Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Let's put the anti-Bush rant aside (honestly, this isn't the thread for this, and I believe you know that)
I know you are smart enough to spot a metaphor when you see one. No, this is not about Bush, but since I cannot get you to understand my point from the context of the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago, I put it in a modern context. Human nature has seemingly changed little. So, let's close the chapter here on this Bush remark, since it has served its purpose.
NOW look at the Old Testament: Moses murdered a man before meeting God, tried to weasel his way out of doing God's will, and so thoroughly upset God that he wasn't permitted to enter the Promised Land. King David committed adultery and murder - and lost his son and temporarily lost the throne in the process. The people themselves were not only constantly under attack (and occasionally defeated and put into captivity), but the Old Testament clearly says that the Isrealites THEMSELVES were to blame.
I love the fact that they aren't perfect people. Yet, somehow, the people of the New Testament are somehow to be put at a higher standard?
Despite their reckless behavior, Moses and King David (not to mention King Solomon, who was a scoundrel himself) are all considered holy men, yes? What an easy way to excuse the bad behavior of the Jewish rabbis, who could have cited the supposed bad behavior of Moses and David as reasons why they are still holy and command power over the people.
How does Matthew 7:21 qualify as a parable? No mention of seeds, sheep, salt, or fruit. No hypothetical story in which Christ Himself plays no role. Because Christ mentions himself in the first person, I think he's being quite literal: "Not every one that saith unto ME, Lord, Lord...".
Fruit and Sheep:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." -- Matthew 7:15-21
In short, anyone can call themselves righteous, but by their actions, you know whether they are or not. Hence, faith without good works is dead.
I would always assume that you'd know the context in which you quote your passages, but, apparently, you do not. I guess I shall not make such assumptions in the future.
The comment that chapter is un-Jesus-like begs the question: by what standard? It seems to me that you've picked out what verses fit your idea of who Christ was, then excised the other verses on the grounds that they don't fit. On what basis did you pick out the original "authentic" verses?
Call it faith. There is a Gnostic gospel that portrays Jesus as a "mass murderer." Anyone who refuses to submit to His commands, Jesus kills them. Apparently, the canon councils had to make a judgment call on the "authentic" texts, although I'm sure that modern "Christians" would have loved to see this book in the canon, so they could justify their own hateful desires.
Funny enough, the Gnostics are, ideologically, the predecessors to today's fundamentalists in that they were the first to believe that the Bible was 100% literally correct. The early Christian Church destroyed them, as they did not believe this. Once again, I must remind you, the early Christians saw the Bible as for guidance, not the ultimate and final word.
This seems to be very similar to your translation; either way, it also seems to be quite judgmental, which was my point to begin with.
It doesn't seem very judgmental to me.
Either way, the KJV's inaccuracy is no reason whatsoever to "never trust" a Protestant Bible, or to suggest that "A Protestant Bible is as good as toilet paper in terms of translation accuracy."
Catholic Bibles are always open to revision in the face of greater techniques for translation. In fact, the Church is currently in the process of revising the Bible to make note of the facts discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the texts previously used.
Most interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls only support my theory: people added their own bias in later texts, rather than the Bible being a fixed text that people translated faithfully over the centuries.
Unfortunately, I've seen most Protestant Bibles just sticking with traditional interpretations, often amplifying the incorrect passages even worse than they were before, and then having the gull to state 99.9% accuracy. No Bible is perfect, granted, because even the Catholic Bible still maintains a few uncorrected mistakes, but they are very few and, at least, gives footnotes on historical context.
But I don't wish to turn this into a pissing contest on Bibles. I just respectfully disagree with Protestant Bibles as translated (also in the fact that they are incomplete to me), and I retract my statement about "toilet paper." I wrote it in anger.
An "official" footnote? Surely, the footnote wasn't in the original manuscript. Surely, it's merely the addition from some church official. What I wonder is, what makes it more "official" than the Bible itself (like Matthew 10)? And, if the Jewish rabbis are so prone to corruption as to alter the Old Testament, why trust Catholic priests to correctly interpret?
