]

First off, how is this a no true scotsman fallacy when I haven't stated that a true christian cannot wander off from the heart of the Christian matter.

The implication is that whilst they may or not be Christians, what they're espousing is not Christianity. Your error here is to presume that Christianity is a defined path that people attempt to follow or not, rather than just the collection of the activities and beliefs of Christians held and manifested because of what they think Christianity is.

Even a pessimist about Christianity would say it is an anti many things crusade. You are doing a special plead which ends up distorting the truth.

No. The fact that I'm focussing on one significant element doesn't make it a distortion, particularly when I'm quite open about it.

I am not bothered that in the world there are people who challenge whatever and neither should you you be.

Of course you should be; what if some of them succeed?

The Church exists in a secular society where the majority are not christian.

The Church of England, yes. Other churches less so.

You want a secular hegemony over everything though.

Secularism isn't achieved at the expense of religious viewpoints. Secularism is freedom for even the hateful to believe as they choose - and be called out for it.

Again they may be Christian but have wandered from Christianity.

And they'd say the same of you, and they'd have equally vehemently held scriptural and philosophical bases for those views. Who am - or you - to lay claim to the one true Christianity?

If a marxist rolls up in a top hat with a gold watchchain and cigar for a big spend up at Harrods, nobody would accuse him of marxism.

But if a Christian acts in accordance with scripture, in what way are they not a Christian doing Christianity?

And yet you are specially pleading Christianity i.e. However somebody who calls themself a christian however they behave that is what christianity is.

That's not special pleading, that's the definition of Christianity - the beliefs, and the resulting manifestations of those beliefs, of those who espouse a Christian viewpoint.

And in the UK secularists are prepared to elect right wing lawmakers.

And, as we've established, Christianity does not have a monopoly on regrettable stances. That other people also do things you or I might consider distasteful does not mean that Christianity isn't widely guilty of doing so too.

I thought we were talking about the central tenets of the christian faith, the bare minimum

No, we were talking about the homophobia and misogyny that is rife in Christianity around the world.

Your anti misogeny and anti homophobia may probably be merely cover for hysterical antichristianity.

It's not a cover it's a bloody reason. If you aren't against those Christians based upon their rampant homophobia and misogyny then there's something wrong with you.

Both are in society in Britain, a secular society.

Yes, and we as a society are increasingly addressing them, though we're a long way from finished. One of the brakes on that has been the institutions of the Christian churches. In other places it's not being addressed nearly so well.

Where Homosexuality is accepted it is on a live and let live basis, in other words Homosexuality is not celebrated iMHO.

Heterosexuality isn't 'celebrated', it simply is.

You seem to blame the church on this rather than secular society.

I think it's a hangover from a religiously regimented culture that we're throwing off. The modern Church of England has been liberalised by exposure to secular Britain, but we're not just talking about Britain, there are Christians all over the world.

Trump seems to have become necessary for one's salvation in certain quarters you mention. That ain't Christianity.

If you could just post the link where it explains what makes you the arbiter of 'True Christianity' ^TM this would all be much easier, because I'm pretty sure that these other Christians are just as convinced that their stance is right as you are that it's wrong, and because this is a faith and not anything based on reason or evidence there's absolutely no basis to judge. It's an aesthetic choice, it's which version of the baseless claims do you prefer.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whatever good Christianity may have done historically in other areas (and that comprises a whole basket of Curate's Eggs), it can be pretty well asserted that in its attitude to homosexuality its influence has been almost wholly pernicious.

Christianity is not primarily a social force which is why nominal christianity or societies that are christian because the king is never seems to work. The only christian theocracy as far as I can see is the vatican. The basic unit of Christianity is the believer. It is not specifically an anti gay movement, one could say it is an anti sex outside of marriage which it considered as between men and women and mass christianity has had formative centuries in the sexual exploitation that was Rome. Christianity's emphasis is love and faithfulness

The continent of Africa and the Indian sub-continent offer numerous examples of homosexual behaviour being not only tolerated, but pretty much embraced in many societies. Historic Nigeria and Buganda and even the rock carvings of the Kalahari Bushmen offer numerous examples.

But were these societies sexually exploitative?

That is, until the Catholic missionaries came, and homosexuality was condemned as being sin and evil

All extra marital sex would have been condemned as sinful and evil.

