asaris

I know I'm not totally innocent here, but if we're going to discuss the Bible's position on homosexuality, let's start a new thread.

So, as I pointed out earlier, there were more valid reasons to exclude the gnostic writings from the canon other than simply politics. I'm not denying political reasons were involved, though I'd like to hear why the Church wanted gnostics out so badly (Arians I can understand, but I just don't know much about early church politics). In any case, please respond to this before continuing to simply assert that the establishment of a canon was purely political.

It's true that Christianity was originally a jewish sect, but it quickly became its own thing. Two ways we can see this. First of all, it rapidly grew outside of Palestine and outside of the Jewish community, while Judaism has never really had much success in converting non-Jews to Judaism (and I don't mean to imply that they've been trying). Secondly, the persecution of Christians, as far as I know, was more widespread and general than the persecution of Jews, which, I think, was, outside of the military action that crushed Jerusalem, was more or less non-existent (to drive this home, I'm not very sure about this, so if anyone can confirm or deny it...) Christians, on the other hand, were much more generally persecuted, though perhaps not as much as you would be lead to believe from most contemporary Christians -- this was precisely because, while Judaism had a defined place in the Empire, Christianity did not; is it Jewish? Monotheistic? Tritheistic? Do they really practice cannabalism?

Regarding celibacy: It's not nearly as entrenched a practice in the RCC as one is normally lead to believe. It's canon law, which means that the church can dispense with it if they want to. Which, in the case of Eastern Rite churches, they have. That's right -- there's a whole section of the RCC that doesn't have celibate priests. It's not unreasonable to suspect that this requirement for the priesthood might be dropped in the next papacy or two.

Regarding sexual mores: So the belief that incest, homosexuality, etc., stems from the belief that the purpose, or part of the purpose, of sex is reproduction. You haven't shown that the purpose of sex isn't reproduction, or even, if the purpose of sex isn't reproduction, that these things are thereby okay. (fighting the genetic fallacy for 8 years and counting)

So to pull this all together -- even if the origins of Biblical moral teaching are not the origins it claims, that doesn't mean that its moral teaching is therefore invalid. And just because the Church may have also had political reasons to choose the books it did, that doesn't mean that it made the wrong choices.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche