Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
polarpixie
New member
Ugggh....the old guy with the hat and the beard is wearing thigh-high boots and no pants....
K
KAYNE
Guest
JESUS WASNT BLACK. HE WAS OF MIDDLE EASTERN DECENT.
KAYNE
KAYNE
huntmaster
New member
musclebrains said:
the title of this thread involves a question of if homosexuallity is a perversion of God's plan.
I stated that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.
Why cant you respect my beliefs?
Why do you seem so threatened??
musclebrains said:
God's rules for life are laid out in His word---lets not forget that.
musclebrains said:
If you are saying that I encourage hate---then you are missing the point.
The purpose of this thread was to bring out oppinions not to pit members against one another.
Can you not have a civil conversation without resorting to this?
I noticed you did not coment on my anallogy of a child being told no by his/her parent and then turning against them.
musclebrains
New member
huntmaster said:
I don't have to respect your beliefs any more than you have to respect mine, Dr. Hunt. I'm not the least bit threatened, since your beliefs are rapidly going the way of dinosaurs. Like I said, I don't condemn you. I condemn what God tells me is your pathetic ignorance. I love you. God tells me it's okay to hate your sin. (Ignorance is sin. God told me so while I was reading your post.)
I must have missed your analogy but I think the general drift of this thread is quite obvious. Perhaps you should address the people who have posted irreverent pictures. I hardly think my disrespect of your antedeluvian attitudes -- while I continue to love you -- comes close to their iconoclasm. Why can't we have a civil discussion without all these black and gay Jesuses showing up?
Last edited:
musclebrains
New member
kingjohn said:Jesus just emailed me...he said he's not as pissed at the homosexuals as he is about all this "White Boy" Shit.
Musclebrains Black Jesus also said his dad is sorry about the calves, Homee.
Damn. I knew I should have stopped praying for calves and started axing for them some time ago.
huntmaster said:
Here's the thing that gets me: what if it's someone else's parents telling me what to do. I always hated it when friends' parents would try to be the boss of me, tell me how to dress where to go who to kiss, that I should eat more.
Same thing with religion. My god doesn't tell me I can only be with boys. Am I still a sinner in your eyes? Well, that's fine too. That's why I love living in country where we at least theoretically don't legislate along religious lines.
Wyst
smallmovesal
New member
yes, what huntmaster is telling us is that he respects that i like da peepee and da pussy.
word up huntmaster.
word up huntmaster.
musclebrains
New member
smallmovesal said:
well, your orientation may be Biblically correct but your mouth is filthy.
That link you posted earlier doesn't work, Miz Bicep.
smallmovesal
New member
musclebrains said:
well, your orientation may be Biblically correct but your mouth is filthy.
That link you posted earlier doesn't work, Miz Bicep.
damn, it took you that long to tell me??
hey check out my week 4 pics on the women's board... where you can see my assssets.
your poor legs....
Last edited:
smallmovesal
New member
wyst said:
why thank you
smallmovesal
New member
just saw it... now get down on your knees and pleasure me because huntmaster's god told me it was all good in the hood.
smallmovesal said:just saw it... now get down on your knees and pleasure me because huntmaster's god told me it was all good in the hood.
Mmm. That's the most persuasive arguement of them all.
I think I just might. Avert your eyes, holy rollers. And you might consider covering your ears as well. This could get noisy.
Wyst
smallmovesal
New member
wyst said:
*giggles* i can be sorta loud
Sushi X
New member
even though all of you are raggin on Jesus, he still loves you anyway.
MB and Huntmaster, i see both your points. MB, his belief does'nt mean he's ignorant. it means he has been taught and or concluded something totally different than that of what you have. if he believed a ball was square and you believed it was cubical then that is ignorance. what he's sayin, correct me if i'm wrong hunt, is that though he believes the act of homsexualtily is a sin he still respects the person and shows them love nevertheless. much like someone who does drugs, is a rapist, child molester, petty thief, a sin is a sin. you don't hate a person but an act. you dont' stop caring or loving for a person cause of an act. God loves everyone despite their actions. my belief is though some people blow the act of homosexuality out of proportion, and focus too much on it rather than things like rape, incest, robbery, murder, ect. a sin is a sin, there is no lesser or worse. some believe hs is a sin while others do not, just as some believe drug usage is a sin while some do not. it's all the same. hate the sin(act) not the sinner(person). last but not least respect each others beliefs. that goes for everyone. you want respect you have to give it. it's earned , it's not a gift or a luxury. MB and Hunt, i respect both your opinions and beliefs therefore i am trying to mediate here in a peacefull civil manner. i dont mean to get on a soap box, sorry if thats what seemed to have happend.
MB and Huntmaster, i see both your points. MB, his belief does'nt mean he's ignorant. it means he has been taught and or concluded something totally different than that of what you have. if he believed a ball was square and you believed it was cubical then that is ignorance. what he's sayin, correct me if i'm wrong hunt, is that though he believes the act of homsexualtily is a sin he still respects the person and shows them love nevertheless. much like someone who does drugs, is a rapist, child molester, petty thief, a sin is a sin. you don't hate a person but an act. you dont' stop caring or loving for a person cause of an act. God loves everyone despite their actions. my belief is though some people blow the act of homosexuality out of proportion, and focus too much on it rather than things like rape, incest, robbery, murder, ect. a sin is a sin, there is no lesser or worse. some believe hs is a sin while others do not, just as some believe drug usage is a sin while some do not. it's all the same. hate the sin(act) not the sinner(person). last but not least respect each others beliefs. that goes for everyone. you want respect you have to give it. it's earned , it's not a gift or a luxury. MB and Hunt, i respect both your opinions and beliefs therefore i am trying to mediate here in a peacefull civil manner. i dont mean to get on a soap box, sorry if thats what seemed to have happend.
smallmovesal
New member
wyst said:
there is no smiley that can demonstrate this kind of pleasure...mmmmm
smallmovesal
New member
wyst said:
yes, and i've now seen god herself. she is a japanese woman who likes to lick my kitty
musclebrains
New member
Sushi X said:
I am making a rhetorical point. If homosexuality can be a sin,an abomination, because of one's teaching, I can as well regard opposition to the "practice" of homosexuality ignorance and call it a sin because of my own "teaching." I can claim god told me this. And I can absent myself from calculated insult by claiming I neverthless love you, even though you choose to practice a sin....which is otherwise where my attention goes. You think it's okay for him to call my love an abomination, a sin, but not for me to call his attitude ignorant? Are you serious?
It is rhetorical garbage to say that you love someone but that their manner of loving is an abomination. Can you imagine how utterly absurd it would be for someone to approach you with that? Can you imagine going to your own child and saying, "I love you, son, but I hate your way of loving? I love you, but if you show your love to another person in THAT WAY you are committing a sin that will land you in hell. " The child has to sacrifice his own way of loving a peer to the parent. Why do you think the suicide rate among gay teenagers is so fantastically high?
It's absurd. Stand for people's love and pursuit of happiness, as long as its consenual. Don't stand in the way of it and say God whispered to do so in your ear.
huntmaster
New member
curling said:
smallmovesal
New member
ok i have to go to bed but i just want to make a couple of points.
a) why would anyone take the metaphors from the bible literally?
b) if you do take it literally, why do we revere the romans, etc., for their homosexual tendencies... after all, weren't they catholic?
a) why would anyone take the metaphors from the bible literally?
b) if you do take it literally, why do we revere the romans, etc., for their homosexual tendencies... after all, weren't they catholic?
K
KAYNE
Guest
buddy28 said:
TRUE BUT DONT BLAME ME. I ACTUALLY POSTED IT AS A JOKE. DIDNT EVEN EXPECT REPLIES.
KAYNE
Sushi X
New member
MB, your point is well taken. it's not the love part but the sex part i think most people have a problem with. personally i've come to a point where do what you want just don't rub it in my face. in other words do it distinctly and respectfully. the business of running around with your instrument tied to your partner in a parade is obsurd and a bit uncalled for, not saying you do that.
my point being, it's your right to choose. you've got the free will to do so i'm not here to judge you or damn you. why am i not here to judge or damn you? God told me so, in the bible.
my point being, it's your right to choose. you've got the free will to do so i'm not here to judge you or damn you. why am i not here to judge or damn you? God told me so, in the bible.
musclebrains
New member
CRNT93 said:
I suggest YOU do some research. An earlier thread, particularly about the translation of the Romans quote, demonstrates beyond any doubt that Biblical scholars do not agree at all that the God's word proscribes homosexual relations. While some scholars interpret Paul's statements -- and they are Paul's, not God's -- as condemning all homosexual relationships, just as many scholars claim it is a comment specifically on the use of same-sex interactions in pagan temple worship.
In any case, the common translation of Paul's words to proscribe sex between men is itself dubious, since he uses a phrase that specifically refers to the Greek system of pederasty -- sex between adult males and young men in the formal system.
This is not as pat as you'd like. And we won't even go to the relationships in the Bible that many scholars believe to be homosexual in nature -- Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz.
If you have some research that indicates the Bible isn't an interpreted translation, I'd really like to see it. It would be hard to reconcile the various modern translations to the King James Bible if it weren't an interpreted text....to say nothing of the radically different experience of reading it in the original greek.
huntmaster
New member
musclebrains said:
musclebrains said:
II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
CRNT93 said:
Try this one:
King James- Deut 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel"
The New King James Version translates the sodomite as a "perverted one."
King James- 1Kings 14:24: "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. The New King James Version translates sodomite as "perverted persons."
In both cases, the words sodom/sodomite (which more likely had to do bestiality until recently) in the King James bible are mistranslations of the Hebrew word KADASH, plural KADESHIM. Got it?
Oh, and by the way, my sources are almost all practicing Christians (some are Jews). You probably should do a little more reading yourself before you make your pronouncements.
Wyst
Last edited:
smallmovesal
New member
wyst said:
let's kick this up a notch..
Last edited:
huntmaster
New member
huntmaster said:
huntmaster
New member
just what it says--the scriptures are inspired by God.--written by man, but inspired by God.----not up for dispute.
It is part of my faith to believ what my Father wrote in His book and trust through the good and bad.
Some of the scriptures really hit folks hard--but this does not affect validity.
It is part of my faith to believ what my Father wrote in His book and trust through the good and bad.
Some of the scriptures really hit folks hard--but this does not affect validity.
K
KAYNE
Guest
I'LL MAKE IT 150.
THIS HAS TURNED INTO AN ALL OUT RELIGIOUS DEBATE!!! SUPRISED RYANH HASNT LOCKED IT YET.
KAYNE
THIS HAS TURNED INTO AN ALL OUT RELIGIOUS DEBATE!!! SUPRISED RYANH HASNT LOCKED IT YET.
KAYNE
K
KAYNE
Guest
HUNTMASTER
DAMNIT......YOU BEAT ME TO 150. HEHE
KAYNE
DAMNIT......YOU BEAT ME TO 150. HEHE
KAYNE
huntmaster
New member
yeah--ill tell ya what
you can have 200---I promise.
you can have 200---I promise.
smallmovesal
New member
II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
ok here's what i get from that...
ok so the rhymes are all bitten from something intangible... therefore, they are interpreted by humans (who are fallible and imperfect). ok that said, and say that there *is* a god, perhaps the word has been misinterpreted in the first place. alright... the next part can be interpreted many ways, especially since the language is a bit more cumbersome than today's english (AND we should note that the bible was translated from another language, hence even more error likely possible in the interpretation).
ok though, what's that last part sayin? i went to seek a new revised translation of that... "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (Revised Standard Version).
and i also found an interesting discussion in that document about what mr huntmaster is doin here bitin' the rhymes from the bible.
Advocates of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory) have a problem.
If the doctrine of sola scriptura is true then we must be able to prove all doctrines from Scripture alone. If that is true, then we must be able to prove sola scriptura from Scripture alone. If we canot do that then sola scriptura turns out to be self-refuting, an idea that cuts its own basis out from under itself, like the proposition "No generalizations are true."
As a result, there is a great rush to find verses in Scripture which can be used to prove the theory of sola scriptura. These attempts are typically made by one of two kinds of advocates for the doctrine--the careless and the careful. The former are, of course, the great majority. Most advocates of sola scriptura, like most advocates of most ideas, are careless in how they support it and will press even the most tangential of things into service as proof that the idea is true.
Careless advocates of sola scriptura are no different and will assert all kinds of irrelevant passages as if they proved the doctrine.
For example, passages in the gospels where Jesus is being questioned about some doctrine by his enemies and, in answering them, he points their attention to some passage in the Old Testament. This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine).
Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources.
The idea that Jesus -- the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching -- would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever.
Careful advocates of sola scriptura -- those who try to limit the verses they appeal to in support of the doctrine to only those that have some hope of being relevant -- are as rare as hen's teeth. But those there are recognize that they have a greatly diminished number of passages to appeal to in support of the doctrine once the obviously irrelevant passages are cut away from the debate. In fact, they recognize that there are really only one or two passages which have any hope of being looked to as support for sola scriptura.
The one which has the best hope is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (Revised Standard Version).
Some who appeal to this passage appeal to the first clause of it -- "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching" -- were sufficient to establish sola scriptura. Sometimes the appeal takes the form of an emotive appeal to the fact that the text says all Scripture is inspired by God -- better translated as "God-breathed" -- as if Catholics did not also believe that Scripture is written by the verbal inspiration of God.
Ultimately, however, the appeal to the first clause is fruitless since it merely says that Scripture is profitable or useful (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers (as anyone can testify who is lucky enough to have a nail gun or unfortunate enough to have had to drive a nail with a random blunt object which was at hand).
A more careful appeal to this passage would look to other parts of it instead, for example, the last clause, which focuses on the idea that "the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
One anti-Catholic I know built his case on the Greek words used in this passage for "complete"
(artios) and "equipped" (exartizo), which he interpreted to mean "sufficient." He was able to cite one lexicon that listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of artios and one lexicon which listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of exartizo, but there are major problems with his argument.
The two lexicons that used the term "sufficient" listed it as a third or forth translation of the terms, not as the primary translation, and one cannot appeal to possible meanings of a term as proof that it does mean something in a given text, especially when they are third or fourth string possibilities for its meaning.
All the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that "sufficient" is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance. None of them render the passage "that the man of God may be sufficient, sufficient for every good work." In fact, none of them use "sufficient" as a translation of even one of the two terms.
There is such a thing as hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point), and it is a common Hebrew idiom and a common feature of Paul's letters. For example, in Colossians 1:20 Paul states that God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself through Christ. But obviously he does not mean absolutely all things or he would have to say that God reconciles Satan and the damned to himself through Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19, Eph. 1:10). Thus Paul's statement that Scripture makes a minister one complete may be no more than a typical Hebraic hyperbole.
Absurdities result if we take the principle that he uses to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and apply it to other texts. The principle is: "If (X) makes you complete then you don't need anything other than (X)" (hence his reasoning, "If Scripture makes you complete then you need Scripture only"). If we apply this principle to James 1:4, which states, "And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." If we applied the principle to James 1:4 we would have to say that we do not need anything other than steadfastness, including Scripture!
(One might object that James 1:4 the Greek words are not artios or exartizo. This is certainly true; the words in that passage are teleios and holokleros, which are even stronger Greek terms. The objection would also commit a basic translation fallacy by assuming that a difference of term always means a difference of concept -- it doesn't -- and, in any event, nobody is going to be able to build much of a case for the meaning of either artios or exartizo based on New Testament study since the first term occurs only once in Scripture and the second only twice [the other occurrence being in Acts 21:5], making meaningful Scriptural comparative studies of the usage impossible).
The two terms modify the man of God, not Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:17 says Scripture helps makes the man of God complete and equipped, not that Scripture itself is complete and equipped. In order to prove that Scripture is sufficient, the advocate of sola scriptura would have to argue backwards from the sufficiency of a man to the sufficiency of a collection of documents. This puts an extra layer in the argument and thus an extra layer of exegetical uncertainty.
This layer of uncertainty is even more problematic for the advocate since to say something helps make a man complete and equipped can presuppose that he already has certain other pieces of equipment. For example, if a man is going on a hiking trip and he has all the equipment he needs except a canteen. He then goes into a sporting goods store and buys one. When he does, he says, "There. Now I am complete, equipped for all of my hiking adventures." This does not at all imply that the canteen alone was all the equipment he needed to be completely furnished. It was only the last piece of equipment. The statement that it made him complete presupposed that he had all the other equipment he needed. In the same way, the statement that Scripture works to complete the man of God can presuppose that the man of God already has certain other articles in his possession that pertain to doctrine (such as the oral teachings of the apostles).
Even if a single source does give a person all the equipment he needs, this does not teach him how to use the equipment. He may need training in how to use his equiptment. Just because a person has all the tools he will need to survive in the woods on a hiking trip does not mean he knows how to use the tools. In the same way, even if Scripture gives one all the basic equipment one needs to do theology, it may be unclear to the point that one needs to use Apostolic Tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of it.
In fact, this is a permissible position for Catholics to hold. The claim that Scripture contains or implies all the basis data for theology is known as the material sufficiency of Scripture, and it is a perfectly acceptable position for Catholic theologians to hold (cf. Yves Congar's work Tradition and Traditions), so long as one does not move to the position of claiming that Scripture is so clear that one does not need Apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium to interpret it -- a position known as the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which is identical with the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Thus a Catholic can say that Scripture gives one all the equiptment one needs for theology, just not the background one needs to use the equiptment.
So even if one could show that the words artios or exartizo means "sufficient" in this passage, and even if he could show that it applies (directly or indirectly) to Scripture, all this would prove is the material sufficiency of Scripture, which a Catholic can be happy to admit. It does nothing to prove formal sufficiency (the sola scriptura theory).
In fact, the text says that Scripture will make the man of God complete -- it completes a clergyman, not an ordinary layman. A clergyman is someone who has special training -- for example, his knowledge of the Apostolic Tradition which enables him to correctly interpret Scripture. The text thus presupposes a knowledge that the man of God already has before he even approaches Scripture.
But apart from these considerations which deal specifically with the hypothesis being advanced in connection with the terms artios or exartizo, there are positive reasons why this passage, no matter what translation of these terms is given, cannot be used to prove sola scriptura...
To begin with, in the opening clause of the passage, the phrase "All Scripture" is normally taken by Evangelicals to mean "All of Scripture" -- in other words, a reference to the whole of the canon of Scripture, which coextensive with what a Protestant wishes to make normative for theology. This is natural for a Protestant since he things of the term "scripture" in the singular as a reference to the entire Bible and nothing but the Bible. But that is not the way the term is used in the Bible itself.
The ability to refer to the Bible as a unified work is an invention of the age of moveable type. Prior to the existence of the printing press, Scripture was at best a set of individual, bound volumes. In the first century, when Paul was writing, it was a collection of several dozen scrolls. There was no way it was conceived of as a unified literary work, as it is today.
As a result, a study of the way the New Testament uses the term "scripture" reveals that whenever the term is used in the singular -- "scripture" -- it always refers to either a specific book of Scripture or a specific passage within a book. It never refers to the whole of the corpus of works we today refer to under the unified title of "Scripture." When the Bible wants to refer to the whole of the corpus, it always uses the term in the plural -- "the Scriptures," never "Scripture."
Knowing this, we should be clued in to the presence of a mistranslation in the opening clause of 2 Timothy 3:16. Since the singular term "Scripture" is always used for an individual book of passage of the Bible, the phrase "All Scripture" would mean either "All individual book of the Bible" or "All individual passage of the Bible" -- neither of which makes grammatical sense.
And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16, we find that there is, indeed, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered "All Scripture" is pasa graphe, which means "Every Scripture" -- they key word being "every," not "all." This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term "scripture" means (for "every individual book of Scripture" and "every individual passage of Scripture" certainly make grammatical sense).
Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase -- something like hai pasai graphai ("the whole of the scriptures"), not pasa graphe, which means simply "every scripture" (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17, such as anti-Catholic James White, have admitted).
This is important because it makes it totally impossible to use the passage to prove sola scriptura, because if one tries to use it in that way it will prove way too much.
Since the passage says "Every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc.," if this proved the sufficiency of Scripture, it would actually prove the sufficiency of each passage of Scripture for theology or at least the sufficiency of each book of Scripture for theology. This would mean that not only would the Bible as a whole be enough to prove every point of theology, but each individual passage or book would be sufficient. So you could do theology not only by Scripture alone but by Matthew alone or by Mark alone or Luke alone or what have you. You could do theology sola Matthew, sola Mark, sola Luke, or, to go to the shortest books of the Bible, even sola Jude or sola 3 John if you wanted.
But that is clearly absurd. No single passage, and no single book, of Scripture contains all that we needs to know to do theology. As a result, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot be used to prove sola scriptura. If it could, it would prove way more than sola scriptura. Paul is simply saying that each individual scripture contributes to the man of God being prepared for all of his ministerial tasks, not that each individual scripture is sufficient to do all of theology.
Furthermore, the idea that these verses prove that we should look to Scripture alone clearly takes them out of context. Whenever Protestants quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, they almost always leave the previous two verses out of their citation. This is unfortunate since if we read the passage with the two preceding verses we get:
"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Paul tells Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief:
He knows from whom he has learned it. This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, so right here we have Timothy's beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.
From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy's beliefs.
Thus, right here in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture. So when Protestants come and quote verses 16 and 17, they are only quoting the back half of a double appeal to Tradition and Scripture, clearly something that does not prove sola scriptura.
