vatican issues guidance for politicians dealing with same sex marriage

[nbcrusader]

No work, literary or otherwise, can maintain the exact same meanings over 5,000 years of rewriting after rewriting, and also after countless language translations. Meanings are bound to be messed up.

This is a common misconception of current translations of the Bible. Current translations, such as the NIV, are not based on previous sets of translations. The translation committees go back to the earliest recorded manuscripts.

Translations methods differ (word for word / thought for thought) and are no simple task.

 

[melon]

This is a common misconception of current translations of the Bible. Current translations, such as the NIV, are not based on previous sets of translations. The translation committees go back to the earliest recorded manuscripts.

Translations methods differ (word for word / thought for thought) and are no simple task.

Incorrect. The NIV, to most independent Biblical scholars, think it is a terrible translation. The fact of the matter is that the NIV is how conservative Protestant Christians would translate the Bible, and they unabashedly translated it, according to pre-existing conservative Christian traditional interpretations.

The NIV Bible isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Melon

 

[DaveC]

This is a common misconception of current translations of the Bible. Current translations, such as the NIV, are not based on previous sets of translations. The translation committees go back to the earliest recorded manuscripts.

Translations methods differ (word for word / thought for thought) and are no simple task.

They may go back to the earliest manuscripts, but even those have been translated over and over again, and I'm sure much of what was finally written down on paper was passed down again and again orally. Anyone who's played the telephone game when they were young knows just how much something passed along orally gets changed around.

There's no way in the world that the translations and reprints and stuff actually retained the exact same meanings and wordings as they did at first.

Actually, so much of the Bible was actually stolen, plagiarized even, from the Epic of Gilgamesh which was around for 100's of years before the first manuscript of the Bible. I can give examples if you want.

 

[nbcrusader]

Incorrect. The NIV, to most independent Biblical scholars, think it is a terrible translation. The fact of the matter is that the NIV is how conservative Protestant Christians would translate the Bible, and they unabashedly translated it, according to pre-existing conservative Christian traditional interpretations.

The NIV Bible isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Melon

No, correct. The translation was based on the earliest manuscripts available.


I realize you reject practically all translations.

 

[melon]

No, correct. The translation was based on the earliest manuscripts available.


I realize you reject practically all translations.

But their usage of the "earliest manuscripts" are incorrect! They purposely deceive you into thinking that they are correct. They are "99.9% accurate" because they tell you they are. I've studied this translation, and it is the worst offender of all translations.

I'm sorry, but I stand by what I have said. The NIV is not worth the paper it is printed on...

...and, FYI, the so-called "apocryphal" texts of the OT were all there in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Martin Luther was wrong about their "inauthenticity."

Melon

 

[sharky]

You know what? Just because they have believed things since the dawn of time, it doesn't mean that it is right. ....
Melon

Ack! sorry melon. I didn't mean to have that question sound condesending or challenging. I know you know alot more about this issue than I do and I genuinely want to know if you have come across exactly why the church is against gay marriage but for straight marriage? Because accd to official church teaching, its ok to be gay. So how does its ok to be gay become "as long as its not in a marriage."? when is that line crossed?

I totally agree with your argument melon. I remember going to a catholic church on my college campus and signing a petition asking for the church to form a committee that would look in to the possibility of priests marrying and women becoming priests. It does upset me that the wonderful Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that taught me in high school are thought of the same way as I am thought of in the church -- as a lay person.

that being said, I don't agree with the catholic church's teachings in some cases but I have gone to church services for the Church of Christ and Southern Baptist churches. I didn't like them. I like the celebration of the catholic church mass. so I toss some of the doctrine as a way to get closer to the important dogma of the church.

 

[melon]

Actually, so much of the Bible was actually stolen, plagiarized even, from the Epic of Gilgamesh which was around for 100's of years before the first manuscript of the Bible. I can give examples if you want.

Tradition states that Abraham is from Ur, which was in Sumer (modern-day Iraq). It is also theorized that Judaism arose from worship of the Sumerian sun god, Elohim, and the name appears once in Genesis.

Needless to say, the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is a Sumerian myth. Coincidence? Perhaps not.

Melon

 

[melon]

New Poll Shows Bush, Vatican Out Of Step On Gay Unions
by Doreen Brandt

Posted: August 1, 2003 11:59 a.m. ET

(Washington, D.C.) The Human Rights Campaign released data from a new bi-partisan poll today conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Peter D. Hart Research Associates and the Republican firm American Viewpoint, showing that 63 percent of registered voters support or would accept that gays and lesbians receive the same rights and protections as other Americans.

