DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on December 09, 2008, 09:14:20 AM
-
Our Mutual Joy
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.
Lisa Miller
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008
Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.
The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)
Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).
The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.
If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God." In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.
Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History."
Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband and wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems," she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds."
We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.
In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.
In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."
The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.
Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do "holy union" or "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."
More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.
With Sarah Ball and Anne Underwood
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
-
That must have been a lot of work to research, but the concept and the premise are flawed.
If God doesn't like homosexuality , why should he like homosexual marrage better?
The bible in only a few places forbids beastiality , but in our modern day we have changed the concept of marrage so much that perhaps comitted animal partners ought to be recognised and given the blessings of the congregation and the ceremonys that consecrate the relationship before God.
-
Screwing and marrying animals is changing the subject.
According to the Bible, God hates men to cut their forelocks and beards. It tears him up if we eat a shrimp or a crab or even a catfish. He despises people who wear clothes made of more than one fiber.
Basing CIVIL law on such nonsense is absurd. Those who want to make God happy can voluntarily follow all his many admonitions in the Bible. No one is trying to force the CHURCH to approve gay marriage.
-
No one is trying to force the CHURCH to approve gay marriage.
Actually, XO, I could easily foresee a situation in the near future where churches would have to hire married homosexuals or violate the law. In fact, I suspect there are already such laws on the books and if not, I'm sure San Francisco will be in the forefront of this movement.
-
Actually, XO, I could easily foresee a situation in the near future where churches would have to hire married homosexuals or violate the law. In fact, I suspect there are already such laws on the books and if not, I'm sure San Francisco will be in the forefront of this movement.
I don't see how this could be related to the gay marriage issue. It is a totally separate issue.
If discrimination is illegal against people because of their sexual orientation, then why should churches be exempt when they are hiring janitors, cooks or something else non-ecclesiastical?
-
If a Church refused to marry some persons , or allow those persons to use Church facilitys for a Marrage ceremony , these persons could not sue ?
I wonder how my pastor would react to being asked to offiate at such a ceremony , he would certainly open the ceremony with a strong call to repentance.
-
Screwing and marrying animals is changing the subject.
According to the Bible, God hates men to cut their forelocks and beards. It tears him up if we eat a shrimp or a crab or even a catfish. He despises people who wear clothes made of more than one fiber.
Basing CIVIL law on such nonsense is absurd. Those who want to make God happy can voluntarily follow all his many admonitions in the Bible. No one is trying to force the CHURCH to approve gay marriage.
Diet and dress were excepted by the same apostle who pointedly did not except sexual immorality.
Paul was as expert on Jewish law as anyone , but his vision of being asked to eat the strange dishes settled for him the question of whether a person could become a Christian with or without the Mosaic law.
-
Here's another compromise effort (don't expect any coming from the other side of the issue)
REMOVE marriage from any and all government. Make all legal unions, as recognized by the state, a Civil Union, be it man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman
Let "Marriage" exist only in religious services & Churches
Who's game?
-
Screwing and marrying animals is changing the subject.
No , it is the same set of taboos , probably just as many practicioners just as eager to establish new civil rights.
-
Here's another compromise effort (don't expect any coming from the other side of the issue)
REMOVE marriage from any and all government. Make all legal unions, as recognized by the state, a Civil Union, be it man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman
Let "Marriage" exist only in religious services & Churches
Who's game?
Who do children belong to now?
-
Their parents, I would hope
-
Who do children belong to now?
If you are legally married, the state.
-
Their parents, I would hope
Parents need the state to recognise this , because the state can take them , or award them to one parent or take them from both.
The need of the Child is always said to be formost , but the needs of the state is lurking back there too.
-
Thus a legally recognized civil union, by the state. Not a marriage, just a legal binding state sanctioned recognition of a union between 2 mutually consenting folk
-
uhm
If i recall right the church frowns upon anykind of civil unions,because it means people can now have children out of wedlock and not get hassled .
-
But we're not talking about the church, we're talking about a legal recognition by the state. Churches frown on anything not marriage, but that's the compromise. Marriage will exist within and ONLY within the realm of the church and religious bodies. Any state sanctioning will be referred to as something other than a marriage, including that between a man & a woman
I'm actually willing to make that compromise
-
Here's another compromise effort (don't expect any coming from the other side of the issue)
REMOVE marriage from any and all government. Make all legal unions, as recognized by the state, a Civil Union, be it man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman
Let "Marriage" exist only in religious services & Churches
Who's game?
Me. If I want to be "married", then I have the option of finding a church that will confer that on me through their theology. Yours is a sensible compromise and is nearly identical to the one BT and Ami bring up.
-
Thanks Fat. I try to be. Do you think you might be able to jog a even an ounce of a compromise effort on those from the other end of my side, who apparently have no intention of compromising on anything? Xo perhaps? Prince, even?
-
Here's another compromise effort (don't expect any coming from the other side of the issue)
REMOVE marriage from any and all government. Make all legal unions, as recognized by the state, a Civil Union, be it man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman
Let "Marriage" exist only in religious services & Churches
Who's game?
I think that is a wonderful idea, actually.
Jesus never said that loving one another must be recognized by any sort of Governmental Bridal Shower.
I'm game.
-
Here's the rebuttal to the original article:
Newsweek Argues the Religious Case for Gay Marriage
Albert Mohler
President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
December 10, 2008
Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument. In its cover story for this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.
Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible's relevance to the question of marriage in the first place. "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does," Miller suggests. If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.
She concludes: "Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?" She answers, "Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."
Now, wait just a minute. Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.
But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.
As for the New Testament, "Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere" to be found. Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus "preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties." Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments. Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.
But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative.
As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel. His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry. But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married. Paul will himself assume this when he writes the "household codes" included in other New Testament letters.
The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.
Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.
In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.
Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.
Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that "Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching." In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory. "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller simply asserts -- apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.
Miller picks her sources carefully. She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here]. Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument. The deck is decisively stacked.
She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.
As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."
"A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism," she asserts. "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."
All this comes together when Miller writes, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts.
Even as she attempts to make her "religious case" for gay marriage, Miller has to acknowledge that "very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal." Her argument now grinds to a conclusion with her hope that this will change. But -- and this is a crucial point -- if her argument had adequate traction, she wouldn't have to make it. It is not a thin extreme of fundamentalist Christians who stand opposed to same-sex marriage -- it is the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations worldwide.
Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek's responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda: "No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism," Meacham writes. "Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."
Well, that statement sets the issue clearly before us. He insists that "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt." No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches -- and then to accept, teach, apply, and obey.
The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.
Newsweek could have offered its readers a careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to this question. It chose another path -- and published this cover story. The magazine's readers and this controversial issue deserved better.
-
That is only a rebuttal if one assumes that the Bible is the ultimate authority on everything. Which may be true for Christianity, but NOT for a secular state, such as the one we live in.
Again, every religion can define marriage as it wishes, but just as a non-Christian government can refuse the notion that blood can be mystically turned into wine and bread into huan flesh, it has no obligation to accept the Biblical definition of marriage.
A civil union arrangement would be fine with me. My point is that it is not fine with the clowns that passed Prop 8 and the latest anti-gay bill in Florida, and they seem to have declared themselves the authority here.
-
That is only a rebuttal if one assumes that the Bible is the ultimate authority on everything. Which may be true for Christianity, but NOT for a secular state, such as the one we live in.
Again, every religion can define marriage as it wishes, but just as a non-Christian government can refuse the notion that blood can be mystically turned into wine and bread into huan flesh, it has no obligation to accept the Biblical definition of marriage.
A civil union arrangement would be fine with me. My point is that it is not fine with the clowns that passed Prop 8 and the latest anti-gay bill in Florida, and they seem to have declared themselves the authority here.
I think that the Newsweek effort to find a scriptural basis for supporting Homosexual Marrage is successfully rebutted.
-
You could easily argue that there is a stronger scriptural basis for keeping the kosher than not keeping it as well.