Finally, all of the points we have listed, simply by virtue of their number, constitute a case against the advocate's basing sola scriptura on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The reason is that the thing that differentiates sola scriptura from the Catholic material sufficiency option is that sola scriptura claims that not only does Scripture have all the basic data one needs for theology but that this data is also sufficiently perspicuous in Scripture -- that is, sufficiently clear -- that one does not need outside information, like that provided by apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium, in order to correctly interpret Scripture.
The fact that we have been able to name so many factors undermining the use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- any one of which is fatal to attempts to use the passage -- shows that the passage is sufficiently unclear that sola scriptura cannot be proved from it. Even if one were not convinced by anything we have said, if even one of the considerations we have named is recognized as a valid interpretive option then the passage is not sufficiently clear to prove the doctrine and thus canot be used to do so.
And since, as we noted at the outset, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the passage which has the best chance of being relevant to the issue of sola scriptura, the fact that it is not sufficiently perspicuous to show the doctrine shows that there aren't any passages in Scripture that are perspicuous enough to prove sola scriptura and thus that Scripture is not sufficiently perspicuous for sola scriptura to be true.
ok here's what i get from that...
ok so the rhymes are all bitten from something intangible... therefore, they are interpreted by humans (who are fallible and imperfect). ok that said, and say that there *is* a god, perhaps the word has been misinterpreted in the first place. alright... the next part can be interpreted many ways, especially since the language is a bit more cumbersome than today's english (AND we should note that the bible was translated from another language, hence even more error likely possible in the interpretation).
ok though, what's that last part sayin? i went to seek a new revised translation of that... "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (Revised Standard Version).
and i also found an interesting discussion in that document about what mr huntmaster is doin here bitin' the rhymes from the bible.
Advocates of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory) have a problem.
If the doctrine of sola scriptura is true then we must be able to prove all doctrines from Scripture alone. If that is true, then we must be able to prove sola scriptura from Scripture alone. If we canot do that then sola scriptura turns out to be self-refuting, an idea that cuts its own basis out from under itself, like the proposition "No generalizations are true."
As a result, there is a great rush to find verses in Scripture which can be used to prove the theory of sola scriptura. These attempts are typically made by one of two kinds of advocates for the doctrine--the careless and the careful. The former are, of course, the great majority. Most advocates of sola scriptura, like most advocates of most ideas, are careless in how they support it and will press even the most tangential of things into service as proof that the idea is true.
Careless advocates of sola scriptura are no different and will assert all kinds of irrelevant passages as if they proved the doctrine.
For example, passages in the gospels where Jesus is being questioned about some doctrine by his enemies and, in answering them, he points their attention to some passage in the Old Testament. This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine).
Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources.
The idea that Jesus -- the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching -- would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever.
Careful advocates of sola scriptura -- those who try to limit the verses they appeal to in support of the doctrine to only those that have some hope of being relevant -- are as rare as hen's teeth. But those there are recognize that they have a greatly diminished number of passages to appeal to in support of the doctrine once the obviously irrelevant passages are cut away from the debate. In fact, they recognize that there are really only one or two passages which have any hope of being looked to as support for sola scriptura.
The one which has the best hope is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (Revised Standard Version).
Some who appeal to this passage appeal to the first clause of it -- "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching" -- were sufficient to establish sola scriptura. Sometimes the appeal takes the form of an emotive appeal to the fact that the text says all Scripture is inspired by God -- better translated as "God-breathed" -- as if Catholics did not also believe that Scripture is written by the verbal inspiration of God.
Ultimately, however, the appeal to the first clause is fruitless since it merely says that Scripture is profitable or useful (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers (as anyone can testify who is lucky enough to have a nail gun or unfortunate enough to have had to drive a nail with a random blunt object which was at hand).
A more careful appeal to this passage would look to other parts of it instead, for example, the last clause, which focuses on the idea that "the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
One anti-Catholic I know built his case on the Greek words used in this passage for "complete"
(artios) and "equipped" (exartizo), which he interpreted to mean "sufficient." He was able to cite one lexicon that listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of artios and one lexicon which listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of exartizo, but there are major problems with his argument.
The two lexicons that used the term "sufficient" listed it as a third or forth translation of the terms, not as the primary translation, and one cannot appeal to possible meanings of a term as proof that it does mean something in a given text, especially when they are third or fourth string possibilities for its meaning.
All the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that "sufficient" is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance. None of them render the passage "that the man of God may be sufficient, sufficient for every good work." In fact, none of them use "sufficient" as a translation of even one of the two terms.
There is such a thing as hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point), and it is a common Hebrew idiom and a common feature of Paul's letters. For example, in Colossians 1:20 Paul states that God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself through Christ. But obviously he does not mean absolutely all things or he would have to say that God reconciles Satan and the damned to himself through Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19, Eph. 1:10). Thus Paul's statement that Scripture makes a minister one complete may be no more than a typical Hebraic hyperbole.
Absurdities result if we take the principle that he uses to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and apply it to other texts. The principle is: "If (X) makes you complete then you don't need anything other than (X)" (hence his reasoning, "If Scripture makes you complete then you need Scripture only"). If we apply this principle to James 1:4, which states, "And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." If we applied the principle to James 1:4 we would have to say that we do not need anything other than steadfastness, including Scripture!
(One might object that James 1:4 the Greek words are not artios or exartizo. This is certainly true; the words in that passage are teleios and holokleros, which are even stronger Greek terms. The objection would also commit a basic translation fallacy by assuming that a difference of term always means a difference of concept -- it doesn't -- and, in any event, nobody is going to be able to build much of a case for the meaning of either artios or exartizo based on New Testament study since the first term occurs only once in Scripture and the second only twice [the other occurrence being in Acts 21:5], making meaningful Scriptural comparative studies of the usage impossible).
The two terms modify the man of God, not Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:17 says Scripture helps makes the man of God complete and equipped, not that Scripture itself is complete and equipped. In order to prove that Scripture is sufficient, the advocate of sola scriptura would have to argue backwards from the sufficiency of a man to the sufficiency of a collection of documents. This puts an extra layer in the argument and thus an extra layer of exegetical uncertainty.
This layer of uncertainty is even more problematic for the advocate since to say something helps make a man complete and equipped can presuppose that he already has certain other pieces of equipment. For example, if a man is going on a hiking trip and he has all the equipment he needs except a canteen. He then goes into a sporting goods store and buys one. When he does, he says, "There. Now I am complete, equipped for all of my hiking adventures." This does not at all imply that the canteen alone was all the equipment he needed to be completely furnished. It was only the last piece of equipment. The statement that it made him complete presupposed that he had all the other equipment he needed. In the same way, the statement that Scripture works to complete the man of God can presuppose that the man of God already has certain other articles in his possession that pertain to doctrine (such as the oral teachings of the apostles).
Even if a single source does give a person all the equipment he needs, this does not teach him how to use the equipment. He may need training in how to use his equiptment. Just because a person has all the tools he will need to survive in the woods on a hiking trip does not mean he knows how to use the tools. In the same way, even if Scripture gives one all the basic equipment one needs to do theology, it may be unclear to the point that one needs to use Apostolic Tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of it.
