BANNED from the Bible - Page 5 - 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 01-13-2006, 04:57 PM   #61
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Why is this faulty logic?

Look at the example of Pharaoh during the time of Moses.

Definitely a “bad” leader. But one used by God. God specifically said the Hebrews would suffer 400 some years in captivity. At the end of the day, everyone knew who was the One True God.

I’d suggest that people like Saddam, or even GWB, play a part in God’s larger picture for this world.
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?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 05:03 PM   #62
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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?

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.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 05:08 PM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:53 PM
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.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 05:11 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
this world view is very dangerous if it is held by one in a position of power
That speaks to a separate issue - how we use what we receive.

If much is given, then much is expected.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 05:11 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



Look at the example of Pharaoh during the time of Moses.

Definitely a “bad” leader. But one used by God. God specifically said the Hebrews would suffer 400 some years in captivity. At the end of the day, everyone knew who was the One True God.

I’d suggest that people like Saddam, or even GWB, play a part in God’s larger picture for this world.




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
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 05:20 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


That speaks to a separate issue - how we use what we receive.

If much is given, then much is expected.
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.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 06:01 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:53 PM
With enough granularity, everyone (self included) could be branded a "hypocrite".
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 06:28 PM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
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.


but doesn't having sex with men negate my whiteness, my maleness (duh), and even my United States of Americanness?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 07:10 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
That is a horrendously narrow translation of pornia - and one that is inconsistent with the body of Scripture. Pornia is widely translated as "sex outside of marriage" - a translation that does fit the body of Scripture.
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?

Quote:
See Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this "exceptive clause," as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew's "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 07:11 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
Manipulating scripture to fit your own beliefs.
Well now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? At least I come back with evidence to back up my claims, rather than drive-by libel like yourself.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:44 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
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
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 is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:58 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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.
"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.

Quote:
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.
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 12:37 AM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
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
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 is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 01:08 AM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 02:48 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:53 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint 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 06:53 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