Public stonings are recommended for many infractions in several parts of the Bible, and Jesus only speaks against stoning once. The Bible is a seriously flawed assortment of views, and not alid for building a religion on, let alone a government.
Anyway, a scriptural basis for homosexual marriage is irrelevant in a secular country. And this is a secular country.
-
You could easily argue that there is a stronger scriptural basis for keeping the kosher than not keeping it as well.
Public stonings are recommended for many infractions in several parts of the Bible, and Jesus only speaks against stoning once. The Bible is a seriously flawed assortment of views, and not alid for building a religion on, let alone a government.
Anyway, a scriptural basis for homosexual marriage is irrelevant in a secular country. And this is a secular country.
So why does Newsweek go to all the effort it did to cobble up a scriptural basis for Homosexual marrage?
The Scriptures are uniformly against Homosexual acts , Homosexual marrage isn't homosexuality lite or homosexuality in a Christian manner. What got Newsweek busy combing through scriptures and inventing an argument?
-
So why does Newsweek go to all the effort it did to cobble up a scriptural basis for Homosexual marrage?
===============
Yo need to ask Newsweek about that.
The Scriptures are uniformly against Homosexual acts , Homosexual marrage isn't homosexuality lite or homosexuality in a Christian manner. What got Newsweek busy combing through scriptures and inventing an argument?
The Scriptures are uniformly against eating shellfish, and the kind of haircut you have right now, and wearing fabric made of more than one single fiber as well as homosexuality. The Scriptures are full of weird stuff, most of what you don't believe in of follow, but somehow you are obsessed about a civil government performing a civil wedding for people who do not follow your silly confusing and ancient scriptures.
-
So why does Newsweek go to all the effort it did to cobble up a scriptural basis for Homosexual marrage?
===============
Yo need to ask Newsweek about that.
The Scriptures are uniformly against Homosexual acts , Homosexual marrage isn't homosexuality lite or homosexuality in a Christian manner. What got Newsweek busy combing through scriptures and inventing an argument?
The Scriptures are uniformly against eating shellfish, and the kind of haircut you have right now, and wearing fabric made of more than one single fiber as well as homosexuality. The Scriptures are full of weird stuff, most of what you don't believe in of follow, but somehow you are obsessed about a civil government performing a civil wedding for people who do not follow your silly confusing and ancient scriptures.
I am not more obsessed than Newsweek.
If there is no use in reference to scripture then we are left with the simple taboo , which for most of human history was fatal to break.
Or the Government , the servant of the people.
The thread begins on Newsweek hashing Scripture toproduce a rosy light for Homosexual Marrage , but why?
-
LOL...oh gezzz....
we are comparing NEWSWEEK to the BIBLE?
Give me a break.
-
If there is no use in reference to scripture then we are left with the simple taboo , which for most of human history was fatal to break.
=========================
You don't really mean that every society that has not condemned homosexuality has ceased to exist, do you?
At one time, disease, famines and wars made "be fruitful and mutiply" a useful position. Not any longer. We have been too fruitful by far ever since we have managed to cure so many diseases. Jesus had no hope of curing all the lepers: they were all over the place, and of course, he checked out before he cured a fraction of those needing curing. But when was the last time you saw a leper? Modern medicine beats the poo out of Christly miracles. But this creates a problem with overpopulation. So people who do not reproduce (as many gays have done thoroughout history, to serve as a beard to their homosexuality) and not a threat, but a positive boon. We should let them get married. Scripture no longer applies. Much of it is less useful to us than a warranty on a TRS-80 or a Commodore-64.
-
Newsweek is yet another attempt by the secular media to disenfranchise Christianity/to demean it/to invalidate it.
Part of a trend. It will continue as our Judeo-Christian foundation continues to erode.
Secularism has no basis in morality so watch what will happen over the next few years...
-
Newsweek is yet another attempt by the secular media to disenfranchise Christianity/to demean it/to invalidate it.
Part of a trend. It will continue as our Judeo-Christian foundation continues to erode.
Secularism has no basis in morality so watch what will happen over the next few years...