In fact, this is a permissible position for Catholics to hold. The claim that Scripture contains or implies all the basis data for theology is known as the material sufficiency of Scripture, and it is a perfectly acceptable position for Catholic theologians to hold (cf. Yves Congar's work Tradition and Traditions), so long as one does not move to the position of claiming that Scripture is so clear that one does not need Apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium to interpret it -- a position known as the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which is identical with the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Thus a Catholic can say that Scripture gives one all the equiptment one needs for theology, just not the background one needs to use the equiptment.
So even if one could show that the words artios or exartizo means "sufficient" in this passage, and even if he could show that it applies (directly or indirectly) to Scripture, all this would prove is the material sufficiency of Scripture, which a Catholic can be happy to admit. It does nothing to prove formal sufficiency (the sola scriptura theory).
In fact, the text says that Scripture will make the man of God complete -- it completes a clergyman, not an ordinary layman. A clergyman is someone who has special training -- for example, his knowledge of the Apostolic Tradition which enables him to correctly interpret Scripture. The text thus presupposes a knowledge that the man of God already has before he even approaches Scripture.
But apart from these considerations which deal specifically with the hypothesis being advanced in connection with the terms artios or exartizo, there are positive reasons why this passage, no matter what translation of these terms is given, cannot be used to prove sola scriptura...
To begin with, in the opening clause of the passage, the phrase "All Scripture" is normally taken by Evangelicals to mean "All of Scripture" -- in other words, a reference to the whole of the canon of Scripture, which coextensive with what a Protestant wishes to make normative for theology. This is natural for a Protestant since he things of the term "scripture" in the singular as a reference to the entire Bible and nothing but the Bible. But that is not the way the term is used in the Bible itself.
The ability to refer to the Bible as a unified work is an invention of the age of moveable type. Prior to the existence of the printing press, Scripture was at best a set of individual, bound volumes. In the first century, when Paul was writing, it was a collection of several dozen scrolls. There was no way it was conceived of as a unified literary work, as it is today.
As a result, a study of the way the New Testament uses the term "scripture" reveals that whenever the term is used in the singular -- "scripture" -- it always refers to either a specific book of Scripture or a specific passage within a book. It never refers to the whole of the corpus of works we today refer to under the unified title of "Scripture." When the Bible wants to refer to the whole of the corpus, it always uses the term in the plural -- "the Scriptures," never "Scripture."
Knowing this, we should be clued in to the presence of a mistranslation in the opening clause of 2 Timothy 3:16. Since the singular term "Scripture" is always used for an individual book of passage of the Bible, the phrase "All Scripture" would mean either "All individual book of the Bible" or "All individual passage of the Bible" -- neither of which makes grammatical sense.
And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16, we find that there is, indeed, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered "All Scripture" is pasa graphe, which means "Every Scripture" -- they key word being "every," not "all." This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term "scripture" means (for "every individual book of Scripture" and "every individual passage of Scripture" certainly make grammatical sense).
Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase -- something like hai pasai graphai ("the whole of the scriptures"), not pasa graphe, which means simply "every scripture" (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17, such as anti-Catholic James White, have admitted).
This is important because it makes it totally impossible to use the passage to prove sola scriptura, because if one tries to use it in that way it will prove way too much.
Since the passage says "Every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc.," if this proved the sufficiency of Scripture, it would actually prove the sufficiency of each passage of Scripture for theology or at least the sufficiency of each book of Scripture for theology. This would mean that not only would the Bible as a whole be enough to prove every point of theology, but each individual passage or book would be sufficient. So you could do theology not only by Scripture alone but by Matthew alone or by Mark alone or Luke alone or what have you. You could do theology sola Matthew, sola Mark, sola Luke, or, to go to the shortest books of the Bible, even sola Jude or sola 3 John if you wanted.
But that is clearly absurd. No single passage, and no single book, of Scripture contains all that we needs to know to do theology. As a result, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot be used to prove sola scriptura. If it could, it would prove way more than sola scriptura. Paul is simply saying that each individual scripture contributes to the man of God being prepared for all of his ministerial tasks, not that each individual scripture is sufficient to do all of theology.
Furthermore, the idea that these verses prove that we should look to Scripture alone clearly takes them out of context. Whenever Protestants quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, they almost always leave the previous two verses out of their citation. This is unfortunate since if we read the passage with the two preceding verses we get:
"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Paul tells Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief:
He knows from whom he has learned it. This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, so right here we have Timothy's beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.
From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy's beliefs.
Thus, right here in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture. So when Protestants come and quote verses 16 and 17, they are only quoting the back half of a double appeal to Tradition and Scripture, clearly something that does not prove sola scriptura.
Finally, all of the points we have listed, simply by virtue of their number, constitute a case against the advocate's basing sola scriptura on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The reason is that the thing that differentiates sola scriptura from the Catholic material sufficiency option is that sola scriptura claims that not only does Scripture have all the basic data one needs for theology but that this data is also sufficiently perspicuous in Scripture -- that is, sufficiently clear -- that one does not need outside information, like that provided by apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium, in order to correctly interpret Scripture.
The fact that we have been able to name so many factors undermining the use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- any one of which is fatal to attempts to use the passage -- shows that the passage is sufficiently unclear that sola scriptura cannot be proved from it. Even if one were not convinced by anything we have said, if even one of the considerations we have named is recognized as a valid interpretive option then the passage is not sufficiently clear to prove the doctrine and thus canot be used to do so.
And since, as we noted at the outset, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the passage which has the best chance of being relevant to the issue of sola scriptura, the fact that it is not sufficiently perspicuous to show the doctrine shows that there aren't any passages in Scripture that are perspicuous enough to prove sola scriptura and thus that Scripture is not sufficiently perspicuous for sola scriptura to be true.
K
KAYNE
Guest
HUNT
THX MAN!!! LOL
KAYNE
THX MAN!!! LOL
KAYNE
K
KAYNE
Guest
SMALLS
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO TYPE THAT???
KAYNE
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO TYPE THAT???
KAYNE
huntmaster said:
I guess the point I was making before is that even if you believe that the scriptures are the literal word of god (which I can respect, despite my horsing around earlier) there's still interpretation required in putting the language the bible was originally written in into English. And if you're using, for example, the King James Bible, the interpretation has already been done for you, and not by God or Jesus, but by some pretty questionable guys who weren't even working from original texts but from latin copies of greek translations of Aramaic versions of Hebrew texts, if memory serves. I just think if people are going to insist on a literal truth to the bible they go back to the purest most uncorrupted texts that exist, and translate them directly from that . That's fundamentalism in the best sense of the word, to me.
Wyst
smallmovesal
New member
KAYNE said:
i typed the first part, and came across a relevant document that i pasted beneath it hon
huntmaster
New member
correct me if I am wrong, but I think they are saying that a Christian should use more than just the Bible to establish and form their beliefs---I agree totally.
God wants a relationship with us and through that relationship he brings us in to what He wants us to be and one of the ways He does this is by the reading of HIs word.
II Timothy 3:16 KJV holds the same meaning for me as it did before.
-----------
this is a little off of subject but bear with me---
I had a history prof. with whom I used to argue political poles.
He said that if I took a statistics course that I would see, without fail, that poles are accurate and without blemmish nearly all of the time.
Well, I learned the opposite.
Poles are made of numbers and numbers can be minipulated any way desired.
Folks that do these studies and go way back and try to discount the KJV--I question their motivation. I wonder what their ultimate goal is.
