Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Churches and endorsing politics: Where's the line?

Churches and endorsing politics: Where's the line? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2008, 11:22 AM
 
In the middle ages, abortions were often conducted after the (living) baby was born.

Anyway, at least in case of the Catholic Church (and all other churches that use a translation of the Bible which reads `kill' and not `murder'), the case is clear. You don't have to agree with it (remember, I'm not a Catholic or a Christian), but facts are facts. Doofy's cry that `the original favors his interpretation' is nothing more than choice on his part, he simply gives preference to one interpretation over another. I haven't heard his version of Christianity (which apparently centers around the Two Commandments and lots of models ), though.

I think it's particularly difficult for Protestants to make claims about how the Catholic Church interprets the Bible, there are significant differences in the liturgy. If you're a Protestant, especially an American Protestant, you will likely interpret many things differently. For them, `Thou shalt not kill.' is put into perspective by other parts of the Bible. Self-defence is accepted as a necessary evil or even legitimate way to defend yourself. But the idea is to avoid it at all costs if you can.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2008, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Doofy's cry that `the original favors his interpretation' is nothing more than choice on his part, he simply gives preference to one interpretation over another.
No. It's not a choice... ...and it's not an interpretation - it's what it says.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I haven't heard his version of Christianity (which apparently centers around the Two Commandments and lots of models ), though.
Yep. It's Christianity, not the Judaism masquerading as Christianity that's prevalent in the US.

Originally Posted by Matthew 22:37-40
And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding -this is a first and great command; and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; on these -the two commands - all the law and the prophets do hang.'
1) Love God.
2) Be excellent to each other.

Strangely enough, when you're being excellent to models they tend to be excellent back at you.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it's particularly difficult for Protestants to make claims about how the Catholic Church interprets the Bible, there are significant differences in the liturgy. If you're a Protestant, especially an American Protestant, you will likely interpret many things differently. For them, `Thou shalt not kill.' is put into perspective by other parts of the Bible. Self-defence is accepted as a necessary evil or even legitimate way to defend yourself. But the idea is to avoid it at all costs if you can.
Which is why they have the slaughterhouses do their killing for them.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2008, 01:06 PM
 
i have to defend Doofy's interpretation here. His "two rules" is in line with the words of Jesus. Of course, the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" in Acts seems to indicate that all Christians are also bound by the 7 Laws of Noah.

I have to correct his statement about the Ten Commandments being an American thing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives the Ten Commandments a central role along with the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and the Apostle's Creed. So it's clearly not just an American thing.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2008, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Things changed, IMO, with Jesus. It's pretty clear to me that Jesus would take more of a "thou shall not kill" approach. Even self-defense was not acceptable, even though he we are today loosening up the laws (in the US) for legal self-defense.
"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36

Seems that self-defense, and defending the weak, has it's place.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2008, 03:02 PM
 
The historical line has been that if you're endorsing a Democrat, you're OK, but if you're endorsing anyone else, watch out! The IRS is beating a path to your door.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I'm not a Christian, serial killer or a military recruiter. My primary concern is with accuracy.


It sounds like you're the one who's choosing a translation based on politics rather than fidelity.
I'm choosing it based on the fact that it's the interpretation that has been used by Christians all over the world for thousands of years, rather than one that has been introduced a few decades ago by US revisionists and seems to be followed primarily by individuals who use it to justify killing on the part of the state and religious warfare.

Granted, it's been a while since I read the whole thing, but I don't recall Jesus going around preaching about the merits of killing people. A general proscription against killing seems to be much more in line with the Christian spirit than the alternative.

I'm also sceptical about the linguistic ‘accuracy’ rationale I've encountered in support of the revision.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
I'm choosing it based on the fact that it's the interpretation that has been used by Christians all over the world for thousands of years, rather than one that has been introduced a few decades ago by US revisionists and seems to be followed primarily by individuals who use it to justify killing on the part of the state and religious warfare.

Granted, it's been a while since I read the whole thing, but I don't recall Jesus going around preaching about the merits of killing people. A general proscription against killing seems to be much more in line with the Christian spirit than the alternative.

