BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
Used by God and established by God are two entirely different things. If such governments like those as Saddam's were indeed established by God then how is it we have the right to remove these governments?
BANNED from the Bible
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Used by God and established by God are two entirely different things. If such governments like those as Saddam's were indeed established by God then how is it we have the right to remove these governments?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BonoVoxSupastar said:
further, it is God's will that 30,000+ innocent civilians have been killed in the removal of this government?
seems like a wonderfully self-serving view of how God is supposed to function. when bad things happen to other people -- and most of us, as privileged Westerners (we do have computers and most of us have the $$$ to see U2 ... of course i don't speak fo rall) never have to deal with really bad shit, like, say, genocide and famine -- it's all part of God's plan.
well that God is an asshole if he insists on exploiting the suffering of the poor to provide revelation and insight into his "plan" for the comfortable -- it's Western narcissism at it's worst.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine
don't you realize by now
that being born a white male
in the United States of America
(One nation under God)
he has chosen to bless you
even if you deny him.
that is how wonderful
and loving God is.
don't you realize by now
that being born a white male
in the United States of America
(One nation under God)
he has chosen to bless you
even if you deny him.
that is how wonderful
and loving God is.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
That speaks to a separate issue - how we use what we receive.
If much is given, then much is expected.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
the Jews are the chosen people
and have a covenant with G-d.
Do Crusader and W have the inside scoop on what is up?
and know they won't be
left behind
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
it is spooky
and dangerous
and disingenuous when our "so-called" religious president says things like freedom is God's gift
in the same speech about bringing 'democracy' to Iraq
when he has no trouble supporting a 'Dictator' like Musharraf in Pakistan.
A country that violated Nuclear Proliferation and is more responsible for spreading instability than any of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' Countries.
W is a hypocrite in the first degree.
Choosing what benefits his contributors and economic agenda.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
With enough granularity, everyone (self included) could be branded a "hypocrite".
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:
but doesn't having sex with men negate my whiteness, my maleness (duh), and even my United States of Americanness?
nbcrusader said:
Since no one believes me (since conservative Christians do not consider me one of their kind), allow me to give examples of my translation. This is Matthew 5:31-32 from the Catholic New American Bible:
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.' But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
And the scholarly footnotes on this passage in the NAB?
Logically speaking, this interpretation is correct. If, according to you, such "exception clauses" existed from the beginning, why weren't divorces granted until the Protestant Reformation? Adultery certainly existed before Protestantism; why else was there a Biblical commandment against it? In fact, the first time that "porneia" was translated as "adultery" was with the KJV--nowhere prior.
So before you get on your high horse and presume I'm mangling the Bible out of convenience, why don't you actually do your research next time?
Melon
Last edited:
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
If challenge the great Melon intellect means someone is on a high horse, be prepared for a lot of disappointment. I see that you’ve quoted the footnote comments from a study bible. I’ve stated that porneia (sexual immorality) has the broader meaning of sex outside of marriage – not simply adultery. Having reviewed notes from different translations and other reference materials, I still find your version to be the narrow exception.
Your footnote does not establish a logical progression to establish a narrow interpretation of pornia to mean incest. It also makes the logical error of inserting the statement “and there are no exceptions” in reference to Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18.
Finally, if “sexual immorality” was limited to incest, why have punishment for adultery or sex with a virgin prior to marriage?? Why are we told to marry if we cannot control our sexual desires? The numerous other uses of the term “sexual immorality” cannot be read as meaning only incest.
nbcrusader said:
"Different translations" = Protestant translations, yes? They're all cut from the same cloth and would never dare challenge the flawed deity that is the KJV.
This is completely irrelevant. If marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman that only God can dissolve (according to conservative Christian circles), why is there a need for an "exception clause"? Are you not supposed to work out your differences with your spouse? Or is marriage only shits and giggles for heteros?
