Pastor Protection Bill derail

[Starlight]

How common was the issue to the church fathers?

It's worth bearing in mind that the hundreds of surviving documents from the early church fathers span multiple thousands of pages. Googling the subject of early church fathers and homosexuality, suggests there are about 12 mentions of the subject through to 400AD. So the answer is: Not very common at all. You could read quite a lot of early church fathers without ever hitting any of those mentions - it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Those passages, don't, on the whole seem to provide a lot of reasoning though. They simply express the opinion that it is wrong. So I'm not sure if that's what Jesse had in mind when I said I should "learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage", because while those passages tell me that a small number of the early Christians didn't like homosexuality, they don't really tell me much about why, or "why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage". So maybe Jesse had in mind some other passages...?

I suspect though that it's the usual case of a Christian projecting their own beliefs back onto "Church history" and using the old "everyone has always believed exactly what I believe, therefore I am right" kind of awesome logic.

[Jesse]

It's worth bearing in mind that the hundreds of surviving documents from the early church fathers span multiple thousands of pages. Googling the subject of early church fathers and homosexuality, suggests there are about 12 mentions of the subject through to 400AD. So the answer is: Not very common at all. You could read quite a lot of early church fathers without ever hitting any of those mentions - it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Those passages, don't, on the whole seem to provide a lot of reasoning though. They simply express the opinion that it is wrong. So I'm not sure if that's what Jesse had in mind when I said I should "learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage", because while those passages tell me that a small number of the early Christians didn't like homosexuality, they don't really tell me much about why, or "why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage". So maybe Jesse had in mind some other passages...?

I suspect though that it's the usual case of a Christian projecting their own beliefs back onto "Church history" and using the old "everyone has always believed exactly what I believe, therefore I am right" kind of awesome logic.

First, I like how you changed your original quote and took out the abortion aspect once you were shown to be incorrect on it. I won't let you weasel your way out of it that easily Starlight. Since you are showing that you are not interested in a real conversation on any subject, this will be the last time I respond to any of your posts. Christianity has a long and established history/tradition of being against abortion and homosexuality. To deny this is to deny reality. Try and actually do research on a subject before pontificating on it Mr. "Scholar".

[Starlight]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you here LittlePixieofTerror. Here is a small sample:
Abortion was well known to the early church fathers and in ancient times as a whole. Not just infanticide.

There are a few mentions of abortion in the early church fathers, not many, but a few. I don't normally have much interest in the abortion debate because I find the whole issue so pointless, since what the bible actually says about the issue gets regularly ignored:

The OT law is pretty clear that the fetus does not have the value of a human life. If a man punches a woman who's with child and it causes a miscarriage, then there is a financial penalty, but if the woman herself also dies from the blow or suffers any other injuries, there is an eye-for-eye life-for-life punishment that kicks in. (Exodus 21:22-23) Clearly the fetus is valued at less than the woman's life. Likewise, elsewhere it is clear that fetuses and infants under 1 month old were not counted as people (Numbers 3:15-16) or as having value (Leviticus 27:6). Most interesting is the situation where a man believes his wife has been unfaithful to him. He brings her before a priest, who is to give her an abortion potion to drink. If the potion works successfully and the baby dies, then the woman is judged to be guilty. If the abortion fails and the baby lives, then she is judged to be innocent and the man is to raise the baby as his own. (Numbers 5:21-28)

The zealousness of the modern anti-abortion movement causes me to roll my eyes. It's not at all well-grounded in the bible.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's worth bearing in mind that the hundreds of surviving documents from the early church fathers span multiple thousands of pages.

Which isn't an answer to the question I asked. How common was the issue with the church fathers and what sort of importance did they attach to it, in comparison to other issues? Do you prefer to answer the question I asked already or are you going to try some more distractions and hope nobody calls you on it?

BTW I've noted that you don't want to discuss the issue of abortion and the early church. Why is that?

Googling the subject of early church fathers and homosexuality, suggests there are about 12 mentions of the subject through to 400AD. So the answer is: Not very common at all. You could read quite a lot of early church fathers without ever hitting any of those mentions - it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

So what? I never made a claim of how important the issue was to them either way nor is the amount of time they spent on the topic relevant either. The church's answer, for if homosexual conduct is a sin, is well known (the answer is yes it is and that is how the church saw it for thousands of years). It is only when the issue starts making it rounds within the past 30 years that people started to claim otherwise. Besides, people have done the work for us and you could have found it, for yourself, if you had bothered to spend 2 minutes looking for the answer. I found this quite, quite helpful:

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born" (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

That is just one sample, of quite a few more. Bottom line, you haven't spent 5 minutes on the topic, and it shows.

Those passages, don't, on the whole seem to provide a lot of reasoning though. They simply express the opinion that it is wrong. So I'm not sure if that's what Jesse had in mind when I said I should "learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage", because while those passages tell me that a small number of the early Christians didn't like homosexuality, they don't really tell me much about why, or "why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage". So maybe Jesse had in mind some other passages...?