So true.
I for one, will be keeping the faith.
-
LOL...oh gezzz....
we are comparing NEWSWEEK to the BIBLE?
Give me a break.
That wouldn't be much of a comparison.
But Newsweek is putting the bible to use , and we can talk about how legitimate , or not , they are to do so.
-
we are comparing NEWSWEEK to the BIBLE?
Give me a break.
That wouldn't be much of a comparison.
=========================================
Indeed this is true.
The entire Bible is almost totally hearsay evidence. The New Testament was written around FIFTY YEARS OR MORE after the events it described. This is like having a trial where all the witnesses are talking about events that happened between 1933 and 1958.
The singular most important event other than Jesus between 33BC and 108 AD was the First Jewish-Roman War 66-73AD, which began with the expulsion of the Romans from Palestine and ended in the destruction of Herod's Temple (the one Jesus visited) and the erasing of Jerusalem from the map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish-Roman_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish-Roman_War)
This was a monumental event, but was followed by the Simon Bar Kochba Rebellion, led by a man who was considered the Messiah by many, many more people than Jesus was in his time.
Strangely, neither of these events is mentioned in the Bible at all. Paul says nothing at all about the destruction of Jerusalem. He died in 67AD, but books written after his death don't mention it either.
On the other hand, Newsweek mentions pretty much every significant event, bar none, that happened during the tie of its publication.
So yeah, you are right, there is no comparison.
Newsweek wins, hands down, for accuracy, evidence and thoroughness over the NT, and no doubt the OT as well. Not that Newsweek is nearly as good a news source as The Economist or Der Spiegel.
-
No Way...LOL
Newsweek wins hands down?.....come on....Xavier.
You speak with bias tongue!
I know, I know.....you are going to tell me that I do the same.
But, unlike you....I happen to believe the Bible wins hands down over NEWS of the Week. ::)
-
I happen to believe the Bible wins hands down over NEWS of the Week.
===============================
The Bible contradicts itself, as a google of the terms Bible and contradictions will reveal.
There is no evidence other than the Bible that Herod ever ordered the killing of first-born sons. That would be a major outrage to the Jews or anyone, but it just isn't there.
Newsweek is more accurate for today's news than the Bible is for historic events.
When the Romans obliterated Jerusalem and the Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, the most important single symbol of the Jewish religion was lost. There is not a single mention of this in the Bible. Nary a word.
Jesus was a rabbi, a priest in a religion which had a huge reverence for the written word. His mission was to bring the word of God to Mankind, especially the Jews, being as he only seems to have tried address the Jewish religion to other Jews. And yet, he wrote not a single word. It only mentions in the NT that he drew or wrote something unmentioned in the dirt with a stick--and that does not require even literacy.
-
I happen to believe the Bible wins hands down over NEWS of the Week.
===============================
The Bible contradicts itself, as a google of the terms Bible and contradictions will reveal.
There is no evidence other than the Bible that Herod ever ordered the killing of first-born sons. That would be a major outrage to the Jews or anyone, but it just isn't there.
Newsweek is more accurate for today's news than the Bible is for historic events.
When the Romans obliterated Jerusalem and the Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, the most important single symbol of the Jewish religion was lost. There is not a single mention of this in the Bible. Nary a word.
Jesus was a rabbi, a priest in a religion which had a huge reverence for the written word. His mission was to bring the word of God to Mankind, especially the Jews, being as he only seems to have tried address the Jewish religion to other Jews. And yet, he wrote not a single word. It only mentions in the NT that he drew or wrote something unmentioned in the dirt with a stick--and that does not require even literacy.
The Bible contradicts itself, as a google of the terms Bible and contradictions will reveal.
I am sure many of us would go running away from the faith that has brought us close to the Lord, if we felt that you were absolutely correct, XO.
Nice try, though.
Go ahead and argue. But you will never be correct on this one.
I am not one to argue faith.....it's not something one can truly debate, quite frankly with any sort of solution. ..I also don't think that a person who hasn't even given Christ a chance can win this debate, either.