I know what my ultimate goal is.
smallmovesal
New member
huntmaster said:
correct me if I am wrong, but I think they are saying that a Christian should use more than just the Bible to establish and form their beliefs---I agree totally.
God wants a relationship with us and through that relationship he brings us in to what He wants us to be and one of the ways He does this is by the reading of HIs word.
II Timothy 3:16 KJV holds the same meaning for me as it did before.
-----------
this is a little off of subject but bear with me---
I had a history prof. with whom I used to argue political poles.
He said that if I took a statistics course that I would see, without fail, that poles are accurate and without blemmish nearly all of the time.
Well, I learned the opposite.
Poles are made of numbers and numbers can be minipulated any way desired.
Folks that do these studies and go way back and try to discount the KJV--I question their motivation. I wonder what their ultimate goal is.
I know what my ultimate goal is.
you didn't even read it did you?
and what's all this talk about polish people? heehee
ok seriously, you really haven't read it because you've missed the point hon. take a gander again... if you dare
God wants a relationship with us and through that relationship he brings us in to what He wants us to be and one of the ways He does this is by the reading of HIs word.
blabbity blah all this religious rhetoric... hon, you didn't read it. you're just saying what you heard pastor ricky say at church.
sorry i'm being cheeky, it's my way
to paraphrase the document... essentially all methods of interpretation of that timothy passage are totally questionable due to the factors he mentions. it's all logically worked out and so incredibly coherent i'm impressed with the author. fascinating stuff.
i don't quite follow your poll metaphor... i think in the document the author refers to history and digs up some really relevant points about the origins/interepretations of the bible... which raise really valid points against taking the bible literally.
Good gravy, Huntmaster. The whole point of both my and Smalls posts is that the KJV is a *very* corrupted version of the original bible. If you want to hear something closer to what Jesus actually said, so that you can make a more informed judgement as to what God expects of you, don't you think that you should read the closest version you can to what he actually said? The people who made the KJV didn't even have access to the bible in its original languages -- do you realize that?
Did you ever play the game telephone where one person whispers into another person's ear and so on around the room until the person at the end of the circuit gets a message totally diferent from the first person?
That's the KJV.
Wyst
Did you ever play the game telephone where one person whispers into another person's ear and so on around the room until the person at the end of the circuit gets a message totally diferent from the first person?
That's the KJV.
Wyst
smallmovesal
New member
wyst said:
purple monkey dishwasher? huh? (yeah i'm talking simpsons quotations)
thanks hon... i was too lazy to more explicitly explain what you just did...
ok time for a good tongue lashing
huntmaster
New member
smallmovesal said:
you didn't even read it did you?
and what's all this talk about polish people? heehee
ok seriously, you really haven't read it because you've missed the point hon. take a gander again... if you dare
God wants a relationship with us and through that relationship he brings us in to what He wants us to be and one of the ways He does this is by the reading of HIs word.
blabbity blah all this religious rhetoric... hon, you didn't read it. you're just saying what you heard pastor ricky say at church.
sorry i'm being cheeky, it's my way
to paraphrase the document... essentially all methods of interpretation of that timothy passage are totally questionable due to the factors he mentions. it's all logically worked out and so incredibly coherent i'm impressed with the author. fascinating stuff.
i don't quite follow your poll metaphor... i think in the document the author refers to history and digs up some really relevant points about the origins/interepretations of the bible... which raise really valid points against taking the bible literally.
if it is not too much trouble, I would like a web addy so that I can found out more about these folks
thanks
And I havent been to church in forever--I need to go back
I dont get my spiritual substance from pastor Ricky
I get it from a man who bled and died for you on calvery.
HM
smallmovesal
New member
huntmaster said:
i bet you're totally a stone faced guy... have a laugh.. i was kidding with you... jeez
and here's your web addy. enjoy.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/2tim316.htm
it's not religion's fault tho... it's people... if some people could just accept the fact that some things just are... blind faith is still faith... and why do people feel the need to argue this so much? I generally turn the other cheek... i think i read that somewhere in there too.
huntmaster
New member
smalls--
I am really not as unpersonable as I may seeem---its just been a long day of work and school and dealing with musclebrains on a thread that asked for oppinions---I gave mine and it turned into "hey buddy you are stepping on my feet and grinding."
I enjoy the discussion though
and I appreciate the humor---its nice for a change
I am really not as unpersonable as I may seeem---its just been a long day of work and school and dealing with musclebrains on a thread that asked for oppinions---I gave mine and it turned into "hey buddy you are stepping on my feet and grinding."
I enjoy the discussion though
and I appreciate the humor---its nice for a change
smallmovesal
New member
saint808 said:
i think it's in
smallmovesal
New member
huntmaster said:
ah gotcha.
hey buddy you are stepping on my feet and grinding
saint808 said:
Okay, one last post tonight...I'm saying that the KJV was made by people who had access to at best 3rd or fourth generation translations. Hence the telephone game thing. They also translated it based on their own cultural biases and mores of the day. I don't know if they changed things on purpose or not, but it's interesting to speculate why the Witch of Babylon became the whore of Babylon, isn't it?
Actually, as far as my reading goes, the Shakespeare thing is a pleasant myth. Shakespeare was finishing up work on the Tempest when the KJV was being done. The language in the KJV, though beautiful, has not so much in common with Shakespeare's far rich tapestry of language. The KJV's lexicon is something like 8000 words, and Shakespeare's vocabulary is vast. KJV was written by scholars, I don't deny that, and it seems doubtful that Shakespeare had the sort of scholarship that went into the KJV.
Wyst
smallmovesal
New member
saint808 said:
hey you must like the movie contact then...
i love that movie.
actually and i read another interpretation for that turn the other cheek phrase too... which basically upsets the a tenet of catholic faith (i'd assume christian too, but i can only speak from my catholic upbringing).
huntmaster
New member
I am not the staunch individual that this thread makes me appear to be.
Its just that my beliefs and my faith are very strong---they were not just introduced a few days ago.
they have been nurtured through communion with God and I want to share them.
When I come on here merely to share a little something, it gets trounced on------- like an old van full of marijuana with Nate Newton at the wheel
Its just that my beliefs and my faith are very strong---they were not just introduced a few days ago.
they have been nurtured through communion with God and I want to share them.
When I come on here merely to share a little something, it gets trounced on------- like an old van full of marijuana with Nate Newton at the wheel
smallmovesal
New member
dave's not here man
K
KAYNE
Guest
smallmovesal said:
i typed the first part, and came across a relevant document that i pasted beneath it hon
WAY TO USE YOUR BRAIN GIRLY!!! HOWEVER, SINCE THIS IS MY THREAD I AM GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO PUT A REFERENCE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE THREAD. PLAGIARISM IS A CRIME!!! HEHE
KAYNE
smallmovesal
New member
smallmovesal said:
and i also found an interesting discussion in that document about what mr huntmaster is doin here bitin' the rhymes from the bible.
[/QUOTE
i did you homo!
K
KAYNE
Guest
SMALLS.....IS THAT TO ME?
smallmovesal
New member
KAYNE said:
yes
K
KAYNE
Guest
smallmovesal said:
yes
CARE TO COME VISIT AND SEE IF I AM A MAY1010??? HEHE
KAYNE
musclebrains
New member
huntmaster said:
Your poor little Biblical literalist. It'd all be fine if you didn't have to deal with me after a hard day of school and work. You think you got problems! I spend a fair portion of nearly every day listening to young people who are miserable and often suicidal because they have to spend their lives among people who want to deprive them of life's most beautiful experience. How do you think *I* feel after a hard day of work, coming on here and reading your "opinions"? Huh?