In the study of classic literature, much of the classroom discussion usually involves figuring out context. A statement that looks matter-of-fact to us could easily have had a different meaning for the time it was written. For example (one ironically fitting for this discussion), if a text said the word "gay" in the 19th century, it would mean "happy." If a text said the word "gay" now, it would mean "homosexual." But to look at a 19th century text and have no contextual knowledge, you might incorrectly think that the book is referring to a homosexual, when that would be incorrect.
Catholic Bibles, in addition, are subject to great scrutiny and debate amongst very highly educated Biblical scholars. Generally, no traditional interpretation is taken seriously; a text's meaning must be surmised by the original texts.
What the footnotes are, really, are a great service to people reading the Bible to assist them in discovering what a seemingly obscure passage really meant, according to a consensus of Biblical scholars. This is to prevent people from taking a passage like:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26
And taking it as a literal interpretation of Jesus telling you that you must hate your family to be a true Christian. The footnotes, in essence, are there to prevent you from dropping the eggshells into your recipe that calls for eggs.
To clarify, though, by "official footnote," I meant the "official footnote for the Catholic Bible." I see it as guidance, not the means to an end.
"The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." - Luke 11:31-32
I love how you pick the most cryptic passages in the gospels. I see no problem with this passage, but since I'm tired of always interpreting Bible passages for you, I'd like you to interpret this passage to me.
But, it is first of all telling that Matthew 10:37 appears to be a more literal, reasonable translation than Luke 14:26 - and it still confirms my original assertion that Christ preaches more than just love and unification.
Yes, the third requirement is faith. Since I write my texts from the assumption that those who will even care what I write is Christian, I don't think I need to state the obvious.
John 8:4-5 seems to have very little to do with the verses I quoted.
Well, I must make a correction, since I have discovered my error. His Jewish followers believe their salvation to be dependent on their birthright; hence, like their forefathers, they believe they can be as despicable as they like, but still have salvation. That is the context that is missing, as Jews believe themselves to be automatically saved as the "chosen people."
Jesus continually tells them the otherwise, but they refuse to listen, still bringing up the fact that they are children of Abraham. Hence, Jesus gets angry, since they won't listen to a word He says, and continues to use the same arguments Jesus just overthrew. At the same token, I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?
It is yet another passage on faith and good works, yet, also, a passage that opens faith to those who do not share this "birthright," as He casts it aside.
An interesting theory, but that also implies that the book is a flat-out lie, since its premise is a supernatural revelation from Christ Himself. Revelation also seems to run parallel to all of Mark 13; to condemn one as pure symbolism surely condemns both.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm
This gives you all the historical context you need on Revelation. The book is not a "flat-out lie," but written with a totally different meaning whose context we, as modern readers, seem to miss completely. I'd have pasted it, but it is a long text.
And I'm keenly aware of your contradictions. Verses in which Matthew says something different than the other Gospels is apparently proof that it's inaccurate; verses in which Matthew agrees, even if not verbatim, is apparently proof that it's a rip-off of the other Gospels.
I must admit that now I am confused with my own arguments. Let me quote, once and for all, what I was taught.
Preface of Matthew:
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mat 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience,
drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.
In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated "M," written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mk was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mk), Mt was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mk presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mat 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."
Preface to Luke:
"Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Luk 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. Some hold that Luke used Mark only as a complementary source for rounding out the material he took from other traditions. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke's Gospel (Luk 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition.
Luke's consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Luk 23:33; Mar 15:22; 18:41; Mar 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mar 7:1-23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Mar 2:30-32; 3:6,38; 4:16-30; 13:28-30; 14:15-24; 17:11-19; 24:47-48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians."
I hope this clears things up.
In the first case, theologians limit God all the time - they believe he is unchanging, incapable of committing evil, incapable of a mistake, etc. I'm doing the same: "limiting" God because the alternative is nonsense. If God exerted His FULL WILL on the universe, we would be INCAPABLE of resisting that will and doing what we want. We are able to do what we want, thus He is not exerting His full will.