In modern times, such human treasures as Mugabe and Kenyatta have condemned homosexuality as being a degenerate  western import

Mugabe was a marxist, supposedly and would say that

(as if it had never existed in Africa before the advent of the white man). Ironically, in present day Africa, part of the 'antidote' comes from another western import - fundamentalist Christianity of various types.

There is a lot of syncretism in Africa which westerners are quick to label Fundamentalist christian and that same mistake is being made with American fundamentalists, who as I have said previously are a a syncretic movement now incorporating Trump, Numerology, Astrology, Divination, and necromancy

In India, the evidence of ancient rock-carvings indicates a toleration of homosexuality which was present until the advent of the British. At first a political take-over, it was not long before many aspects of Indian society were altered in line with the Christian values held by the British imperialists, among which was the idea that homosexuality was an evil not to be tolerated.

Ancient rock-carvings yes, again , is there any evidence that indian society at any time any where near as sexually exploitative as the glory that was Rome? India was never a christian society...but it did have a large scale islamic influence so one wonders how tolerant of extramarital sexuality India was.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you mean the biological explanations or the 'arcane mystic scenarios'? If you mean the former, then the idea that mankind evolved from some kind of killer ape-like creature still has some traction. Other anthropologists, like Richard Leakey, put the violence down to population pressure. It can't be doubted that others fight for some ideal or other, be it Christian, Muslim, or communist, or imperial. I'm not saying it's a uniform thing.
As for the 'arcane mystic scenarios' - I'm of course referring to St Paul's bizarre idea that God by sacrificing his Son (who is also part of himself) is able to wipe away the mark of 'original sin' - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". There is also the concomitant idea that Christ by his death somehow wiped away the application of the Jewish law - "Christ became a curse for us".

As I said above, it's a mixed bag, and that truest of Hamish Macbeths lifts up his kilt again in your first sentence.

Violence is due to social pressure is a 'society made me do it' argument.
An alternative view of violence was covered In Kubrick and Clarkes '2001' A space Odyssey.

Of course morality is not at all covered by materialism or empiricism and as Chomsky says the more one moves into sociology the less effective science is.

Greed, lust, envy, power, exploitation...all can be carried out without violence as far as I am aware.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The implication is that whilst they may or not be Christians, what they're espousing is not Christianity. Your error here is to presume that Christianity is a defined path that people attempt to follow or not, rather than just the collection of the activities and beliefs of Christians held and manifested because of what they think

Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Jesus says ''I am the Way, The truth and the life

If you could just post the link where it explains what makes you the arbiter of 'True Christianity' ^TM this would all be much easier, because I'm pretty sure that these other Christians are just as convinced that their stance is right as you are that it's wrong, and because this is a faith and not anything based on reason or evidence there's absolutely no basis to judge. It's an aesthetic choice, it's which version of the baseless claims do you prefer.

Christ is the arbiter of true christianity, which is why he himself is the heart of the matter, not info about him nor the historic influence of mass christianity.

[Dicky Underpants]

Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Jesus says ''I am the Way, The truth and the life.

From which it is a short step to "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" -Outside the Church there is no salvation.
You're not a catholic are you? Beware!

[Dicky Underpants]

Christ is the arbiter of true christianity, which is why he himself is the heart of the matter, not info about him nor the historic influence of mass christianity.

So, will the real Christ please stand up? It seems you think he's the Christ of John's gospel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From which it is a short step to "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" -Outside the Church there is no salvation.
You're not a catholic are you? Beware!

Beg Pardon.

[Dicky Underpants]

Beg Pardon.

No cigar for you, senorita.
BTW - the text from John continues "No one comes unto the Father except BY me". That has rather more theological implications than the worthy slant you give to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No cigar for you, senorita.
BTW - the text from John continues "No one comes unto the Father except BY me". That has rather more theological implications than the worthy slant you give to it.

This is the divine mechanism if you like to overcome the consequence of human alienation from God.

Of course there are theological implications. Which trouble you?

[Outrider]

Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Jesus says ''I am the Way, The truth and the life."

And these other Christians have their relationship with Jesus; indeed, many of them are happy to spend an extended period of time telling you all about it.

Christ is the arbiter of true christianity, which is why he himself is the heart of the matter, not info about him nor the historic influence of mass christianity.

Well, until he gets back off his extended fag-break and actually holds forth strongly enough to stop anyone, all those claims have equal validity. So that misogyny, that homophobia, those bits and pieces of casual racism that still hang around some of the fringes, they're all manifestations of Christianity. I totally accept that you are as saddened by them as I am, but our disappointment does not change the fact that they believe, and because they believe that adopt the written word that is purported to be from God, and that written word espouses homophobic and misogynistic concepts.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And these other Christians have their relationship with Jesus; indeed, many of them are happy to spend an extended period of time telling you all about it.