The Hart/American Viewpoint Poll is in accordance with another poll released today by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News showing that 53 percent of the country favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that are not marriages, but that would give them many of the same legal and financial relationships as married couples.

The Hart/American Viewpoint poll also showed that 50 percent of registered voters support or accept granting civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples with the same rights, responsibilities and protections given to other married couples, as long as religious institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages. Forty-seven percent oppose.

"Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus in this country around denying the legal protections of marriage to gay and lesbian couples. In fact, polls show us that a plurality of voters support or accept granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples," said HRC Communications Director and Senior Strategist David M. Smith.

"We also know that the overwhelming trend in public opinion has been moving steadily toward equality for gay and lesbian Americans."

Earlier this month two other national polls indicated that opposition to gay marriage is softening, although most Americans still believe same-sex couples should be barred from marriage. (story) In addition, a separate poll of residents within the state of New Jersey showed that 55 percent of more than 800 likely voters said the state?s ban on same-sex marriage should be abolished. Only 41 percent said it should be retained. (story)

According to the Hart/American Viewpoint Poll, critical groups to both parties are supportive or accepting of providing civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships - from women and suburban voters to Independents and Southern Democrats, according to the Hart/American Viewpoint Poll of 800 registered voters nationwide. The Hart/American Viewpoint Poll was conducted July 9-11 and had a margin of error of 3.5 percent. It reflects trends shown in numerous public polls over the past several years.

A plurality of voters either support or find acceptable the idea of gay marriage. This is true whether the scenario is described as "granting civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples with the same rights, responsibilities, and protections given to other married couples, as long as religious institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages" (50 percent support/acceptable, 47 percent oppose) or "gays and lesbians would have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples with the same legal rights, responsibilities, and protections" (49 percent support/acceptable, 44 percent oppose).

Either way, said Smith, it is clear that more voters support the idea of gay marriage or find it acceptable than oppose it.

"When many people hear the word marriage, they think of the religious institution. What we are really talking about with civil marriage are the legal rights and protections that provide couples in this country with security for their relationships and families," said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg.

There are more than 1,000 federal rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities associated with civil marriage in this country, according to a 1997 study by the General Accounting Office. Gay and lesbian couples, in lifelong relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections under the law. For example, they can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits, despite paying payroll taxes. They must pay federal income taxes on their domestic partner's health insurance, while other employees do not have to pay income tax on benefits for their married partners. They must pay all estate taxes when a partner dies. They pay significant penalties on IRA and pension rollovers. They are denied health benefits under COBRA and family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

If gay and lesbian couples are allowed to marry, the state and federal government would provide them with the same rights and protections that most Americans take for granted. With civil marriage protections, gay and lesbian couples would be more secure in knowing that they can visit each other in the hospital, share health insurance coverage, and get equal pensions and other survivor benefits if one spouse dies. In short, they would have all of the legal protections and rights that provide security to a married couple.

"Ultimately, this debate is about fairness and equality under the law. Gay and lesbian Americans in this country essentially pay higher taxes for fewer rights and protections than other Americans, and that is wrong," said Smith.

Melon

 

[sharky]

actual break down of the WSJ numbers

Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couple to enter into same-sex marriages?
favor allowing...32
oppose allowing...51
depends...4
not sure...13

Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couple to enter into legal agreements with each other that are not marriages, but that would give them many of the same legal and financial relationships as married couples?
favor allowing...53
oppose allowing...34
depends...2
not sure...11

 

[melon]

Haha...at least Ireland is not afraid to tell the Catholic Church where to shove their crap.

Distribute Vatican Anti-Gay Marriage Document & Face Jail Irish Priests Warned
by Jon ben Asher

Posted: August 2, 2003 12:02 a.m. ET

(Dublin) Priests and bishops are being warned by the Irish government that they face charges if they distribute the Vatican's denouncement of gay marriage.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) said Friday that priests who quote sections of the document, hand it out, or send it to politicians or other citizens could be prosecuted under Ireland's strict incitement to hatred legislation.

The 12 page document released this week in seven languages describes gay marriage as "evil" and says "legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior." (story) It also says that "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children

Published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it states that Catholics have a duty to oppose the introduction and operation of legislation recognizing same-sex unions. It instructs priests to tell politicians they have a duty to vote against any such moves.