I would defer to the millions of Christians who have chosen to believe in Christ....failed system/book/logic/etc.
There's more to this "story"...it's called faith.
-
Well, that is my point.
It's all about faith. Logic is futile. Reason is futile.
Jesus is one thing, the Bible is another, by the way.
-
Well, that is my point.
It's all about faith. Logic is futile. Reason is futile.
Jesus is one thing, the Bible is another, by the way.
Jesus is one thing, the Bible is another, by the way.
According to you, perhaps.
But, to me .....The Bible is the WORD of God according to the followers of Jesus Christ. The entire Bible--old and new.
Jesus is the only Messiah, as a Christian I speak.
There is no "other way" btw....unless one believes that Jesus is not God. So be it. xo
I just don't agree with you on this. Jesus Christ is the only one to save the world.
I know that seems a stretch and sounds off the mark to someone like you...but to say that anything written in this day and age trumps the Bible....is so just stupid, imo.
It's all about faith. Logic is futile. Reason is futile.
and by the way, God gave us this gift of Logic which is not so futile--- when it comes to reason if one has faith.
You have not given Christianity a chance, Xavier...so, honestly, you can't criticize the logic or reason of any part of it.
But, of course, the arm-chair quarterback will always think he knows best. ONe has to experience the faith to understand it. Then one will see that logic, heart and everything "being" is from God...our gifts. So, logic tells me that there is a God. The world is arranged too perfectly for there not to be a God. Logic, mathematics, science are not separate elements from God's plan.
I don't want to get into an argument about religion here, but I have to say that it really bothers me when someone states their TRUTH according to his narrow mind. .....without experience and the insight into both sides, one can not be believed.
Truth = logic vs faith?
Welcome to the fight of all eternity.
I just happen to believe that there is so much more in life.
But, again......one can't see ..unless one is willing to see--the truth.
-
This author gives far more credibility than any Newsweek reporter. He explains that his journey was not a spiritual one, but walking the land to tell the story brought about more meaning than he imagined.
When did you go from being an author on a journey to being just a person on a journey?
When I went to Haran the first time, which is where God speaks to Abraham in Genesis 12 - and I had been to Mount Ararat and Eastern Turkey - we'd been driving for two days to get to this isolated town, which is one of the oldest cities on Earth. And I just felt this incredible connection to the land, like I just wanted to get out and roll around in the soil. I had this experience of them, going back to the story itself and reading about Adam and Eve. The word for Adam comes from the Hebrew word adama, which means soil. And suddenly that phrase, that is almost a cliché, but I remembered it from my grandmother's funeral - from dust you are, and to dust you shall return - it just had this powerful impact on me. It was like the Bible seems to understand that we come from these places. We carry these places around within us. And maybe - though I had said this was not about me and my God, this was not about me and my religion - that maybe this was going to be this emotional experience that I hadn't even realized I was looking for.
Are you a particularly spiritual person, or were you before Walking the Bible?
I actually was not before. I'm a fifth generation Jew from the South, and I would say that I felt this connection to my religion, but it wasn't a spiritual connection. And I assured everyone at the start that this was not that kind of a journey. That if anything, what drew me in was the geography and the politics and the simple question, "Is it true or not?" The story of Walking the Bible for me is that I went in looking for science, and came out craving meaning, in a nutshell. I went looking for all these rational questions, and could I make it connection with my kind of secular, rational world, and then I realized that was just this kind of crutch that I was relying on. And that what I really learned was that going into the desert, in particular, you have to learn to let go of those crutches and the civilized world, and open yourself up to something higher.
http://www.pbs.org/walkingthebible/interview.html (http://www.pbs.org/walkingthebible/interview.html)
-
I saw that PBS show. It was interesting, but it didn't seem to affect me all that much.
I think some people are more easily influenced by this sort of thing. I am not one of them. As I said, I've read the Bible twice, and I really don't see what all the whoop-de-doo is about.
It IS easier to read than the Koran, but that is not a hard thing to do.
-
I saw that PBS show. It was interesting, but it didn't seem to affect me all that much.