Watch that goal post move! Here is what you said earlier:

The early church fathers don't mention the issue of homosexuality very much. Clearly I missed whatever wisdom you think they have to share on the subject. Please enlighten me.

and now you want to change up the goal post to a new topic. Nice!

I suspect though that it's the usual case of a Christian projecting their own beliefs back onto "Church history" and using the old "everyone has always believed exactly what I believe, therefore I am right" kind of awesome logic.

Another non answer. Too bad that a few minutes of quick research, quickly renders your claim inept. The quotes are there and are easy to find. Stop being lazy. It only took me a few minutes to find quite a few quotes and stuff out there that says otherwise. Believe what you must though; I already know you will.

[Jesse]

What that goal post move!

This is his actual first quote before he changed it:

The early church fathers don't mention either issue very much. Clearly I missed whatever wisdom you think they have to share on the subject. Please enlighten me.

Dude is incapable of being honest on any subject.

[lilpixieofterror]

There are a few mentions of abortion in the early church fathers, not many, but a few. I don't normally have much interest in the abortion debate because I find the whole issue so pointless, since what the bible actually says about the issue gets regularly ignored:

The OT law is pretty clear that the fetus does not have the value of a human life. If a man punches a woman who's with child and it causes a miscarriage, then there is a financial penalty, but if the woman herself also dies from the blow or suffers any other injuries, there is an eye-for-eye life-for-life punishment that kicks in. (Exodus 21:22-23) Clearly the fetus is valued at less than the woman's life. Likewise, elsewhere it is clear that fetuses and infants under 1 month old were not counted as people (Numbers 3:15-16) or as having value (Leviticus 27:6). Most interesting is the situation where a man believes his wife has been unfaithful to him. He brings her before a priest, who is to give her an abortion potion to drink. If the potion works successfully and the baby dies, then the woman is judged to be guilty. If the abortion fails and the baby lives, then she is judged to be innocent and the man is to raise the baby as his own. (Numbers 5:21-28)

The zealousness of the modern anti-abortion movement causes me to roll my eyes. It's not at all well-grounded in the bible.

Sorry sweety, answers exist for this all and you're just debating piles of straw because you don't want to deal with the facts. For fun, let me refute all of your claims:

- Exodus 21:22-23 is talking about ACCIDENTS and not intent to harm. You do understand the difference between accidents and intentions to cause harm, right? Besides, it isn't as though it is always easy to tell if a woman is pregnant or not. Do you think people should be punished and killed for accidents?
- Numbers 3:15-16 and Lev 27:6. Since childhood death was a rather common occurrence, perhaps the reason to avoid counting them until they were a month old was due to that fact. Did that thought ever enter your head?
- Numbers 5:21-28. Do you have any evidence this was an 'abortion potion' or are you just asserting it is because you want it to be in there so you asserted it is in there? Go ahead, present a single piece of evidence to support your assertion here or is the answer that you don't have any evidence and just made that claim up because you really want abortion to be in there?

I'm sorry dimbulb, murdering your children, on the alter of convenience, is not condoned in the Bible. No matter how badly you really wish these verses would support your assertions.

[lilpixieofterror]

This is his actual first quote before he changed it:


Dude is incapable of being honest on any subject.

So I've noticed. Perhaps we should get him a shovel for Christmas. It would make it easier to move those goal post around.

[Starlight]

Christianity has a long and established history/tradition of being against abortion and homosexuality.

I don't disagree with this. What I've repeatedly asked about is your suggestion there is something in church history that tells us "why Christians would naturally be against" these things. Giving examples of them being against these things doesn't tell us why Christians would naturally be against such things. I'm still waiting for any form of explanation about why.

As far as I can tell on either issue there's pretty much just been Chinese-whispers: "We're against this, pass it on." There doesn't seem to have been an overly great deal of thoughtful reflection, and nobody seems to quite have an overly good explanation for why they're against those things.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't disagree with this. What I've repeatedly asked about is your suggestion there is something in church history that tells us "why Christians would naturally be against" these things. Giving examples of them being against these things doesn't tell us why Christians would naturally be against such things. I'm still waiting for any form of explanation about why.

You seriously can't see the issue with murdering your own children, on the alter of convenience, might be a problem? Wow...

As far as I can tell on either issue there's pretty much just been Chinese-whispers: "We're against this, pass it on." There doesn't seem to have been an overly great deal of thoughtful reflection, and nobody seems to quite have an overly good explanation for why they're against those things.

And that goal post keeps moving.

[Starlight]

- Exodus 21:22-23 is talking about ACCIDENTS and not intent to harm. You do understand the difference between accidents and intentions to cause harm, right?

That would then make it manslaughter and not murder, and so verse 12 ought to apply. However, since the law does not treat the fetus as human, it gives a lesser punishment.

- Numbers 3:15-16 and Lev 27:6. Since childhood death was a rather common occurrence, perhaps the reason to avoid counting them until they were a month old was due to that fact. Did that thought ever enter your head?

