"a new ideology of evil" - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-23-2005, 09:51 PM   #106
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
really, where?


I thought we had been through that.
__________________

__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 09:54 PM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Well, it was demonstrated based onthe greek what Paul was talking about.


You seem to think it is alright to pick and choose from Leviticus when it suits your argument.

What more is there?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 09:58 PM   #108
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Well, it was demonstrated based onthe greek what Paul was talking about.


You seem to think it is alright to pick and choose from Leviticus when it suits your argument.

What more is there?


What do you believe then? I don't want to impose my opinion on you, so explain why you believe what you believe. Do you believe the Bible should be interpreted literally word for word? Do you believe the Bible should be interpreted entirely by the historical critical method, in which scholars judge the Bible through human reason?
__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 10:03 PM   #109
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:12 PM
No, I do not believe it is literal, and yes I believe that there are historical and scholarly revelations that need to be taken into account.

I am not sure what you mean by human reason.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 10:09 PM   #110
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 01:12 AM
I mean the Bible really can't be understood by man's logic. If you believe the Bible can be effectively interpreted by scholars, I think we would disagree then. Personally, I wouldn't hold the Bible credible if it were 'just another book.'
__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 10:10 PM   #111
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Did I say it was to be interpreted by scholars? I said it should be taken into account.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 10:12 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:12 PM
There are new archeological findings that change things. The actual translations throughout the last 2,000 years are important as well.

How could they not be?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 10:14 PM   #113
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
There are new archeological findings that change things. The actual translations throughout the last 2,000 years are important as well.

How could they not be?

I totally agree. I think the best way to interpret it is to go back to the original languages and the grammar used along with the context of passages.
__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 10:23 PM   #114
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 01:12 AM
It looks like this thread has been derailed. Sorry..carry on.
__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:39 AM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Catholic Bibles have footnotes on scholarly context. Here's what they say about 1 Corinthians 6 (things in [brackets] are my comments):



So there you go. Bible scholars link Romans ("lusting passions for each other") and 1 Timothy (almost identical to 1 Corinthians in text) to temple prostitution, which I have maintained for the past four years.

Melon
Yes, and this practice was very commonplace in Roman society, which is no doubt why Paul felt like he had to condemn it. This gives liberal Catholics like myself who support Gay Pride and such real problems. This way of thinking is too medieval for me. It's based on the whole idea of marriage being strictly for procreation. This has been called into question by Catholics going all the way back to Christine de Pizan, who wrote in the early fifteenth century. She thought that marriage was for companionship as well as procreation, and for crying out loud, she was devoutly Catholic. She even entered a convent after the Battle of Agincourt. Using the "companionship" argument, the argument against gay marriage doesn't really work. It only works with the procreation argument. And in this day and age the procreation argument doesn't carry the weight that it did when infant mortality was sky high in Europe, this worked very well for the thirteenth century Scholastics, but it's a different world. In this way the Church hasn't adopted to the modern world, and I'm not the only Catholic struggling with this.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:17 AM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:12 PM
The Roman society in biblical times was much like how our society is becoming today. They were focused on women's liberation, surely Paul felt they took it to extremes. What I've always wondered about Paul is how much of a prophet was he - if there are degrees. I would wonder this - if God knew what Paul was going to preach - and if it was wrong - why would he make Paul a prophet? He is one of history's most respected preachers of all time. Translating scripture from Greek may have its share of puzzling, considering there are supposedly seven separate kinds of love in the Greek language, for example. I also genuinely wonder this - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently? When the Bible was written, it occasionally focused on gender differences. For example, it is not good for a man to be alone, as found in Genesis. According to that chapter, God created a partner suitable for him.

Ephesians - Chapter 5:25-33

25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26. to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27. and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-
30. for we are members of his body.
31. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
32. This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself...

Personally, I think that if the Bible was written in modern times, it would condemn things like drug use, pornography, and probably some things that we think are fine and dandy. The pope is doing what he feels is right, and upholding what he believes is true. Quite a few of you may beg to differ, which is fine. We're all entitled to a stance, but let's try to keep it respectful.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:47 AM   #117
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:12 PM
[Q]Quite a few of you may beg to differ, which is fine. We're all entitled to a stance, but let's try to keep it respectful.[/Q]

Exactly what about calling homosexual marriage "a new ideology of evil" is repsectful?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:04 AM   #118
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
What I've always wondered about Paul is how much of a prophet was he - if there are degrees. I would wonder this - if God knew what Paul was going to preach - and if it was wrong - why would he make Paul a prophet? He is one of history's most respected preachers of all time.
This could be said about almost any book from the Old Testament. There are plenty of things that we adhere to from the Old Testament and plenty that we no longer find relevant.

If it's acceptable to pick and choose what we find relevant....why should it be acceptable to someone who is gay, born gay, loves another human soul with the same kind of Love as Christ loved the Church as Paul writes, that we pick to cling to passages that reinforce this one prejudice.

Can a Gay person love someone of the same sex the way Paul described in Epheisans? ABSOLUTELY. There is nothing in that passage that a Gay person is not capable of doing other than our gender specific word "wife".

Most people I know would do almost anything to have this kind of love between two partners.

And this is where I see the church as WRONG.

You in your post disrespect another human being by implying that being gay is a choice. You lump it in with drug use, pornography, and a bunch of other things that we do. It is no more a choice than your "choice" to be heterosexual.

The Church is wrong because it does not take a male part or a female part to LOVE AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. Which is the MAIN point Paul is trying to make. Paul was NOT running around defending men loving men, or making a point about women loving women. He was making a point obout the KIND of love that two people committed to each other should share.

And there is nothing a MALE part or a FEMALE part can do to improve on loving as CHRIST loved.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:20 AM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:12 PM
More quotes that inspire respect for the Pope.

[Q]The pope writes that gay marriage is "insidious" and "attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."[/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:21 AM   #120
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FullonEdge2
If you believe the Bible can be effectively interpreted by scholars, I think we would disagree then.
Jesus Christ...do you really think the Bible has been interpreted exactly the same for 2000+ years?! It isn't even interpreted uniformily today!

What kind of crap does religion teach people these days? You talked about "cults" earlier. I think Christianity exhibits cult-like behavior more and more, and the denial of the truth in favor of preposterous ideas (literal 7 day, 24-hour creationism, fundamentalism, "natural law"...we might as well throw in leprechauns and a flat earth!) and then threatening those who challenging those ideas ("hell") is certainly cult-like behavior.

I don't know. When it comes to discussions like this, I start coming across as a raving atheist, but that's not the case. I am utterly boggled by what conventional religions teach these days, because I was never brought up in that environment. Once upon a time, there was a Catholicism that actively encouraged Biblical scholarship as a means to discover what "God's word" really was outside of "tradition" (and this was back in the 1930s that the then-Pope first encouraged this!) and where scientific truth was not shunned. Instead, the overwhelming evidence of evolution is encouraged to be taught (and is taught in Catholic schools), as long as you're aware that they believe God created evolution (is that "Intelligent Design"? I can't keep up with these stupid catch-phrases anymore.). And this is the "Catholicism" that I knew; and then to hear the Pope say utter crap like this ("a new ideology of evil") proves to me that this isn't the "Catholicism" that I grew up to know. If the Pope will willfully ignore science and logic, in favor of upholding the obsolete anachronism that is "natural law," then Catholicism left me, not the other way around.

I'll say this: I trust a Bible scholar to interpret the Bible anyday over a Cracker Jack "minister." The latter knows nothing about the Bible, other than what they think tradition says.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com