Aisling Reidy, director of the ICCL, warned yesterday that the statement could be in violation of the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act. Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.

"The document itself may not violate the Act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the Act," Reidy said. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation."

Under the Act literature which is threatening, abusive or insulting, linked with the intent of stirring up hatred, is illegal.

------------------------------------

I think I'd have a party if we started arresting these criminals. Covering up pedophile cases and inciting hatred. Boy, isn't religion grand?

Melon

 

[foray]

Sometimes I think people who embrace same-sex relationships/marriages have a better understanding of what Love is, than the Catholic church does. Still, other times I enjoy the vast variety of takes on what Christianity is or ought to be, because the different strands of thought actually contribute positively rather than degenerate the theology. That's one way of looking at it, anyway.


foray

 

[80sU2isBest]

Sometimes I think people who embrace same-sex relationships/marriages have a better understanding of what Love is, than the Catholic church does.

"No greater love hath a mn than this, that he lays down his life for his friends".

The greatest love is Christ hanging on a cross to pay for the sins of mankind.

You can understand gay love, straight love, family love, friend love, classic car love, football love, even U2 love, but if you don't know Christ love, you don't know the greatest love of all.

 

[deep]

80s,

I think you are on to something.



The people who stand with gays and lesbians are following what you said, many have laid down their lives for their friends.

With the gay-bashing beatings and deaths and hate crimes they suffer.
They have indeed followed Christ teaching of "no greater love."

 

[melon]

You can understand gay love, straight love, family love, friend love, classic car love, football love, even U2 love, but if you don't know Christ love, you don't know the greatest love of all.

Implying that homosexuals don't know "Christ love" is terribly repugnant--and it shows how little you really do know it yourself.

Melon

 

[deep]

Melon,

I did not read that in his statement at all.

gay love was included with all the rest

gay love, straight love, family love, friend love, classic car love, football love, even U2 love

 

[melon]

Yes, but it is a retort against what foray said about same-sex love. And, as usual, it goes into a usual Christian condescending tone.

Maybe I misinterpreted it, and, if I did, I apologize, but I think this is more of a slam against same-sex love than any of the others listed above.

Melon

 

[pax]

Please get this thread back on track. Melon and 80s, we've had this discussion ad nauseam before, and no one needs or wants to hear it again. If you two are taking this personally, discuss it via e-mail or PM.

 

[80sU2isBest]

By the way, thanks Deep.

 

[melon]

Melon, sometimes your spitefulness and anger really tire me. This was NOT a slam against gay love. Someone said that people who understand gay love might just know more about love than others. I wanted people to know that the greatest love is Christs' love. Simple as that.

I know well enough to know that it isn't really as simple as that. But I also know that this is a fruitless argument.

Again, I apologize.

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

Things could be entirely a lot simpler if following God without the church was a reality.

 

[deep]

The sad thing is
that if some one really wants to follow God they probably should get the hell out of church.

 

[Klaus]

deep:
There are so many churches and noone of us knows them all, so this general statement seems to harsh to me.

 

[deep]

it sounded a bit harsh to me, too.

but most people I know who go to a church sooner or later get around to implying they are on the one true path,
and you and everybody else are either mislead or damned.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

You can understand gay love, straight love, family love, friend love, classic car love, football love, even U2 love, but if you don't know Christ love, you don't know the greatest love of all.

I feel so sad about those of you who are considering leaving the church over this. In NO WAY am I judging you for it, because I understand completely your anger and frustration.

My Pastor said something yesterday that truly inspired me. He was referring to the current scandal in the Catholic church. A set of twins was being baptized, and I wish I could remember his entire homily..but he praised those who say that "come Hell or high water" they will not give up hope that a new beginning can be forged for the church. I still hold out that hope, w/ guarded optimism.

I disagree completely w/ the Pope's attitude about this, but I believe it's only w/ the work of people like some of you here who can try to stay w/ the church and change its' ways and attitudes that things will change for the better. I guess I'm just an incredibly naive optimist.