Exactly. Death before 1 month old was so common that they were not counted as humans prior to that.

- Numbers 5:21-28. Do you have any evidence this was an 'abortion potion'

That's what it appears to be. That appears to be the point of the whole thing.

[lilpixieofterror]

That would then make it manslaughter and not murder, and so verse 12 ought to apply. However, since the law does not treat the fetus as human, it gives a lesser punishment.

Asserted, not shown. You seem to forget that you are assuming that he knew and assuming it was done on purpose. Do you have any evidence of these claims or are you just ignoring the facts and seriously hoping others are too stupid to call you on this? Besides, I seem to recall the Bible making exceptions for accidental deaths and even saying that accidental deaths should not be punished by death. Believe it or not, I've read the Bible too and that is why I know your claim is nonsense. Accidental deaths are not counted as murders. Is that so hard for you to absorb or do you just want the Bible to support abortion, so you see what you want to see and nothing else?

Exactly. Death before 1 month old was so common that they were not counted as humans prior to that.

Asserted, not shown. Funny how this argument about counting 'only males' seems to not make women 'non-humans', but this makes abortion work for you, so you ignore your own insane conclusions and try to read things into the text that are not there, to support your silly assertions. Do you have any evidence to support your claim or is the answer that you don't have any, but could care less because you have an agenda to press and the facts be damned?

That's what it appears to be. That appears to be the point of the whole thing.

Asserted, not shown. Can you actually show this 'abortin potion' existed in any place other than your head or am I supposed to give huge, detailed answers, and all you need to provide is assertions?

Well, you seem to want the rest of us to supply the 'why' answers, but you seem to put yourself above those rules and just think the rest of us should accept your assertions. Bottom line is you have no evidence to back up your bald assertions, at all, but you don't care because you want your disgusting ideology in the Bible, so you'll read it in the Bible. Yes, it is a disgusting ideology because that is what abortion is... the murder of children on the alter of convenience and I will call it just what it is.

[Jesse]

I don't disagree with this. What I've repeatedly asked about is your suggestion there is something in church history that tells us "why Christians would naturally be against" these things. Giving examples of them being against these things doesn't tell us why Christians would naturally be against such things. I'm still waiting for any form of explanation about why.

As far as I can tell on either issue there's pretty much just been Chinese-whispers: "We're against this, pass it on." There doesn't seem to have been an overly great deal of thoughtful reflection, and nobody seems to quite have an overly good explanation for why they're against those things.

Here he is, lying again. Since this is what he initially asked me:

Anyway, you said "You never bothered to learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage and abortion?" I'm saying that I've read a fair bit of church history and I don't know what point you are trying to make here. So please enlighten me. Why do you say Christians would be naturally against homosexual marriage and abortion? What have I missed that leads to those viewpoints?

So I answered that question and he follows up with this quote. Never mentioning the "why" part until later when it was convenient:

The early church fathers don't mention either issue very much. Clearly I missed whatever wisdom you think they have to share on the subject. Please enlighten me.

I am just posting this so that those who might think of debating him will understand why it's futile. He's an inconsistent mess.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am just posting this so that those who might think of debating him will understand why it's futile. He's an inconsistent mess.

I learned that one when the seriously made the argument that anybody, who is against gay marriage, should have their freedom of speech rights striped from them because it might 'push people to commit suicide', but totally ignored that his own logic would mean he should be silenced on his religious objections on the grounds that it might 'push people to suicide'. He ignored it (like he ignores any arguments he makes) even when evidence was presented that showed that claim was true too.

[Starlight]

Jesse,

Several pages ago you said:

You never bothered to learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage and abortion?

Since then I've asked you about that statement over and over. In response all you've provided is insults and some goal-post moving and a very short list of quotes against abortion that told me nothing much at all about why Christians would naturally be against it or how I might have learned this from studying church history.

I know from previous discussions that your reading comprehension is pretty poor, but I've tried to be as clear on the subject as possible and repeated myself many times now. I guess if you've got nothing, you've got nothing.

[RumTumTugger]

I don't disagree with this. What I've repeatedly asked about is your suggestion there is something in church history that tells us "why Christians would naturally be against" these things. Giving examples of them being against these things doesn't tell us why Christians would naturally be against such things. I'm still waiting for any form of explanation about why.

Because Most Christians take their Faith SERIOUSLY and understand that the Worlds Way is not God's something you didn't do and don't understand Starlight. God says killing and innocent human being made in his image is wrong and sinful we accept that ALL human beings are made in the image of God and as such are deserving of life, not just those who are convenient. You believe convenience trumps God. God Made Male and female to have relations with each other not male and male or female and female. the above 2 arguments I made are reasons not examples. no matter how much you want to say they aren't reasons.

As far as I can tell on either issue there's pretty much just been Chinese-whispers: "We're against this, pass it on." There doesn't seem to have been an overly great deal of thoughtful reflection, and nobody seems to quite have an overly good explanation for why they're against those things.

Starlight you need to be honest you will not change your view no matter how good the reason is because you don't want to