I think some people are more easily influenced by this sort of thing. I am not one of them. As I said, I've read the Bible twice, and I really don't see what all the whoop-de-doo is about.
It IS easier to read than the Koran, but that is not a hard thing to do.
Don't give up, your sophistication can be developed, but the meaning of Scripture is only given as a gift , if you don't read it prayerfully you arn't doing it right.
-
When the Romans obliterated Jerusalem and the Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, the most important single symbol of the Jewish religion was lost. There is not a single mention of this in the Bible. Nary a word.
The Ark of the Covenant was never in Herods temple , mention of it in scripture stops more than a century previous to that.
-
The Ark of the Covenant was never in Herods temple , mention of it in scripture stops more than a century previous to that.
The fact that it is not mentioned is not proof that it was not there.
In any event, the destruction of the Temple and the entire city of Jerusalem was a MONUMENTAL event for Judaism, and yet the Bible mentions it not at all.
In Revelation is mentions that the destruction is prophesied, as is the destruction of lots of other things and people.
Also, the disappearance of the Ark is also a major omission in the Bible, whenever it occurred. But it is mentioned nowhere.
So as such, the Bible is not even a decent history of the Jewish religion, its main subject.
-
I saw that PBS show. It was interesting, but it didn't seem to affect me all that much.
I think some people are more easily influenced by this sort of thing. I am not one of them. As I said, I've read the Bible twice, and I really don't see what all the whoop-de-doo is about.
It IS easier to read than the Koran, but that is not a hard thing to do.
I can appreciated your views. I can.
This is not a topic that can be debated. So, I'll let the issue rest for now.
Nice winter we are having in NM. Snow!
-
The Ark of the Covenant was never in Herods temple , mention of it in scripture stops more than a century previous to that.
The fact that it is not mentioned is not proof that it was not there.
In any event, the destruction of the Temple and the entire city of Jerusalem was a MONUMENTAL event for Judaism, and yet the Bible mentions it not at all.
In Revelation is mentions that the destruction is prophesied, as is the destruction of lots of other things and people.
Also, the disappearance of the Ark is also a major omission in the Bible, whenever it occurred. But it is mentioned nowhere.
So as such, the Bible is not even a decent history of the Jewish religion, its main subject.
How did you fail to notice that Jesus mentioned it?
-
How did you fail to notice that Jesus mentioned it?
I am of the opinion that he didn't mention it at all.
Perhaps you can tell me where Jesus mentions the disappearance of the Ark in the Bible.
-
How did you fail to notice that Jesus mentioned it?
I am of the opinion that he didn't mention it at all.
Perhaps you can tell me where Jesus mentions the disappearance of the Ark in the Bible.
The bottom line is not about the ARK, nor is it about the parting of the Red or Black or Med sea.
That's why I enjoyed the PBS program on Walking the Bible.
The gent who walked that story....found that those points of fable were far from the essence of anything Biblical.
I tend to agree.
It's more about the spirit of Eve and Adam being the very earth herself.
Read his book. Read his interview.
I plan to.
footnote: I don't think we will ever be able to get anywhere with a religious debate on the gate unless we form a new board where we agree to read particular books on the subject and give feedback there in.
But, this is not a religous board.....so we are lost like the ARc.....until we find the place for the revival.
;)
-
No one wins arguments about religion. It always boils down to a faith vs reason argument, or a difference in beliefs, neither of which is winnable. If we did all comment on the same books, it might be more factual an argument, but the result would always be the same.
-
No one wins arguments about religion. It always boils down to a faith vs reason argument, or a difference in beliefs, neither of which is winnable. If we did all comment on the same books, it might be more factual an argument, but the result would always be the same.
What would be the same result, XO?
Not clear ....
Cindy
-
I don't think we will ever be able to get anywhere with a religious debate on the gate unless we form a new board where we agree to read particular books on the subject and give feedback there in.
But, this is not a religous board.....so we are lost like the ARc.....until we find the place for the revival.
There is a forum here for discussing religion - Matters of Faith (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?board=5.0).
