| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2013 10:49:08 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
*I'm* not saying it......as I understand it, the church is. That's what I don't get. To me, it doesn't mean that the kids were born out of wedlock, they're kind of stating the kids don't exist. If the marriage never happened, then they couldn't possibly be baptized, could they?
This just seems so screwed up to me.
The payoff was a huge donation for a building, BTW..... |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Oh no, sorry for the misunderstanding. I know it's not your opinion, I was just summarizing my view of your story. ;)
Huge donations move mountains... wait... that's not the quote is it? ;) |
I'm actually hoping that someone Catholic, or even who knows Catholicism, will weigh in and explain to me how this would be reconciled. There has to be someone who loses big the way I understand it now. |
The thing is, the Catholics don't know Catholicism themselves.
Originally posted by Nullix:
This doesn't seem right.
You cannot be excommunicated for marrying outside of the church. |
I believe Nullix is a Catholic. Yet he didn't know this is the way it used to be. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 11:33:06 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Oh! A quick PS ~ Anyone that gives serious study time to Scripture can tell you that "these often conflicting materials/stories/books" never conflict. Scripture is consistant. The conflicts arise in the reader. |
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that what's currently accepted as "scripture" is contradictory; I have no interest in going there. I was just commenting that there are/were many, many bits of source material left by the wayside in the long process that produced what we call "The Bible" today. And  DrAchoo, I realize this didn't all happen at the single, famous meeting called by Constantine, the Council of Nicea. Indeed, it took hundreds of years for this to happen and, divine inspiration notwithstanding, it was human process as well. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 11:42:41 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That sounds like whatever you're alluding to kind of means nobody would want to rock the boat..... what's to say that these supposed tiny brushstrokes are so tiny?
I've put forth before the idea that the history and times weren't conducive to accuracy, not to mention the hand of man has been involved since the beginning......good ol' fallible man. |
You can judge the brushstrokes for yourself if you put the time in. Modern translations also are transparent and will have footnotes denoting possible alternates to the text presented. You'll quickly find the alternates don't really change much. I'll give you an example passage. I went to the Sermon on the Mount and this is Matthew 5:21-22 (with the footnotes)
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
a.Matthew 5:21 Exodus 20:13
b.Matthew 5:22 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verse 23.
c.Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause
d.Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt
Robert, I know where you come from. ;) No worries. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 12:45:32 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That sounds like whatever you're alluding to kind of means nobody would want to rock the boat..... what's to say that these supposed tiny brushstrokes are so tiny?
I've put forth before the idea that the history and times weren't conducive to accuracy, not to mention the hand of man has been involved since the beginning......good ol' fallible man. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can judge the brushstrokes for yourself if you put the time in. Modern translations also are transparent and will have footnotes denoting possible alternates to the text presented. You'll quickly find the alternates don't really change much. I'll give you an example passage. I went to the Sermon on the Mount and this is Matthew 5:21-22 (with the footnotes)
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
a.Matthew 5:21 Exodus 20:13
b.Matthew 5:22 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verse 23.
c.Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause
d.Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt
Robert, I know where you come from. ;) No worries. |
I wouldn't presume for one second to judge the veracity of the information. I'll be the first to opine that there is way too much possibility for error, not to mention too many things stated that there is simply no way to verify.
My comment was along the same line as my comment to  myqyl.......your statement that this info is simply tiny brushstrokes is an example of a mindset that is *not* open to anything that would seriously contradict what's in place now.
As many of us know, definitions and facts change as we learn and grow in our abilities to investigate more thoroughly, so the whole concept of the veracity of the bible seems to many of us to be on shaky ground in the first place.
As allegorical examples, yes........there are many good points. But 2000 years later, through many interpretations and translations, by humans, the margin for error is huge.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 12:50:21.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 12:52:38 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm actually hoping that someone Catholic, or even who knows Catholicism, will weigh in and explain to me how this would be reconciled. There has to be someone who loses big the way I understand it now. |
I tried with 2 rewrites and can't articulate it properly (and work at the same time). I'd say google it instead. Other people more elegant than me have answered this question. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:01:57 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can judge the brushstrokes for yourself if you put the time in. Modern translations also are transparent and will have footnotes denoting possible alternates to the text presented. You'll quickly find the alternates don't really change much. I'll give you an example passage. I went to the Sermon on the Mount and this is Matthew 5:21-22 (with the footnotes)
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
a.Matthew 5:21 Exodus 20:13
b.Matthew 5:22 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verse 23.
c.Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause
d.Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt
Robert, I know where you come from. ;) No worries. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I wouldn't presume for one second to judge the veracity of the information. I'll be the first to opine that there is way too much possibility for error, not to mention too many things stated that there is simply no way to verify.