I'm also sceptical about the linguistic ‘accuracy’ rationale I've encountered in support of the revision.
Judaism 101: Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"
6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."
45/47
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36

Seems that self-defense, and defending the weak, has it's place.
Eh, I'm not very convinced by one line that has nothing to do with fighting or self-defense or defending the weak. I'm sure there are other individual lines you could take out of context to make it seem like Jesus was something he was not, but the overall message is very clear: Jesus was a new age hippie peace-nik.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
That's from the authorised King James version. Traditionally, most Protestant, and practically all Catholic, versions, have ‘kill’.
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The King James Version is "traditional," but that just means it's old.

I've always been under the impression that the KJB's value is based on it's influence over English literature.

Does anyone use it for serious academic study?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
I'm choosing it based on the fact that it's the interpretation that has been used by Christians all over the world for thousands of years, rather than one that has been introduced a few decades ago by US revisionists and seems to be followed primarily by individuals who use it to justify killing on the part of the state and religious warfare.

Granted, it's been a while since I read the whole thing, but I don't recall Jesus going around preaching about the merits of killing people. A general proscription against killing seems to be much more in line with the Christian spirit than the alternative.

I'm also sceptical about the linguistic ‘accuracy’ rationale I've encountered in support of the revision.
You're really confused. The Torah often requires killing, so it's impossible that it could have prohibited a required activity.

And it isn't the "revisionists" who are using the Bible to justify state warfare. Such people tend to be "King James Only" nut-bars.

You're right about Jesus not discussing the merits of killing people, but Jesus didn't write the 10 Commandments - Moses did. Moses himself was pretty cool with killing, since he personally ordered executions and massacres a few times, such as the entire tribe of his father-in-law.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
I'm choosing it based on the fact that it's the interpretation that has been used by Christians all over the world for thousands of years, rather than one that has been introduced a few decades ago by US revisionists and seems to be followed primarily by individuals who use it to justify killing on the part of the state and religious warfare.
I'm pretty sure the Jews were interpreting it that way long before Jesus was ever born.

Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Granted, it's been a while since I read the whole thing, but I don't recall Jesus going around preaching about the merits of killing people. A general proscription against killing seems to be much more in line with the Christian spirit than the alternative.
Perhaps, but the Ten Commandments aren't part of Jesus' or any Christian author's teachings. They're from Moses, and they're part of the same law that prescribes the death penalty for many crimes.

Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
I'm also sceptical about the linguistic ‘accuracy’ rationale I've encountered in support of the revision.
Why? You think a translation from Hebrew to Latin to English by a political entity in the Dark Ages is more likely to be accurate than the work of several modern world-class scholars?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Why? You think a translation from Hebrew to Latin to English by a political entity in the Dark Ages is more likely to be accurate than the work of several modern world-class scholars?

What version are we talking about?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What version are we talking about?
I was thinking of the King James Version, which relied heavily on the Vulgate and contains several indisputable mistranslations. It wasn't a 100% precise description, I admit, but my intention was more to make my point clear than to provide an exhaustive history of the KJV's derivation. Didn't mean to mislead anyone.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Mar 12, 2008 at 03:19 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 03:19 PM
 
Gotcha.

I was thinking... the 17th Century was the Dark Ages?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Eh, I'm not very convinced by one line that has nothing to do with fighting or self-defense or defending the weak. I'm sure there are other individual lines you could take out of context to make it seem like Jesus was something he was not, but the overall message is very clear: Jesus was a new age hippie peace-nik.
Well, if you can think of something else a sword is good for, let me know.

Of course, there was also the incident where he overturned the tables in the temple and chased the people with a scourge. There's much more complexity to this individual than you're wanting to admit.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I was thinking of the King James Version, which relied heavily on the Vulgate and contains several indisputable mistranslations. It wasn't a 100% precise description, I admit, but my intention was more to make my point clear than to provide an exhaustive history of the KJV's derivation. Didn't mean to mislead anyone.
Any translation that borrows heavily from the Textus Receptus is spurious, at best.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, if you can think of something else a sword is good for, let me know.
The Romans used their swords for digging, peeling, repairing armor and equipment, making fires, cooking food, and as a back-rest when sitting. It was just as much as a utility knife as most knives are today with current soldiers.