And I want to follow God, and I have no intention of "getting the Hell out of church".Sorry, I don't mean to cause any problems here, but that offends me. And btw, I for one never go around w/ the attitude that I am on the one true path and everyone else is damned or whatever....that's not what my relationship w/ God has taught me.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Apologies if my statement somewhere above this one has contributed somehow to inflaming or offending with regard to attendance in church. I don't go to church so I am about as naive as you can get. My comments and views basically come from seeing people get caught up in hurt and anger by an ideal or belief set out by the church, an insititution, and it seemingly matter to one's own relationship with God. Put simply, if going through the church, any church, is going to cause such emotion and conflict, isn't it possible to find a new one, or simply avoid it altogether and enjoy an uninterrupted relationship with your God?
I understand how some would feel differently and to include the church itself is very important through fellowship etc, so my offhand solution to simply walk away from that is probably not plausible. I guess it comes down to whther you feel it worthy to stay and fight from the inside and face this insurmountable hurdle, or look at another way. Whatever that might be.

 

[Klaus]

80sU2isBest:

As you know we didn't agree on too many points but i was allways happy to read your view, more than once i rethought my opinion because of your statements.

I hope you will still be at "The Goal Is Soul" - your posts there. I loved your comments there (also i didn't replay everytime with a ).

According FYM's "Old Testament Laws And Their Place In The Life Of The Christian", i didn't reply because i had not enough time to think about it, it would be verry nice if you could look at that thread in approx. 2 weeks

Klaus

p.s. i hope you read that thread one more time before you leave us.

 

[anitram]

I disagree completely w/ the Pope's attitude about this, but I believe it's only w/ the work of people like some of you here who can try to stay w/ the church and change its' ways and attitudes that things will change for the better. I guess I'm just an incredibly naive optimist.

I'm partially with you on this one. All revolutions and all change must come from within, and therefore it's more constructive to stay and try to make a difference than leave.

At the same time, I think this Pope has been out of touch for many years, I think he's got a particularly appalling view of women and women's issues, for many years there was a struggle as Mother Teresa actually became a better "liked" Catholic around the world than he was and so on. I think he did some good work in Eastern Europe but his time has come and passed years ago and until we get rid of these dinosaurs that sit on the golden throne in the Vatican, nothing will change.

My family - the Cornaros of Venice (centuries ago) commissioned a chapel in the Vatican and donated much of the priceless art. We have had a connection to the Vatican and Rome for hundreds of years but right now, I'd probably say that 99% of the spirituality I get in my life is outside of a Catholic Church (building).

I believe the Pope is sincerely and completely wrong on this issue. I will not budge from my views on the matter.

 

[verte76]

I'm partially with you on this one. All revolutions and all change must come from within, and therefore it's more constructive to stay and try to make a difference than leave.

At the same time, I think this Pope has been out of touch for many years, I think he's got a particularly appalling view of women and women's issues, for many years there was a struggle as Mother Teresa actually became a better "liked" Catholic around the world than he was and so on. I think he did some good work in Eastern Europe but his time has come and passed years ago and until we get rid of these dinosaurs that sit on the golden throne in the Vatican, nothing will change.

My family - the Cornaros of Venice (centuries ago) commissioned a chapel in the Vatican and donated much of the priceless art. We have had a connection to the Vatican and Rome for hundreds of years but right now, I'd probably say that 99% of the spirituality I get in my life is outside of a Catholic Church (building).

I believe the Pope is sincerely and completely wrong on this issue. I will not budge from my views on the matter.

I can relate to this, but I still plan to attend mass this afternoon. I guess my relationship with the Church could be called "schizoid". I'll complain about "dinosaurs" in the Vatican and then go take the Eucharist.

 

[pax]

Uhhhhh...I think a couple of posts may have been lost...



Thread-splitting is hard. Apologies if posts vaporized.

 

[deep]

Apologies if my statement somewhere above this one has contributed somehow to inflaming or offending with regard to attendance in church. I don't go to church so I am about as naive as you can get. My comments and views basically come from seeing people get caught up in hurt and anger by an ideal or belief set out by the church, an insititution, and it seemingly matter to one's own relationship with God. Put simply, if going through the church, any church, is going to cause such emotion and conflict, isn't it possible to find a new one, or simply avoid it altogether and enjoy an uninterrupted relationship with your God?
I understand how some would feel differently and to include the church itself is very important through fellowship etc, so my offhand solution to simply walk away from that is probably not plausible. I guess it comes down to whther you feel it worthy to stay and fight from the inside and face this insurmountable hurdle, or look at another way. Whatever that might be.

My thoughts are pretty close to yours.

I was raised in an "organized religion" and attended regular meetings.
If i had children I would probably attend a church for the fellowship and other activities.
The statement you made and I added to should not offend anyone who attends church. Unless there belief is not sound.
Then our remarks really are not the issue.