"Fornication" is mostly a modern phenomenon, mainly because in Jesus' day, you got married at an extremely young age. Secular historians believe Mary would have been around 13 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, considering that the Gospels say that she was unmarried at the time. Unless you were a freak of nature, you had no worry about having sex before marriage.
(And with Jesus remaining unmarried at such an "old age" is why many secular scholars question whether Jesus really did have a wife, in keeping with Jewish customs.)
As for adultery, you don't need "porneia" to condemn it. You have a commandment against it that doesn't use that word.
You can bitch, moan, scream, spit, and piss your pants for all I care, but the "exception clause" does not exist prior to the KJV in the 16th century. If it did, how come there were no Christian divorce rites prior to the Protestant Reformation? A 500 year old mistranslation is a mistranslation all the same. The passage of time into tradition doesn't change that fact.
Melon
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
You need not go further than Malachi to understand God's feeling regarding divorce, but we do have an "exception clause" - one that existed in Scripture before the KJV. It didn’t suddenly appear in the 16th century. Contrary to your suggestion, modern translations are not based on the KJV, but on the earliest known manuscripts. It really is a stretch to say that divorce is permitted if you sleep with your sister, but not permitted if you sleep with your neighbor’s wife.
Marriage at an earlier age may be a statistical notion, but not a cultural requirement and certainly not an absolute. And if everyone was getting married at age 13, why 1 Corinthians 7:9? I doubt pre-teens were burning with passion and got married to avoid premarital sex.
The Catholic Church's implementation of Scripture before the Reformation is hardly a scholarly basis for interpretation. I’m sure you could find plenty of faults with such pre-reformation applications (indulgences anyone?). As such, you are still promoting a minority view of the definition of porneia.
nbcrusader said:
Quoting from the OT in regards to Christian divorce is meaningless. Jewish divorce customs were very liberal, and Jesus was preaching against them. Try to find a NT quote next time.
Many modern Biblical translations suffer from the burden of tradition. As such, archaic words of a dead language are often translated according to bias, rather than spending the time to study root words and similar applications of those roots in other parts of the Bible.
An early Christian father, Clement of Alexandria, interpreted that verse as to mean that Paul had once been married, but no longer, in the second century A.D. Now, clearly, there is no evidence one way or another, but for such a comment to have been made, the idea of having never been married must have been foreign. But, as such, even widows and widowers can fornicate, I guess.
Regardless, what does this have to do with "porneia" and the divorce exception clause in Matthew? You're making a sweeping argument about sexual morality in the Bible, while I'm making an argument over a Greek word being misinterpreted to mean "sexual immorality" as a justification for divorce. There were other Greek words used to refer to other sexual practices that are more definitive in translation.
The Catholic Church has never claimed authority in Biblical fundamentalism. You cannot apply Protestant standards to Catholic theology, since the latter predates the former by 1500 years.
The granting of indulgences was never supported through scripture, but by the authority granted by the Vatican. They still unabashedly use this authority today. The Vatican has been quoted as far as to say that the Bible, indeed, cannot be used to condemn homosexuality. But that's never been the reason they've condemned it; it has to do with their sexual tradition, which condemns everything that cannot possibly result in pregnancy. So, yes, that condemns everything from birth control to masturbation to oral sex--even amongst married couples. Needless to say, I reject both Biblical fundamentalism and tradition, which can easily be abused and is highly subjective.
Secondly, I'd trust a Catholic Bible over a Protestant Bible anyday, because since the 1930s, the Vatican has held that Biblical scholarship to uncover the true meaning of the original texts will uncover the true word of God. As such, they do not care if they trample over certain "sacred cows" (particularly since they condemn Biblical fundamentalism, as well). Plus, since they have footnotes in all of their Bibles, ambiguous archaic words don't need definitive translations. They are then given an ambiguous word or phrase, such as with the translation of "porneia" being given "unlawful marriage" and then given extensive footnotes to discuss how they arrived at that translation. I may have my serious gripes with institutional Catholicism (particularly with their "tradition"), but the scholarship of their Bibles are excellent.