Yeah, to tell someone that the way they love is sinful -- and love is the most fundamental pleasure and world-making experience of life -- is "stepping on my feet." Why do you think you should be able to state an opinion that condemns people for the way they love and not produce a reaction? And please don't pull out your silly rhetorical flim-flam about loving the sinner. I'm well aware of the consequences, in your world, of sin...which, in my case and in the case of five percent of the population, is equal to love. Sorry, folks! For some people, the cost of love is....hell! But we loooooove YOU, even if we don't want you to LOVE anyone yourself!
I think it really goes something like this: "The way you love is a sin. I hate your sin. But, because Jesus told me I should, I love YOU. Nevertheless, the way you love is, like all unrepented sin, going to cost you eternally. Nothing personal. I didn't make the rules. God did. And the rules are in the Bible -- well, they are in the Bible *I* read. Of course, I ignore many of the sillier Levitican rules myself, because, well, you know, they, um...they're, um, culture-bound to their time and we're wiser now, but, um, of course, this one about sodomy and shit is still valid...because, um, God told me so in a personal conversation."
I'll repeat myself. Gay people want the freedom to love without fear and recrimination. You want to regulate people's freedom to love. and you have the balls to say you're doing it on God's behalf.
smallmovesal
New member
CRNT93 said:
i didn't see the greeks or romans complaining...
smallmovesal
New member
kingjohn said:
i was wodin's love child with aphrodite actually
CRNT93 said:
my point, which you have *utterly* ignored is that the post you are referring to was in response to your post which said:
CRNT93 said:
I guess you're not willing to admit that I *have* done some reading, much of it the work of *Christian* scholars?
But to answer your question
The whole damned point is that fundamentalists (I don't mean the term in an insulting way, please don't take it that way) insist on a literal interpretation of the bible, when 90% of them don't realize that much of what they quoting is based on a translation made in a time the morality was very different than it would have been when the KJV was translated. I mean we're talking about 2 worlds 1600 years apart.
Bestiality and married men having sex with temple prostitutes are two good examples of the passage might have been talking about. Homosexuality is a possibility, sure. But the point is, that's your interpretation (which you are welcome to) not the word of God. I just think we might be a little happier if we all realized this. The important parts (don't kill, love your neighbor, etc) are spelled out really clearly. Why not argue passionately for turn the other cheek, or let he who is without sin cast the first stone, which are both clearly spelled out, and not spend so much time on this other less important stuff?
I mean, why not a thread on "Is hatred and intolerance a perversion of god's will?" because there's far more of that than there is homosexuality, and there are actual unquestionable scriptural references that could be used to argue that one.
Wyst
smallmovesal
New member
wyst i gots to find a link for the research done on turn the other cheek... apparently it all comes down to another translation issue.
smallmovesal
New member
"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also."
Of all the teachings of Jesus, this certainly leaves the most confusion.
Most folks pretty well ignore it. You hear it quoted a lot, but in the negative: "I'm not turning the other cheek! You hit me, I hit you back."
Then again, other folks take it so literally, they make it an invitation to be abused.
I've heard clergy tell battered wives & abused children, it's their "Christian duty" to go back home & take some more.
Well, if you think Jesus taught that, then somebody sold you a brutal lie.
Sure, on the surface, it sounds that way: "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other....."
But if nothing else, this should prove that, in reading the Bible, we must understand its culture & people.
I'm indebted, again, to Professor Walter Wink, for the scholarship. Because he points to Jesus' specific reference here, to the "right" cheek. (1)
And we have to know: this was a totally "right-handed" Biblical world.
As in India today, the left hand was used only for unclean functions, & it was not used for anything in public.
We discover in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that if you even gestured with your left hand, you were sentenced to 10 days penance.
So in a right-handed world, how do you hit someone on the "right cheek?"
Can't do it with your fist, or with an open handed slap. You can only reach the left side, that way.
To hit someone on the right cheek, means you hit them with the back of your hand.
And in that rigidly, class-structured society, that was for only one thing: to insult & humiliate someone.
Legally, you were not allowed to hit someone of equal rank with the back of your hand.
That was reserved for abusing your inferiors - those who are less than fully human.
A master hit a slave with the back of the hand. A Roman hit a Jew that way. An adult would strike a child - a husband would humiliate his wife, with a back-hand slap.
One ancient law decreed: If you hit an equal with a fist, it was a fine of 4 days wages.
But if you used the back of your hand on an equal, the fine was 100 times that - for the insult.
The famous code of Hammurabi: if an inferior dared hit a superior with the back of the hand, punishment was 60 public lashes with an ox whip.
When Jesus pointed to the right cheek, everyone who heard him, knew that he was speaking, not just of being hit, but being humiliated.
And how did he suggest responding?
Not with violence. That would just bring on society's violence, & anyone who thinks Jesus would counsel returning violence anyway, has not understood the cross.
But neither did he teach just "taking it," & doing nothing. That's cowardice, & anybody who thinks Jesus wants cowards, hasn't looked at the cross either.
No, Jesus says, "In response, turn your left cheek toward your oppressor."
Because what happens then?
He can't back-hand you again, because that would mean using the forbidden left hand.
To hit you again, he's got to use his fist. And that would be making you his equal.
He can hurt you, yes, but he can no longer humiliate you. To continue, he has to acknowledge you as a human being.
Obscure detail - here 1900 years later, where "left hand" & "back-hand" are irrelevant?
No, you see, Jesus is not suggesting a new law to be followed every time you get hit. As a tactic, it would work only once, 'cause it depended on the surprise involved.
Jesus' timeless teaching here, is that we are not to cooperate with this world's patterns of humiliation.
Don't let people humiliate you. Without descending to their level of violence, still don't accept their degrading of you.
"Be creative" Jesus says. "Outsmart them. You can do it, because you've got truth on your side."
As Bishop Juan Gerardi of Guatemala proved again this week in his assassination, even if the world is going to kill you, it cannot defeat your dignity or your truth.
Don't give in to the put-downs. That's worse than getting clobbered.
#1 - Don't let anyone humiliate you, even if they have the power to hurt you.
And #2 - Don't participate in the humiliation of anyone else.
In the earlier gospel verses, Jesus gives an ascending order of judgement, for those who, even verbally, degrade someone else.
"Anger" is mild. "Insult" is medium. Calling someone "a fool" is the stuff of Hell.
Again here, the translation fails. The word isn't "fool" in Hebrew. There is equivalent English, but we don't use it in scripture lessons.
It's used in traffic, when somebody cuts you off.
Degrading someone, is the stuff of hellfire, Jesus says.
#1) Don't accept humiliation. Don't give in.
#2) Don't humiliate someone else, not even with words.
And #3) Don't sit by for the degrading of anyone. Nobody can get away with it, if you object. By your objection, you unmask the oppressor & you give dignity to the abused.
Why is it so important?
Well, you see, now we're going to receive Holy Communion, & we're going to sing another Easter hymn to close.
And we affirm that we're "not of this world." But we may also begin to feel, we're not in this world either.
But we are.
And this world thrives on the humiliation of people.