My comment was along the same line as my comment to myqyl.......your statement that this info is simply tiny brushstrokes is an example of a mindset that is *not* open to anything that would seriously contradict what's in place now.
As many of us know, definitions and facts change as we learn and grow in our abilities to investigate more thoroughly, so the whole concept of the veracity of the bible seems to many of us to be on shaky ground in the first place.
As allegorical examples, yes........there are many good points. But 2000 years later, through many interpretations and translations, by humans, the margin for error is huge. |
Well, you are a big boy and you can make your own decisions. I'll point out that in your first sentence you say you would not "presume to judge the veracity of the information" and then in the very next sentence do exactly that. I've learned, however, not to go down these rabbit holes. If that's the way you want to think about it, then that's your right. I'll stick with my own view which I believe to be the most informed.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 13:02:20. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:10:43 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm actually hoping that someone Catholic, or even who knows Catholicism, will weigh in and explain to me how this would be reconciled. There has to be someone who loses big the way I understand it now. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I tried with 2 rewrites and can't articulate it properly (and work at the same time). I'd say google it instead. Other people more elegant than me have answered this question. |
Okay......I found this....
"As to Church law, canon 1137 itself says that children conceived or born of a putative (i.e., thought to be valid but later discovered not to be) marriage are legitimate."
And this was from a previous post I had found on a Catholic website.......
"Annulment says you were never truly married in the first place. Something necessary for a valid marriage was missing. Annulment is a matter of Church law."
It can *NOT* be both ways. Either the marriage was real, and so are the children, or it's not. Arguing the point of legitimacy, which is what the first quote is offered up as does nothing to refute that the children wouldn't be here, legitimate or not if the marriage didn't happen.
So......since the children exist, and the marriage no longer, and never di, exist, where does that leave my friend's rather annoyed and hurt children?
Not to mention, what kind of a dirtbag does this make the father who is perfectly willing to say his life with the family he was a part of for over two decades didn't exist?
These things really do look pretty reprehensible to an outsider.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:22:28 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll point out that in your first sentence you say you would not "presume to judge the veracity of the information" and then in the very next sentence do exactly that. I've learned, however, not to go down these rabbit holes. If that's the way you want to think about it, then that's your right. I'll stick with my own view which I believe to be the most informed. |
This sentence????
I'll be the first to opine that there is way too much possibility for error, not to mention too many things stated that there is simply no way to verify.
How is that a judgement? I'm merely stating that since there have been so many years passed, and so many sources from which information flows to uphold anyone stating they have unequivocal answers. You disagree with that?
I'll certainly agree that you're much better informed than I.......never stated otherwise. But time and time again, there are those of us who simply ask for you believers to acknowledge that all of what's offered up in the bible as not word for word truth and the word of God. And various sects within your ranks don't even agree.
So I certainly don't get any good fuzzy that there's any room for error despite contradictions raised and legitimate questions asked. You offer up vague concepts and tenets, yet you really don't have anything more to offer up as knowledge.
Anyhow.....I know the moon's there......I can see it.
As soon as the church can explain to me how two of my friend's four kids that I've met personally do not exist, maybe my mind will be changed in my thinking about the church.
Can you shed any l;ight on that one, Jason?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:24:35 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... these adjustments have always amounted to tiny brushstrokes on a painting. The subject of the painting never changes. |
It wouldn't take much in the way brushstrokes to make Mona Lisa frown ... |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:35:29 PM · #85 |
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. If you do not take it all literally, then how do you know which parts to believe are the word of God? Does everybody or every denomination pick and choose which parts to believe? For instance, how can Noah's arc be taken literally? How can it be reconciled with the discovery of T-Rex, Triceratops, and other dinosaur bones? Surely they would sink the arc? :-) So, if that is not to be taken literally, is it just a moral story? What else is not to be taken literally? Are they not all moral stories put together by well meaning men? Some great stories, some interesting history, .... but the literal word of God ???
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:41:13 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... these adjustments have always amounted to tiny brushstrokes on a painting. The subject of the painting never changes. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It wouldn't take much in the way brushstrokes to make Mona Lisa frown ... |
I'm guessing by Jason's reasoning, it would still be the Mona Lisa.......just with a different attitude.