What you call "a minority view" is the majority view held by Catholic and secular Biblical scholars. I'll take the correct interpretation over the popular interpretation anyday. Your interpretation of "porneia" is only held by Protestants and only because of the KJV.
Melon
Last edited:
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
Obviously, I'm not as well versed on the history of the church as some on this board are, but at its very basic, wasn't the Protestant Reformation designed to bring the priesthood back to the individual, to put the Bible in common language into the hands of the people, instead of them relying on the authority of the Catholic Church for explanation. (I know the intent was also to lessen the power and the wealth of the church) The result of this would be that each individual would interpret the words of it directly from the source, instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of it. What is the difference now with many Protestant sects preferring believers interpret through the sect's viewpoint than trusting the source itself to guide the individual?
It seems to me that many Protestant sects are as afraid now of letting the Bible into the hands of people who may not agree with their interpretation of it as the Catholics once were. They speak as if they have the "authority" of interpretation.
Hmmm? Consolidation of wealth and power? Afraid of people reading other works than those they have sanctioned? Deciding what the faithful will believe, asking them to believe that what the sect says the Bible says supercedes the words they read? Maybe we need another reformation.
It seems to me that many Protestant sects are as afraid now of letting the Bible into the hands of people who may not agree with their interpretation of it as the Catholics once were. They speak as if they have the "authority" of interpretation.
Hmmm? Consolidation of wealth and power? Afraid of people reading other works than those they have sanctioned? Deciding what the faithful will believe, asking them to believe that what the sect says the Bible says supercedes the words they read? Maybe we need another reformation.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
Did you look up Malachi? Hardly meaningless when it says “God hates divorce”. An since Jesus quotes Deuteronomy, and corrects the misinterpretation of the passage by the Pharresses of the day, the OT is hardly “meaningless” and from a scholarly perspective it would not follow to exclude the entire OT.
melon said:
We’re trying to get to the meaning of the word “porneia”. A broader definition logically follows from the statements on sexual morality found throughout Scripture (as porneia is used many times, not just in the Matthew passage).
melon said:
It sounds as if you are operating from a stereotype of Protestant biblical study. Granted, I have stumbled across some who consider the 1611 KJV as the definitive version, but I’ve found that their views are rejected in scholarly biblical review.
I’m glad the Vatican has returned to biblical study, even if they waited until 1930 to start. However, to suggest that such scholarly study is void on the Protestant side is foolish and empty. We personally own a small library of reference materials, a number of which are written by OT and NT scholars examining the root meaning of words in Hebrew and Greek. And I wouldn’t rely on just one set of study notes from one biblical translation. You don’t stop study when you find the one translation you happen to agree with personally.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
BonosSaint said:
The Reformation was primarily designed to eliminate the priest as required intercessor as established by the Catholic Church. The individual should be able to pray directly to God. The individual should be able to read Scripture for themselves.
What is the basis for your judgment when you suggest that “many Protestant sects preferring believers interpret through the sect's viewpoint than trusting the source itself to guide the individual?”? That is largely conclusionary and lacking in any factual basis. I think you will find far more Protestants than Catholics opening a Bible to guide the individual.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
I was very cautious in using the word "sect". Protestantism is a huge umbrella term with no centralization, although you will find strong alliances, and I had no intent to paint all Protestants with a broad brush. And you may be correct in general that Protestants are more inclined to read the Bible than Catholics. That has been my experience in a heavily Catholic area, but I'm not willing at this point to make that broad a generalization though I think it may be accurate.
Having grown up Protestant, raised in a fundamentalist-lite denomination, we were taught infinitely more to memorize scripture than we were to analyze it. Tele-evangelists interpreted it for you, thousands of people look to the Left Behind series for their interpretations and I found that interesting phenomenom (across the board incidentally, not limited to religious discussion) of reaching a conclusion, and then looking to the text to bolster your argument as opposed to reading it with an open mind. I've been guilty of that and I know the mechanics of doing that, so I can pretty well see it being done by others. I've seen it in the religious right who use it to condone war, big business, all authority of which they approve, capital punishment, and even the very fact that this man was elected President.