Regardless, you have to draw a line somewhere. I know of no parents who use their "free will" to craft a child as they want. They
have to leave it to God as to what traits that child has.
Of course, there have been exceptions, most infamously, thalidomide in the 1950s, but you cannot blame foreign chemicals on the creation of homosexuals. Not only have they existed for thousands of years, before the advent of these "chemicals," but there is no modern scientific knowledge to even support your claim. I can claim that the sky is blue because I willed it to be, but there is that little thing we call "evidence."
Further, "difference" itself is a weak argument for the idea that homosexuality is in fact part of God's plan. Yes, the lack of differences may be "boring", but that doesn't make that lack less good; nor does variety necessarily make things better. As a quick counterexample, the big city can offer a HUGE variety of vices, from illicit drugs, to prostitution, to stolen merchandise, to pornography - but the monestary's life offers little more than routine. Is it then natural to conclude that the monk's life is LESS MORALLY GOOD? Hardly.
Lovely pendulum swings. But no one is born to those "vices." No one is born a prostitute, nor a drug addict. But I can play your game too.
I could take the position of St. John Chrysostom, who stated that your sexual desires, in fact, are not part of God's plan, which is only limited to celibacy or sex for procreation--basically, because everyone should strive for the perfection that St. Paul elevated with celibacy. Hence, that means that you should only have sex as many times as the amount of children you have in your lifetime, and you are not allowed to enjoy it. But, lushy you, I'm sure you'll have sex for pleasure once you are married. I should condemn this very vice that you have professed yourself that you are looking forward to upon marriage.
And now, because modern religion in the 20th century changed the rules to suit heterosexual weaknesses, sex for pleasure is accepted in a married context. Essentially, it came down to the fact that it was unessential for faith.
If I am correct, you believe that homosexuality is good because it is, to some, a natural urging. THAT idea - that the natural urging is NATURALLY good - is hedonism defined. It reduces to morality to one's feelings; if one feels something, the feeling must be good, so it must be okay to indulge it.
I hope you never have sex for pleasure with your wife, because you will be a hedonist yourself.
And I again ask, what about the effects man exerts on his surroundings? How can the universe remain truly perfect if man is also truly to free to screw it up?
Man's effects on his surrounding only go so far. I can slap my neighbor and make him hurt, but I cannot change his skin color because I will it. Just as I believe that the
design of life is perfect, and that includes the design of free will, does not mean that I think that everything we do with it is perfect.
Of course, you seem to believe that man has free will over everything, and that is preposterous. That was my point. What is out of our free will, which includes the design of life, is perfect, because it was created by God. Otherwise, He's a sadistic individual, who creates people for the explicit purpose of suffering, which would be contrary to the idea of a loving God.
The left-handed example is quite different from homosexuality, in ways that I think invalidate the comparison: Left-handedness is an ability, while homosexuality is an expression of desire. Left-handedness is statistically frequent enough to justify the belief that it's one of the many common configurations (black, white, male, female, righty, lefty). I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex.
Bingo. I was waiting for this argument.
"Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a geneological dead-end."
Well, what about those born infertile? Aren't they a geneological dead-end? And if sex is just for procreation, as you've implied, then I hope you never use birth control, because you'll be denying a potential child from being born, creating a "dead-end" from your sex act.
Of course, I'm speaking to someone with zero knowledge of genetics. Your black-and-white "male" and "female" (basically, XY and XX) leaves out a wide range of documented deviations from this over the centuries (so that leaves out "human interference" from technology), all of which are "geneological dead-ends." You have the intersexed, those born with male and female organs, but rendered infertile, because the same hormones that activate the sex organs also destroy one set of organs or the other. This is relatively
very common amongst live births, but science generally surgically creates a "boy" or "girl." You have X women, XYY men, XXY people (incidentally, a lot of androgynous "female" supermodels are this--they are infertile), XXXY, etc.