But, yeah, a pocket knife is a little more practical than a gladius or spathe.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
The Romans used their swords for digging, peeling, repairing armor and equipment, making fires, cooking food, and as a back-rest when sitting. It was just as much as a utility knife as most knives are today with current soldiers.

But, yeah, a pocket knife is a little more practical than a gladius or spathe.
I see your point, he probably told them to buy a sword so they'd be able to split wood, not Romans.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:19 PM
 
And of course, since we're having this discussion from the viewpoint that the Bible is true, then we must accept that Jesus = God.

And in case anyone hadn't noticed, God's OK with a bit of smiting. Sometimes wastes whole cities and their inhabitants.

Or used to anyway. He's not currently taking any notice of my requests to have London razed. Which is a shame.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:22 PM
 
Or the People's Republic of California.

Damn shame really.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, if you can think of something else a sword is good for, let me know.

Of course, there was also the incident where he overturned the tables in the temple and chased the people with a scourge. There's much more complexity to this individual than you're wanting to admit.
Well, first of all, I'm sure we don't get anything close to the real picture of Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospels. Most of his complexity - and everyone is complex - is lost forever, both to you and to me. But secondly, his preaching and parables do have an overall message, and it's not about using swords on Romans.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
And of course, since we're having this discussion from the viewpoint that the Bible is true, then we must accept that Jesus = God.
Which Bible? Only some books (i.e., John) say Jesus = God. Most of the Gospels do not.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Which Bible?
The ones with a chapter by John in them?

You didn't really ask me this question at nearly 11pm when I'm full of beer, did you?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2008, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
And of course, since we're having this discussion from the viewpoint that the Bible is true, then we must accept that Jesus = God.

And in case anyone hadn't noticed, God's OK with a bit of smiting. Sometimes wastes whole cities and their inhabitants.

Or used to anyway. He's not currently taking any notice of my requests to have London razed. Which is a shame.
He's waiting for the new Doctor Who series to get canceled before he takes out the BBC.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2008, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I'm pretty sure the Jews were interpreting it that way long before Jesus was ever born.


Perhaps, but the Ten Commandments aren't part of Jesus' or any Christian author's teachings. They're from Moses, and they're part of the same law that prescribes the death penalty for many crimes.


Why? You think a translation from Hebrew to Latin to English by a political entity in the Dark Ages is more likely to be accurate than the work of several modern world-class scholars?
Jews, Moses, Hebrew, that's great.

I was under the impression that we’re talking about Christians.

Your ‘several modern world-class scholars’ are using a pre‑Christian text to arrive at their pro‑‘murder’, anti‑‘kill’ interpretation.

The Jews made up / borrowed from the Egyptians a proscription against ‘murder’, which they wrote down in Hebrew as ‘לא תרצח’, and later in Greek as ‘ου φονευσεις’.

Once that got translated into Latin, the first translation that wasn't by Jews, for Jews, but by Christians, for Christians, it’s ‘Non occides.’ Which means, generically, unambiguously, ‘Do not kill.’ in standard Latin. As Romans and other Latinophones used the verb for centuries when describing killing people in battle, and such.

Not ‘Don’t murder.’ (There are other verbs in Latin for that: ‘trucidare, necare,’ etc., which could have been chosen instead.) Evidently, being opposed to killing in general was the Christian attitude back then.

Once your imaginary god has sent his imaginary son to Earth to get himself snuffed for the imaginary sins of mankind, you kind of earn the privilege of deciding what ‘He’ wants people to act like, rather than sticking to what ‘His’ formerly ‘chosen’ peeps might have wanted ‘Him’ to say.

Christians aren’t Jews, there’s a difference. If you want to pick the tough god from Ye Olde Testament, you're missing the whole point of Xtianity, methinks.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2008, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Jews, Moses, Hebrew, that's great.

I was under the impression that we’re talking about Christians.
Then I think you need to read a bit more on the authorship of the Ten Commandments. They were not written by Christians.

Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Your ‘several modern world-class scholars’ are using a pre‑Christian text to arrive at their pro‑‘murder’, anti‑‘kill’ interpretation.
Yes, that pre-Christian text is called "the Ten Commandments." It's the document under discussion here.

Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
The Jews made up / borrowed from the Egyptians a proscription against ‘murder’, which they wrote down in Hebrew as ‘לא תרצח’, and later in Greek as ‘ου φονευσεις’.

Once that got translated into Latin, the first translation that wasn't by Jews, for Jews, but by Christians, for Christians, it’s ‘Non occides.’ Which means, generically, unambiguously, ‘Do not kill.’ in standard Latin.
This is correct. This is an instance of poor translation. It doesn't change the original meaning of the phrase. I could translate your post into Japanese and back as "Chuck is right in everything he says and none should argue with him," but that wouldn't then give me the right to say that you endorse all my posts.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Mar 13, 2008 at 01:15 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2008, 12:20 PM
 
Blessed are the cheese makers.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2008, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
This is correct. This is an instance of poor translation. It doesn't change the original meaning of the phrase.
If this translation, however poor, has always been the way it has been translated in the Catholic Bible then it is the correct Christian translation.

Simply because Christianity isn't Judaism. Trying to rediscover a connection between the two in the 20th century doesn't change that.

Literalists always miss the big picture. That being said, I don't know what was the original Catholic translation. I guess I could find out, but I can't be bothered. It isn't important to me. I neither kill nor murder.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2008, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
If this translation, however poor, has always been the way it has been translated in the Catholic Bible then it is the correct Christian translation.
What on earth is a "Christian translation"? "Christian" isn't a language. Again, I don't see how it's any more correct than if I were to start rewriting your posts and claiming that's what you actually said, because hey, that's the correct Chuck translation.

Also, the Catholic Church has no authority to tell Christians what to believe.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2008, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Well, first of all, I'm sure we don't get anything close to the real picture of Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospels. Most of his complexity - and everyone is complex - is lost forever, both to you and to me. But secondly, his preaching and parables do have an overall message, and it's not about using swords on Romans.
except where he tells them to buy swords to defend themselves, and where he went postal on the temple moneychangers...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2008, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Blessed are the cheese makers.
no they aren't, they lost Favre.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
except where he tells them to buy swords to defend themselves, and where he went postal on the temple moneychangers...
Of course, that bit about the swords is only found in Luke, thus certainly ahistorical.

And Jesus didn't attack the moneychangers personally, he just overthrew their tables and drove out their livestock.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
And Jesus didn't attack the moneychangers personally, he just overthrew their tables and drove out their livestock.
Originally Posted by Mark 11:15 YLT
And they come to Jerusalem, and Jesus having gone into the temple, began to cast forth those selling and buying in the temple, and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves
Sounds to me like He was physically manhandling them outta there.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Of course, that bit about the swords is only found in Luke, thus certainly ahistorical.

And Jesus didn't attack the moneychangers personally, he just overthrew their tables and drove out their livestock.
while being threatening and waving a scourge around, yeah, we've got it.

"ahistorical", right. If you're going to toss out any of the Gospels just because you disagree with a particular account or have some bone to pick regarding their authenticity, it's best just to stop there and reevaluate what you hope to get out of this type of discussion at all.

ALL of the Gospels were accepted as canon by every orthodox church, and every church that can be called Christian, for that matter. Within the Catholic* body, there can be no separation between any of the Gospels and Jesus himself, they're the same being. So, no, we're not going to just peel one off to accommodate a particular view.

Now, I will say that Jesus, by his teachings, was not a martial person. In fact, it would be safe to say that 99 times out of 100 he'd endorse discussion over any type of violence, even to the point of letting yourself be injured or insulted. However, if it comes down to life and death, that 1% comes into play and you take care of yourself and loved ones.



*universal Christian
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
What on earth is a "Christian translation"? "Christian" isn't a language. Again, I don't see how it's any more correct than if I were to start rewriting your posts and claiming that's what you actually said, because hey, that's the correct Chuck translation.

Also, the Catholic Church has no authority to tell Christians what to believe.
It's obvious you don't understand the argument.

It has nothing to do with Church authority, but you analogy isn't that crazy, only your premise is.

Christianity was made around the Bible, which was collected by one church to begin with. It happens to be called the Catholic Church/Orthodox Church.