-
What would be the same result, XO?
Not clear ....
Cindy
====================================
No one wins an argument. Each party continues to believe everything they previously believed.
Religious "scholarship" is based on faith, not reason. You can't argue faith.
It's like the argument of which tastes better, Coke, Pepsi, RC Cola. It's a matter of each individuals vision and personality. Soe people needs to believe in Jesus, I don't seem to.
-
I don't think we will ever be able to get anywhere with a religious debate on the gate unless we form a new board where we agree to read particular books on the subject and give feedback there in.
But, this is not a religous board.....so we are lost like the ARc.....until we find the place for the revival.
There is a forum here for discussing religion - Matters of Faith (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?board=5.0).
LOL....true...>I guess I meant here in the main board room.
-
How did you fail to notice that Jesus mentioned it?
I am of the opinion that he didn't mention it at all.
Perhaps you can tell me where Jesus mentions the disappearance of the Ark in the Bible.
Not the ark which was probly already in Etheopia , but the destruction of the temple .
-
Jesus could not have mentioned the destruction of the Temple, at least not Herod's temple, since it was standing when he died C. 27-33 BC.
Whether the Ark is now in Ethiopia or ever has been in Ethiopia is speculation. A couple of dotty old priests claim it si there, but they admit they have never seen it, and won't allow anyone else to check it out.
-
What would be the same result, XO?
Not clear ....
Cindy
====================================
No one wins an argument. Each party continues to believe everything they previously believed.
Religious "scholarship" is based on faith, not reason. You can't argue faith.
It's like the argument of which tastes better, Coke, Pepsi, RC Cola. It's a matter of each individuals vision and personality. Soe people needs to believe in Jesus, I don't seem to.
Well, you have never taken the taste test, XO.
It's not even an argument unless you have tried both choices.
But, that's cool. I just don't think people realize how deeply spiritual not to mention peaceful.....and "awe inspiring" experience it is to belief in Jesus Christ----really.
People who do not believe in Christ Jesus are far too caught up in the clear and present "here and now"--the black or white..the mind over spirit mentality.
Oftentimes, there is no room for debate when a person hasn't lived both sides, imo.
So, there's no 'taste test'. nada.
There's just one taste......no test.
-
Oftentimes, there is no room for debate when a person hasn't lived both sides, imo.
If memory serves XO was raised a Methodist.
-
Oftentimes, there is no room for debate when a person hasn't lived both sides, imo.
If memory serves XO was raised a Methodist.
And oftentimes the best debaters are the ones who debate issues that are contrary to their beliefs and experiences. The ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is a powerful one.
-
Jesus could not have mentioned the destruction of the Temple, at least not Herod's temple, since it was standing when he died C. 27-33 BC.
Jesus does mention the destruction of the Temple , Yes it was a Prophecy.
-
Jesus does mention the destruction of the Temple , Yes it was a Prophecy.
===========================
And where was that?
It was prophesied in Revelation, which was easy to do, being as Revelation was written after the fact. I can predict the winners of Superbowls XXXVII and XXXVIII just as easily.
Since the destruction of the First temple had already occurred, and the second temple was built by Herod, a fellow who was not considered a real Jew by the Pharisees, I imagine that the destruction of the second temple was on the minds of many believers.
=======================
My grandfather was Methodist minister whose obsession in life was to get my father to become a minister as well. I think he promised God or something. Dad did not want to be a preacher, and deliberately flunked out of SMU, got a job with the railroads, traveled around the country and attended Texas Tech the first year it opened, and eventually moved to Kansas City. I didn't see my father's father much, as he lived in Texas and I grew up in Missouri. One thing I remember is that I never saw him smile. Not once. My grandmother liked to brag, for some reason or another, that my grandfather's feet were so small he had to wear Boy Scout shoes. As I recall, she said this once with a perfectly straight face, and I looked down and the old man was wearing wingtips.
Boy Scout shoes never came in wingtips.
-
Being raised anything doesn't mean that the person was once a 'believer' in the faith.
-
I believed it until I was old enough to realize that it made no sense.