God did
not create just male and female! I believe God sees us as gender neutral, which is more than apparent from our fetus development, which is gender ambiguous, with male and female organs. Yes, Bubba, you had a uterus in your early development. If God was so very adamant about just having heterosexual males and females, He certainly would never have allowed any deviations from that to even have existed.
Once again, the limited mind of the human refuses to see beyond the black-and-white "male" and "female," despite the not-so-uncommon deviances that stare right at our faces!
Besides, with your argument, I think we should test all people to see if they are infertile before they get married. Then those who are infertile should be forced into celibacy and forbidden to marry, since any sex act they do will be counterproductive against procreation, since you've so very stated that sex is just for procreation, in not so many words.
Secondly, your belief on genetics is flawed. There are non-Mendellian genetics traits, such as "dwarfism" (I forget the scientific term), which is a dominant trait. Under Mendel's model of genetics, that means that anyone who carries that gene will be a "dwarf" as well. However, two "dwarfs" often create children who carry the dominant traits, but are still normal sized! However, six generations down the line, all of a sudden, that same dominant trait will create another "dwarf."
"Inheritance" is far more complex than you'd like to believe, and I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality falls under this same premise. Hence, it would be very difficult to find a "gay gene," because straight people likely carry it as well, but, for some reason, do not express it.
Why would there be "geneological dead-ends?" Mary, in an apparition, stated that we are to never worry about artificial population control methods, for God will always provide so that will never happen. Maybe homosexuals, along with infertile heterosexuals, are God's natural way of reducing the birth rate, without artificial methods of birth control or abortion.
Third, you've made it implicit that you believe that gays are not born that way. I don't like being lied to. If you really believed that, which doesn't surprise me, then why didn't you say so? Trust me...regardless of the origin, no one chooses their sexuality.
So, my assumption that you called me a Pharisee out of anger wasn't completely wrong, was it? Apparently, the analogy was not only intentional, but you're also extending the analogy: you're Jesus Christ by comparison.
I'm not going to lie. I do think that your faith is like a Pharisee at times. But I'm not Jesus Christ; however, I try and strive to be like Him, which we are all supposed to do.
2. Lonliness can indeed bring on "resentment and hatred of God", but many heterosexuals experience the same condition on the basis that they're, honestly, incapable of having a relationship. That's not a reason to change the rules, forcing people to keep others' company.
This isn't even a correct comparison. Heterosexuals, in your example, are free to seek out relationships. No one forces them to stay in one. Homosexuals are told not to seek them out in any circumstance, even if they find someone worthy of their company. In the first model, it is the heterosexual's fault for having a potentially garrulous personality. In the second model, personality means nothing; they are hated just for being who they are.
3. Whether I would be saying this if the shoe was on the other foot is irrelevant. Whether something is moral or not is external to whether I would actual follow the precepts. I have trouble turning the other cheek; that makes the commandment no less vaild.
So easy to say on your Ivory Tower. You can leave this discussion and forget all about it, because it doesn't concern you. If there is reincarnation, I verily hope you end up gay in the next life. Then, let's see how you react to it.
I guess not everyone has empathy for those who aren't like them.
4. I don't believe I have quoted too many verses out of context; in fact, I'd be more than willing to go through every verse mentioned in this post and tally where I was out of context and where you were out of context. If we were to do that, I would win.
Incorrect. How many times have you gone in only posting the verse? I, at least, will discuss the entire chapter, along with the situation of why such a verse was written.
5. "If money is preventing you from loving God, give away all your money." What if poverty is preventing you from loving God? Should one steal? No, of course not. So the entire argument is invalid.
Are you then saying that a man who steals bread for his family, if the family is starving and cannot afford bread, is sinful? Even Jesus had righteous indignation against authorities. If we were just to tow the line, America, itself, wouldn't exist. We'd still be British. Or, perhaps, French, considering they were making inroads outside of the Thirteen Colonies.
If we WERE born exactly as God intended, then that can mean only one of two possible things: either we're all cogs in a machine in which everything leading up to the birth is ALSO in God's will (since such things as radiation and chemicals can affect that birth); or the actions leading up to the birth have ABSOLUTELY no effect on that birth. BOTH of those ideas preclude free will, thus I cannot believe in them.