In church, I heard precious little of the red words except for the parables and the words on the cross during Easter, because once you got past the feel good of the red words, you began to underststand the uncomfortable challenge underneath. But I heard plenty of Paul, because beneath it all, people like to follow rules rather than change the underpinnings of their human natures.
And I've heard you disregard the validity of other people's interpretations (as has been done to you) because it did not gibe with yours. Individual presthoods will lead to individual interpretations and there is no divine authority for interpretation even if you grant divine authority for the words.
Having grown up Protestant, raised in a fundamentalist-lite denomination, we were taught infinitely more to memorize scripture than we were to analyze it. Tele-evangelists interpreted it for you, thousands of people look to the Left Behind series for their interpretations and I found that interesting phenomenom (across the board incidentally, not limited to religious discussion) of reaching a conclusion, and then looking to the text to bolster your argument as opposed to reading it with an open mind. I've been guilty of that and I know the mechanics of doing that, so I can pretty well see it being done by others. I've seen it in the religious right who use it to condone war, big business, all authority of which they approve, capital punishment, and even the very fact that this man was elected President.
In church, I heard precious little of the red words except for the parables and the words on the cross during Easter, because once you got past the feel good of the red words, you began to underststand the uncomfortable challenge underneath. But I heard plenty of Paul, because beneath it all, people like to follow rules rather than change the underpinnings of their human natures.
And I've heard you disregard the validity of other people's interpretations (as has been done to you) because it did not gibe with yours. Individual presthoods will lead to individual interpretations and there is no divine authority for interpretation even if you grant divine authority for the words.
AvsGirl41
New Yorker
nbcrusader said:
This is lacking in factual basis too.
Most of my friends are Catholic. One in particular is Polish and so *fervently* Catholic, he doesn't question the Church at all and frowns on those who do. (He also pats me on the head and says "poor baby" when he remembers I'm Lutheran.)
They can quote the Bible more than anyone else I know, and when they do, it's pretty obvious they've read and understood it for themselves. The Pole in particular has an understanding and intimacy with Scripture that none of my Lutheran and Baptist relatives have. That's just an anti-Catholic stereotype.
I'm sorry to say my relatives, and most of the devout Protestants I've been friends with don't even understand what the big words mean. They depend *heavily* on a pastor or the church to tell them what they do. Needless to say, I feel they receive more personal opinion and institutional doctrine than religious understanding.
It depends on the individual whether they choose to pick up a Bible for themselves, or depend on their church's interpretation. It's not exclusive to one brand of Christianity.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
I will defer to AvsGirl.
AvsGirl41
New Yorker
But I was going to defer to you! 
Our experiences really seem to have been the same though. My religious upbringing was very similar to yours, I went to a Lutheran school.
We did have our own assigned Bibles and we did Bible study in class. Once we had to memorize all the books of the Bible and recite them back to the teacher. Not the actual text, just the name. I'm still not sure what that was supposed to accomplish.
But it wasn't like we read the Bible for our own understanding and guidance, it was just a school assignment!
Our experiences really seem to have been the same though. My religious upbringing was very similar to yours, I went to a Lutheran school.
We did have our own assigned Bibles and we did Bible study in class. Once we had to memorize all the books of the Bible and recite them back to the teacher. Not the actual text, just the name. I'm still not sure what that was supposed to accomplish.
But it wasn't like we read the Bible for our own understanding and guidance, it was just a school assignment!
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
AvsGirl41 said:
I would not argue that biblical study is exclusive to one denomination or religion over another. I only referenced a tendency, and one that is not unreasonable on a global scale.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
I can only say in my experience Protestants tend have a better knowledge of the Bible than Catholics.
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
Thanks rev. Ian... I agree!
Similar threads
- Locked
