vatican issues guidance for politicians dealing with same sex marriage - Page 3 - 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 08-01-2003, 11:44 AM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC
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.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 05:39 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 05:57 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,388
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 08-01-2003, 05:59 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 06:26 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 06:27 PM   #36
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


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.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 06:29 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC
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 is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 07:18 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:12 PM
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 stateís 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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 07:31 PM   #39
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:12 PM
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
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 07:00 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:12 PM
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 07:27 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 12:12 PM
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
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 10:25 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by foray
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 01:19 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:12 PM
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."
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 08-02-2003, 02:18 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 02:25 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Melon,

I did not read that in his statement at all.

gay love was included with all the rest



Quote:
gay love, straight love, family love, friend love, classic car love, football love, even U2 love
__________________

__________________
deep is online now  
 

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 06:12 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