Your premise is literal fundamentalism. Technically you may be 100% correct that the commandment is 'not murder' instead of 'not kill'. In reality, *if* the first Church translated that as 'kill' then that's the Christian translation.

Christianity doesn't have literal fundamentalism until after the 18th century. Even Calvinists and Lutherans weren't literalists like the Evangelists are today for example.

So while the absolute meaning is indeed 'murder', that's the Jewish meaning. Christians changed it to 'kill'. Why or rather HOW can they have the RIGHT to change a commandment?!! Mere humans?

Maybe they didn't because Christ already had changed that commandment from anti-murder, to anti-kill with his attitude and teachings. Christ affected and changed many many things between the Old and the New Testament.

It's because of arguments like this, that I am sceptical of literalists. They aren't doing anyone any good. Especially not the religion.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 05:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Also, the Catholic Church has no authority to tell Christians what to believe.
Yes, they have, at least for the majority (which is Catholic). That's what's so special about it: you have a central authority, complete with hierarchy and everything. So for Catholics there is an `official' interpretation, officially approved translations and liturgy. The translation has long become official interpretation. In less organized churches (read: all others), this is a different and more difficult question, of course.

I think WY has a good point that (especially in case of the Catholic Church), it doesn't just define itself by the Bible, but a long list of traditions. You can disagree all you want, but I think we'd all agree that Catholicism (and Protestantism in Europe) has a very deep and long history.

Now, there is the matter of people not agreeing with the official stances of the Catholic Church, this creates lots of problems for them right now. Within the last 10 years or so, many Catholic parishes in Brazil, for instance, have left the covenant of the Catholic Church and have since become free churches (for many reasons, e. g. the way the Catholic Church deals with poverty). So yes, Chuckit, I understand when you say that `I don't agree with …', but that's a different story altogether.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Mar 14, 2008 at 05:47 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
The Catholic Church has no authority to tell Christians what to believe.
Your interpretation isn’t Christian, it’s Jewish. Do rabbis have the right to tell Christians what to believe?

If you’re so keen on the authenticity of ancient morality manuals written by Jews, you might as well stick to reading only OT stuff, only in Hebrew. After all, Hebrew has for millennia been considered by many wise old Jews to be a divine and magical language, and the revealed wisdom in the Torah to be full of gematrial wonders. The thing is, once you start taking the crap that literally, it’s both tempting and logical to dismiss the entire New Testament as rubbish.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 08:09 AM
 
Th Catholic church is part Christianity, part historical political control mechanism invented by man.

If you're going to take any notice of the traditions associated with it then you might as get your sacred undies on and pop down to the moron service. It's just as accurate.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 09:04 AM
 
Catholicism (and the large Protestant churches in Europe as well as Orthodox Christians) has a large cultural depth -- something that Mormonism does not have, so I wouldn't put them on one level.

The other thing is something that you can see in most religions (on a smaller scale): some person (as in human being) or a group of persons has the prerogative to interpret things in a certain way. For instance, some `Grand Mufti' in Egypt has released a fatwa (which is just a written expert opinion) that women can become Ma'zoun (i. e. he has released an official statement that women becoming Ma'zoun is in accordance with the Koran). Similarly it is allowed to take medicines that contain alcohol (as a solvent, for instance), if this medicin is crucial for the treatment. (The idea is that the alcohol is not consumed for pleasure.)

Yes, of course, all these are rationalizations of religious rules so that they accomodate new circumstances. But almost always do you have some `official' statement that interprets religious rules to give guidelines for believers. You have that problem with any Church.

But in general, you're right, it's `pick your poison' (Buddhism is my poison of choice, but I'm not ignorant about the Christian roots of my culture). Even if a church gives an official statement, most people tend to ignore these positions whenever it's convenient (be it the oh-so-religious Taliban that profit substantially from the sale of opium or Catholics having pre-marital sex)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2008, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, they have, at least for the majority (which is Catholic). That's what's so special about it: you have a central authority, complete with hierarchy and everything.
No, they do not. At some point in the future there may be a re-unification of the Christian body, but it hasn't been "one" for over 1500 years, not since the second council of Ephesus in 449.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2008, 03:17 AM
 