Sort of like the God's love, and the fire and brimstone differences, right?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:15:14 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But time and time again, there are those of us who simply ask for you believers to acknowledge that all of what's offered up in the bible as not word for word truth and the word of God. And various sects within your ranks don't even agree. |
That is a bit of a tall order Jeb. We all find our place in the world and think and act based on our beliefs. It is fair to ask someone to defend those beliefs, but to ask them to reconcile variations of that faith that differ from their own is an impossible task. If they were reconcilable, they would not be a different sect. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:31:26 PM · #88 |
Annulment is just another one of those ideas made up by the church (usually Catholic) to help people (mostly men) get out of a marriage (which the "church" itself says is a binding contract between God and man). Lots of contradictions regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the children involved, just look at Ted and Joan Kennedy - Ted had their marriage annulled after 25 years and 3 children! Are they now illegitimate after all that time? However, Joseph P. Kennedy II had his marriage annulled after 12 years and 2 children. The annulment was reversed after his wife appealed it to Rome after the Boston tribunal had granted it, but it took over 10 years for the decision to be made for the reversal! Shortly after the annulment she had written a scathing book (called "Shattered Lives") about this whole annulment business calling the US the "Nevada of the annulment world" where she said 3/4 of all the world's annulments take place. This whole annulment business is a disgrace to the church and a disservice to the mostly women and children left in its wake.
I had an aunt that couldn't receive the sacraments because she married a divorced non-Catholic man (they had a long and happy marriage, regardless) My father-in-law was divorced but left the church and my mother-in-law couldn't receive the sacraments either. All parties are deceased now but what a shame that they were made to feel like sinners because of their belief in the rules of the Catholic church that were in place at the time. :-(
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:32:50 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... these adjustments have always amounted to tiny brushstrokes on a painting. The subject of the painting never changes. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It wouldn't take much in the way brushstrokes to make Mona Lisa frown ... |
I'm guessing by Jason's reasoning, it would still be the Mona Lisa.......just with a different attitude.
Sort of like the God's love, and the fire and brimstone differences, right? |
So both of you show me an example of brushstrokes in the bible which turn that frown "upside down". The analogy doesn't really matter unless you can give me an example of what you are talking about.
And Jeb, as far as you passing judgement you are doing exactly that. You "opine" that (in your judgement) the room for error is "far too large". In other words, you deem the risk that what we read today is not like what was originally written is big. How is that not forming a judgement about it? (anyway, that's how I interpret it so that's why I brought it up). I was really just showing you a sample passage of how a modern bible reads. I didn't know how familiar or unfamiliar you were with them.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 14:33:30. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:35:41 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:57:47 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:04:14 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... these adjustments have always amounted to tiny brushstrokes on a painting. The subject of the painting never changes. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It wouldn't take much in the way brushstrokes to make Mona Lisa frown ... |
I'm guessing by Jason's reasoning, it would still be the Mona Lisa.......just with a different attitude.
Sort of like the God's love, and the fire and brimstone differences, right? |
So both of you show me an example of brushstrokes in the bible which turn that frown "upside down". The analogy doesn't really matter unless you can give me an example of what you are talking about. |
I seem to remember that some versions of the Bible (how can the "divinely inspired literal word of God" have "versions" anyway?) list one of the Commandments as "Thou shalt not murder" and others as "Thou shalt not kill." Until someone finds those stone tablets we'll never know which is "true."
That nuance (of translation/interpretation) has a profound effect on several important personal and societal fronts, such as whether state-sanctioned capital punishment is moral, and whether one can be a contientious objector to war ...
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 15:04:49. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:04:21 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
Those are good questions. But let me ask you this, (and it might get a gasp from some of my Christian friends), "who cares?" Does my Christian life and beliefs really change based on whether I believe in a global flood or a local flood or no flood at all? Does the message of deliverance and redemption change? Has the inspired message of God been snuffed out? Nobody will miss out on heaven because they didn't believe in a literal Noah's Ark (or vice versa). Nobody ever eulogized someone's life with, "he lived a very good life, except for his lack of belief in the ark which makes it all for naught."