Well, until he gets back off his extended fag-break and actually holds forth strongly enough to stop anyone, all those claims have equal validity. So that misogyny, that homophobia, those bits and pieces of casual racism that still hang around some of the fringes, they're all manifestations of Christianity. I totally accept that you are as saddened by them as I am, but our disappointment does not change the fact that they believe, and because they believe that adopt the written word that is purported to be from God, and that written word espouses homophobic and misogynistic concepts.

O.

See my reply to Dicky Underpants. The written word expresses pushback against sex outside of marriage. Yes there is criticism of the Pagan world in the written word but it constitutes guidance for Christian conduct not a prescription for unbelievers and one has, I believe, to put it in the context of the sexual exploitation of the day since that is when it was written. Any separation of homosexual intercourse from adultery and fornication is an artificial reading. I don't see that the new testament carries misogyny or racism and certainly, the glory that was Rome Empire was Misogynistic.

[jeremyp]

I don't see that the new testament carries misogyny or racism and certainly, the glory that was Rome Empire was Misogynistic.

The question of misogyny in the New Testament is complex. A case can be argued that it wasn't misogynistic at the time Paul wrote the last chapter of Romans but, by the time the six forged letters of Paul were written, it had become misogynistic and when it took over the Roman Empire in the fourth century, it was bad news for women. Read about Hypatia if you want to know what Christianity did for women.

[Outrider]

The written word expresses pushback against sex outside of marriage.

'The' written word - remembering that there are all sorts of apocrypha that some people have decided don't count, and there have been sequels to be the best-seller which are considered to be canon by some fans... but the written word is exactly what these exact Christians that I'm talking about that neither of us likes is using.

Yes there is criticism of the Pagan world in the written word but it constitutes guidance for Christian conduct not a prescription for unbelievers and one has, I believe, to put it in the context of the sexual exploitation of the day since that is when it was written.

Those Christians we don't like are using it as their guidance, look where it's gotten us. You may not think it places an onus on 'us' non-believers (bearing in mind that at least some of those gay people and women that are targeted are believers themselves), but these other Christians do.

As to whether it should be put into the context of the times... the people are are (mis?)using aren't, they're applying it now. It's if not written directly then allegedly inspired by God, but it can't foresee changing cultural mores? Even if it was only a vessel of the time, how come it took time out to subjugate women and implement moral opprobrium on homosexuality, but doesn't have a word to say about rape or slavery being bad things, and actively encourages genocide? If at least bits of it are 'of their time', where's the current guidance? If what's moral changes with time, in what way is Christianity an absolute morality?

Any separation of homosexual intercourse from adultery and fornication is an artificial reading.

Only if you ban gay people from marrying. Only if you choose to define gay sex as something morally different from straight sex. Only if, to clear, you introduce artificial distinctions.

I don't see that the new testament carries misogyny or racism and certainly, the glory that was Rome Empire was Misogynistic.

Maybe you don't, I'm pretty sure the people that espouse it don't see it as misogyny or racism when they espouse it, but that's what it is, and it's springing directly from their own 'relationship with Christ' and what they believe he wants them to be bringing to the world.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

.

Of course there are theological implications. Which trouble you?

No, they do not trouble me, but perhaps they should trouble you.
I was pointing out the difference between seeing Christ as a supreme exemplar of how humans should behave (the implication of your first truncated quote) and the theological implications which derive from St Paul's statement of the same doctrine implied in the part of the verse which you didn't quote : "There is one mediator between humans and God" *(which is probably where St John got the idea from).

*That's from the spurious 1 Timothy (Pastoral Eps) which was probably written just before the end of the1st century, so in time to influence John.

[Dicky Underpants]

The question of misogyny in the New Testament is complex. A case can be argued that it wasn't misogynistic at the time Paul wrote the last chapter of Romans but, by the time the six forged letters of Paul were written, it had become misogynistic and when it took over the Roman Empire in the fourth century, it was bad news for women. Read about Hypatia if you want to know what Christianity did for women.

Spot on. I might accuse Paul of many things, but he wasn't misogynistic to any great degree. But the early Church acted upon the spurious writings, and many 'Christian' sects continue to do so right down to our time.