You haven't properly read what I've written: the majority of Christian world-wide are Catholics and for them, the Vatican is the central authority.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2008, 05:35 AM
 
It seems like you're basically agreeing with me, just in a roundabout way: A significant minority is not Catholic, so the Vatican has no authority over Christians in general. I mean, your body is mostly water, but you don't count as a drink. There's a crucial difference between being 51% water and being 100% water, much like there's a crucial difference between 51% of Christians being loyal to Rome and 100% of Christians being loyal to Rome.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Mar 15, 2008 at 05:43 AM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2008, 05:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Your interpretation isn’t Christian, it’s Jewish.
I'm not offering any religious interpretation. I'm just talking about the plain meanings of words. It's a purely linguistic argument, and like I said, Christianity is a religion, not a language.

Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
If you’re so keen on the authenticity of ancient morality manuals written by Jews, you might as well stick to reading only OT stuff, only in Hebrew.
I think if you're going to read the Bible, you might as well read one that actually reflects what the Bible authors wrote.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2008, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
It seems like you're basically agreeing with me, just in a roundabout way: A significant minority is not Catholic, so the Vatican has no authority over Christians in general. I mean, your body is mostly water, but you don't count as a drink. There's a crucial difference between being 51% water and being 100% water, much like there's a crucial difference between 51% of Christians being loyal to Rome and 100% of Christians being loyal to Rome.
I'm not agreeing in a roundabout way, I was very specific: I was referring to Catholics only, saying that they have officially approved translations (that aren't necessarily translated in the same way you would translate them) and an established interpretation. The fact that there is a substantial minority is irrelevant, the argument holds also for smaller churches that adhere to a specific interpretation of the Bible, too. But I'm not versed in American Protestantism (which are very, very different from European Protestants) to make claims about them, that's the reason why I'm focussing on Catholics.

Your analogy of a human body isn't accurate: you cannot separate the water out of a body much like you can unscramble eggs, but you can separate Catholics from other Christians. The numbers aren't central to my argument. That's because also smaller churches often have their `official' interpretation and this `official rhetoric' is just as important as the naked text. Even if you don't belong to a church, then you just use your interpretation of the text instead of one some scholars agreed upon. Same here: of course you can argue that using `kill' instead of `murder' as a translation is literally inaccurate. On the other hand, anyone who speaks more than one language knows that you shouldn't just literally translate texts from one language into another without keeping the correct historical, linguistic and (most importantly) context with the remainder of the content in mind. Of course, this opens the door for arbitrariness, but that's the way it is with all written material. So in addition to the translation, you need an interpretation.

I agree with your argument that translations shouldn't be tinted by the translator. But even then, it doesn't necessarily reflect what the original authors have intended to, because your point of view is very different from -- say -- 2000 years ago. That's essentially I have the problem with pure literalists (although I don't think you're one of them): they transplant things from 2000 years ago into modern day without taking things into context. No sex before marriage has had a very different significance when people got married in their young teens instead of mid to late 20s, for instance.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2008, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I'm not offering any religious interpretation. I'm just talking about the plain meanings of words. It's a purely linguistic argument, and like I said, Christianity is a religion, not a language.
1. There’s no such thing as a ‘plain meaning of words’, everything has its historical context. For instance, the alphabet and writing of the ancient Hebrews consisted only of consonants, the educated reader having to determine through practice, and from the general sense of the passage, the proper vowels to be supplied for each word. During the diaspora, Hebrew became essentially a dead language, with rabbis eventually feeling forced to come up with a vowel system so Jews who were interested in the language could actually make sense of it. We’re talking about thousands of years of linguistic and cultural changes here.

2. Christianity wasn’t invented by people who cared deeply about respecting the authority of Jewish religious texts, its supposed founder was a renegade mystic and rabbi who was condemned for blasphemy. Its followers didn’t preach the Old Testament, their New Religion was based on the premise that the Jews had failed to live up to their covenant with ‘God’ which is why the guy had to intervene by sending his ‘son’ down to earth. The population of the Roman Empire, which allowed Christianity to flourish after Constantine's conversion, certainly didn’t care about the Torah, and neither did that fellow who started the reformation, Martin Luther, who was quite the anti‑Semite, apparently.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,