So, for me, all of those stories are on one side of a line. A side that doesn't matter. The only story I need to believe as literal truth is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because, as Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, what we preach doesn̢۪t mean anything. Your faith doesn̢۪t mean anything either." |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:05:49 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I seem to remember that some versions of the Bible (how can the "divinely inspired literal word of God" have "versions" anyway?) list one of the Commandments as "Thou shalt not murder" and others as "Thou shalt not kill." Until someone finds those stone tablets we'll never know which is "true." |
I'm pretty sure neither "murder" nor "kill" were used as it was in Hebrew. If you show me that the Hebrew words differ, then maybe we're onto something. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:08:17 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But let me ask you this, (and it might get a gasp from some of my Christian friends), "who cares?" Does my Christian life and beliefs really change based on whether I believe in a global flood or a local flood or no flood at all? Does the message of deliverance and redemption change? |
And similarly it doesn't matter whether one believes believes in a literal God, or merely in following the accumulated wisdom of the race as explained through the lessons of fable. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:09:19 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I seem to remember that some versions of the Bible (how can the "divinely inspired literal word of God" have "versions" anyway?) list one of the Commandments as "Thou shalt not murder" and others as "Thou shalt not kill." Until someone finds those stone tablets we'll never know which is "true." |
I'm pretty sure neither "murder" nor "kill" were used as it was in Hebrew. If you show me that the Hebrew words differ, then maybe we're onto something. |
I believe the languages of the Bible are Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew ... and you still don't know what was on the tablets.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 15:10:12. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:09:48 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Those are good questions. But let me ask you this, (and it might get a gasp from some of my Christian friends), "who cares?" Does my Christian life and beliefs really change based on whether I believe in a global flood or a local flood or no flood at all? Does the message of deliverance and redemption change? Has the inspired message of God been snuffed out? Nobody will miss out on heaven because they didn't believe in a literal Noah's Ark (or vice versa). Nobody ever eulogized someone's life with, "he lived a very good life, except for his lack of belief in the ark which makes it all for naught."
So, for me, all of those stories are on one side of a line. A side that doesn't matter. The only story I need to believe as literal truth is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because, as Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, what we preach doesn̢۪t mean anything. Your faith doesn̢۪t mean anything either." |
well said.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:12:48 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You "opine" that (in your judgement) the room for error is "far too large". |
Hey Jason......use a dictionary every now and then.
Opine: from the Cambridge dictionary
Definition
to state something as an opinion
My stance is only that with so many sects, so many people involved, and so much time passed, not to mention how rudimentary the recording abilities were at that point that there *is* a large margin for error.
Personally, I don't care what you believe or what you worship, it's when ironclad beliefs get in the way of good common sense and facts that I start to get testy.
And seriously, you expect me to believe that with all the debate, interpretation, translation, and various determining councils, of and by humans that it's the same as always, well, you know perfectly well you're blowing smoke.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 15:13:44.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:20:38 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I seem to remember that some versions of the Bible (how can the "divinely inspired literal word of God" have "versions" anyway?) list one of the Commandments as "Thou shalt not murder" and others as "Thou shalt not kill." Until someone finds those stone tablets we'll never know which is "true." |
I'm pretty sure neither "murder" nor "kill" were used as it was in Hebrew. If you show me that the Hebrew words differ, then maybe we're onto something. |
I believe the languages of the Bible are Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew ... and you still don't know what was on the tablets. |
It's Achoo. You know the only reason he hates going down "rabbit holes" is because he's too busy building his own ;) Why anyone still tries to have serious conversations with him is beyond me. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:20:45 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Those are good questions. But let me ask you this, (and it might get a gasp from some of my Christian friends), "who cares?" Does my Christian life and beliefs really change based on whether I believe in a global flood or a local flood or no flood at all? Does the message of deliverance and redemption change? Has the inspired message of God been snuffed out? Nobody will miss out on heaven because they didn't believe in a literal Noah's Ark (or vice versa). Nobody ever eulogized someone's life with, "he lived a very good life, except for his lack of belief in the ark which makes it all for naught."
So, for me, all of those stories are on one side of a line. A side that doesn't matter. The only story I need to believe as literal truth is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because, as Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, what we preach doesn̢۪t mean anything. Your faith doesn̢۪t mean anything either." |
I call BS. Every time you get backed into a corner, you throw up some smoke screen or other.
Why not answer the question?
Who cares? Well, there are a lot of us out here who simply want straight answers instead of circular obfuscation.
And because we ask hard questions some days, we're all religion haters. I kind of get tired of getting called out for bullying because I'm genuinely interested.
I have approached ministers, pastors, and many people of faith over the years and tried to discuss some of these various things with them. Eventually, the same thing happens........when they hit the wall and have to rely on "Because it says so in the Bible" or "Because God says so", I realize that intelligent discourse is finished.
|
|