I don't know how this even applies to this thread, minus the latest detail where you finally revealed that you don't think people are born gay.
Secondly, assuming that your passage is true, the child would be the "victim," and would not be expected to live exactly like the "normal" people. We would make accomodations so that this person could live a happy and full life to the greatest extent humanly possible.
Yet, the same is not given to homosexuals, who are repeatedly denied compassion and told to be "normal" like everyone else. It would be like taking a thalidomide child, a victim of a human drug, born with "flippers" for arms and legs and told to stand up straight and walk. Or telling someone with asthma, a victim of environmental pollution created by humans, to stop weezing and breathe normally without medicine. Then publically berate both for not doing so.
Love is a basic element of humanity, which, for most people, is the reason why they even want to live. Love, in itself, serves no functional purpose. In fact, animals live life completely without love. However, to deny love to a human would be cruelty; the one element that seemingly separates us from being as banal as an animal. However, seeing the history of Christianity, cruelty seems to be right up its alley; all done in the "name of Jesus." I really doubt that both God and Jesus are so monolithic and ignorant of intention that they would deny an entire class of people love.
Now I have addressed it. Now are you going to ignore it and repeat that passage?
Guess what? An adult daughter of a widow isn't as uncommon as a purple sky and chocolate rain; to reject it as such is immature.
Dammit...I feel like I'm arguing with a fool. Let's change it to a blue sky, instead of a purple sky, but keep the statement about chocolate rain falling from it. A blue sky and chocolate exist separately. An aged daughter and older father exist too. However, I don't know in what sick plain of reality you are on to think that this situation even occurs regularly, whereas a daughter and a father fall in deep passionate love and want to fuck each other. Of course, this was a "Jerry Springer" scenario, but it is well-known that his show is scripted with actors.
Chocolate rain and a purple sky are both possible. Volcanic ash can create a purple sky and chocolate can rain if someone chose to emit it from an airplane or something. Both scenarios, mine and yours, are possible, but are highly unlikely to happen.
That's great, but it separates the question, "What about abortion?" with the the specifics of the question: whether humans are born exactly according to God's will. If/when we count the times we each take the Bible out of context, I would also like to tally the number of times you take my words out of context.
You are starting to get under my nerves. That aborted child was about to be created exactly as God intended, but a human interfered and killed it. The child, though, is not guilty of its own death.
If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense.
But you DO have a hand in it. You determine WHETHER the child exists, both by the decision to have sex AND by the decision not to abort the child. Whether you smoke or drink, whether you subject the child to radiation, whether you play music around the child are believed to contribute to what the child is at birth. Truly, you don't have complete control, and that control is as unpredictable as a roulette wheel, but you do have some control. You have some influence on the child before its birth - THEREFORE God doesn't have complete control, THEREFORE the child isn't born perfectly compatible with God's will.
UGH...
my parents had a hand in my birth.
I had no role in my birth, though.
That is my point I've been trying to regurgitate to you for the last half of this argument!
But God
does have His hand in birth. When a couple has sex, there are billions of different sperm and a constant cycle of different eggs. Humans do not choose which sperm fertilizes which egg. Hence, the parents
do not choose which child they have!!!! I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the sky is blue, when they're so adamantly convinced it is black.
If you have some supernatural ability to have the free will to choose your children and their traits someday, under the confines of nature (not technology), then please, for the love of God, leave us non-supernatural people alone.
UGH...it was on the side argument of abortion, which had nothing to do with this thread!
If you wrote with the intention to see who can get discouraged and pissed off the most, then you've won. The Rush Limbaugh style of argument, which you seem to expouse, gives me a headache after a while. I'm finished with this thread, as I've argued everything I've meant to argue. The next question you have, reread my old posts, where I likely answered the question five times over, but you didn't see it (or chose to ignore my answer). I can't keep on writing posts that take up two to three hours of my afternoon anymore.
I'd love to see other people comment on this thread besides me.
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time