It happens at work all the time - it's done in the family - it's the rule in school & community: putting people down.
It's expected today - books tell you how to push your way by intimidation & humiliation.
If you go out to eat today, just watch what goes on with bus boys and waitresses.
The Kingdom of God is not off somewhere in "never-never land."
It's right here, in this world, in little sproutings of you who will not live by the rules of the game.
Walter Wink points to St. Mark's account of Communion.
Jesus sent disciples into Jerusalem, remember, & told them to follow a man carrying a water jar, to the Upper Room.
There's another kick in the pretensions.
Men didn't carry water jars in that world. That was women's work - degrading for a man. Just another example of Jesus' radical denial of hierarchy.
In fact, when Matthew re-wrote Mark's story, he took that detail out. Poor chauvinist guy, just couldn't handle the host of the Last Supper, being such a wuss.
Come receive Holy Communion, & ask Christ to be as patient with us, as he must have been with Matthew -
Ask God to build around you, a safe place -
Where nobody is abused or humiliated.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wpe.com/~firstumc/In03.html
Of all the teachings of Jesus, this certainly leaves the most confusion.
Most folks pretty well ignore it. You hear it quoted a lot, but in the negative: "I'm not turning the other cheek! You hit me, I hit you back."
Then again, other folks take it so literally, they make it an invitation to be abused.
I've heard clergy tell battered wives & abused children, it's their "Christian duty" to go back home & take some more.
Well, if you think Jesus taught that, then somebody sold you a brutal lie.
Sure, on the surface, it sounds that way: "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other....."
But if nothing else, this should prove that, in reading the Bible, we must understand its culture & people.
I'm indebted, again, to Professor Walter Wink, for the scholarship. Because he points to Jesus' specific reference here, to the "right" cheek. (1)
And we have to know: this was a totally "right-handed" Biblical world.
As in India today, the left hand was used only for unclean functions, & it was not used for anything in public.
We discover in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that if you even gestured with your left hand, you were sentenced to 10 days penance.
So in a right-handed world, how do you hit someone on the "right cheek?"
Can't do it with your fist, or with an open handed slap. You can only reach the left side, that way.
To hit someone on the right cheek, means you hit them with the back of your hand.
And in that rigidly, class-structured society, that was for only one thing: to insult & humiliate someone.
Legally, you were not allowed to hit someone of equal rank with the back of your hand.
That was reserved for abusing your inferiors - those who are less than fully human.
A master hit a slave with the back of the hand. A Roman hit a Jew that way. An adult would strike a child - a husband would humiliate his wife, with a back-hand slap.
One ancient law decreed: If you hit an equal with a fist, it was a fine of 4 days wages.
But if you used the back of your hand on an equal, the fine was 100 times that - for the insult.
The famous code of Hammurabi: if an inferior dared hit a superior with the back of the hand, punishment was 60 public lashes with an ox whip.
When Jesus pointed to the right cheek, everyone who heard him, knew that he was speaking, not just of being hit, but being humiliated.
And how did he suggest responding?
Not with violence. That would just bring on society's violence, & anyone who thinks Jesus would counsel returning violence anyway, has not understood the cross.
But neither did he teach just "taking it," & doing nothing. That's cowardice, & anybody who thinks Jesus wants cowards, hasn't looked at the cross either.
No, Jesus says, "In response, turn your left cheek toward your oppressor."
Because what happens then?
He can't back-hand you again, because that would mean using the forbidden left hand.
To hit you again, he's got to use his fist. And that would be making you his equal.
He can hurt you, yes, but he can no longer humiliate you. To continue, he has to acknowledge you as a human being.
Obscure detail - here 1900 years later, where "left hand" & "back-hand" are irrelevant?
No, you see, Jesus is not suggesting a new law to be followed every time you get hit. As a tactic, it would work only once, 'cause it depended on the surprise involved.
Jesus' timeless teaching here, is that we are not to cooperate with this world's patterns of humiliation.
Don't let people humiliate you. Without descending to their level of violence, still don't accept their degrading of you.
"Be creative" Jesus says. "Outsmart them. You can do it, because you've got truth on your side."
As Bishop Juan Gerardi of Guatemala proved again this week in his assassination, even if the world is going to kill you, it cannot defeat your dignity or your truth.
Don't give in to the put-downs. That's worse than getting clobbered.
#1 - Don't let anyone humiliate you, even if they have the power to hurt you.
And #2 - Don't participate in the humiliation of anyone else.
In the earlier gospel verses, Jesus gives an ascending order of judgement, for those who, even verbally, degrade someone else.
"Anger" is mild. "Insult" is medium. Calling someone "a fool" is the stuff of Hell.
Again here, the translation fails. The word isn't "fool" in Hebrew. There is equivalent English, but we don't use it in scripture lessons.
It's used in traffic, when somebody cuts you off.
Degrading someone, is the stuff of hellfire, Jesus says.
#1) Don't accept humiliation. Don't give in.
#2) Don't humiliate someone else, not even with words.
And #3) Don't sit by for the degrading of anyone. Nobody can get away with it, if you object. By your objection, you unmask the oppressor & you give dignity to the abused.
Why is it so important?
Well, you see, now we're going to receive Holy Communion, & we're going to sing another Easter hymn to close.
And we affirm that we're "not of this world." But we may also begin to feel, we're not in this world either.
But we are.
And this world thrives on the humiliation of people.
It happens at work all the time - it's done in the family - it's the rule in school & community: putting people down.
It's expected today - books tell you how to push your way by intimidation & humiliation.
If you go out to eat today, just watch what goes on with bus boys and waitresses.
The Kingdom of God is not off somewhere in "never-never land."
It's right here, in this world, in little sproutings of you who will not live by the rules of the game.
Walter Wink points to St. Mark's account of Communion.
Jesus sent disciples into Jerusalem, remember, & told them to follow a man carrying a water jar, to the Upper Room.
There's another kick in the pretensions.
Men didn't carry water jars in that world. That was women's work - degrading for a man. Just another example of Jesus' radical denial of hierarchy.
In fact, when Matthew re-wrote Mark's story, he took that detail out. Poor chauvinist guy, just couldn't handle the host of the Last Supper, being such a wuss.
Come receive Holy Communion, & ask Christ to be as patient with us, as he must have been with Matthew -
Ask God to build around you, a safe place -
Where nobody is abused or humiliated.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wpe.com/~firstumc/In03.html
I will admit you have done some research.I am sure,however,that homosexuality was NOT an accepted practice in the times of Moses for example.Adultery and fornication was punishable by death but homosexuality was somehow OK?I don't think so.
Wyst,do you believe in God or the Bible since you say:"the important parts"?
My point was what the scripture actually said(particularly the OT).I was not talking about my personal views on homosexuality or morality.Contrary to most on this board I have actually read the whole book cover to cover but I don't think it's the word of God.
I am a moral relativist.
Might is right!
There is no right or wrong!
huntmaster
New member
musclebrains said:
who are you quoting here??
not I
musclebrains said:
I never said anything about regulating---I just stated my stance on the fact that it is a perversion of God's will.
Just like a liberal to take everything and twist it around----cause you got your feelings hurt.
smallmovesal
New member
CRNT93 said:
i swear nobody reads... i said i was cutting a pasting hon
K
KAYNE
Guest
BUMP FOR HAVOC.
KAYNE
KAYNE