-
I believed it until I was old enough to realize that it made no sense.
I experienced the opposite. Religion (raised a Methodist) didn't make any sense to me until I found out what it all meant to believe in Christ (through the Mass in the Catholic church).
My parents weren't too happy with me. ...My Irish Catholic roots were buried by my father's family, never to be discussed. Irish folks were considered second class citizens
...but I grew up in the SW as a naive and sweet desert rat~ ha!
I never understood such prejudice against Catholics or Irish or Black or Jew or anyone for that matter....
-
Being raised anything doesn't mean that the person was once a 'believer' in the faith.
It meets your criteria of having lived both sides.
XO's journey is his, just as your journey from Methodist to new Age to the Roman Catholic Church.
You simply took different paths and ended up at different destinations.
Jesus said "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you.."
XO can do that as easily from his destination as you can from yours.
And isn't that what it is really all about?
-
The Golden Rule is a good thing to practice. I don't think one is required to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and is returning just any day now in order to realize that he did have some good advice.
Even if there never was a Jesus Christ or Yeshua ben Yacov or whoever.
-
Jesus could not have mentioned the destruction of the Temple, at least not Herod's temple, since it was standing when he died C. 27-33 BC.
Whether the Ark is now in Ethiopia or ever has been in Ethiopia is speculation. A couple of dotty old priests claim it si there, but they admit they have never seen it, and won't allow anyone else to check it out.
Matthew 24
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&version=31&context=chapter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&version=31&context=chapter)
-
The Golden Rule is a good thing to practice. I don't think one is required to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and is returning just any day now in order to realize that he did have some good advice.
Even if there never was a Jesus Christ or Yeshua ben Yacov or whoever.
There's more to the story of the Bible.....eternal life has been promised. Having the special relationship with Jesus is more than following the Golden Rule.
There are no "requirements" for believing in JC. He is our Savior, as well as advice giver, teacher and loving God.
-
Actually, according to Christian mythology, supposedly EVERYBODY gets eternal life, don't they? It is just that those who don't believe in Jesus or God and such have to spend it in Hell, being tortured by Satan. Those who do believe, get to spend it in Heaven, eternally singing Hymns of Praise in the Choir Celestial. Or something like that.
Or do they? Maybe they die, the Bible mentions that as well.
It is all pretty vague.
Any travel brochure is a lot more specific.
Half the time, my cat does not appear to believe I exist. I suspect that many pets are like this. But we love them, anyway, don't we?
Are we more compassionate than Jesus? What do you think?
I could not refuse to feed my kitty just because she did not pay attention to me when she wasn't hungry. Please don;t tell me that the Universe was created by someone more vengeful than I.
-
Any travel brochure is a lot more specific.
LOL...that was a good one, XO
Either you travel to heaven or you travel to hell? Nothing more specific than that.
-
There is also Purgatory, sometimes known as the bus station, and for the Catholics there is Limbo.
-
There is also Purgatory, sometimes known as the bus station, and for the Catholics there is Limbo.
You know, Purgatory has been debated by many theologians. I just hope there is such a place---that purgatory is a waiting room for heaven, because there are too many souls who deserve to be given the chance of eternal life in this world...those souls who die too young etc.
Perhaps the knowledgable RC's like Henny can share that part of scripture (I think she's RC)...if not, I will try to do that and post it in Matters of Faith.
-
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html)
-
So which is it?
The wages of sin is death.
or
The wages of sin is Hell .
I alway thought that "The wages are..." was more grammatical than "The wages is...", but in lots of places the Bible gets a bit ungrammatical.
-
I alway thought that "The wages are..." was more grammatical than "The wages is...", but in lots of places the Bible gets a bit ungrammatical.
"Wages" can be considered either plural or singular, therefore both are correct.
-
wage is the singular.
wages would be the plural.
Other than in the Bible, I know of no other usage of the word 'wages' as a singular noun.
-
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html)
It will take more than a google to post on this one, BT. Sorry
-
You can always check out the baltimore catechism
-
You can always check out the baltimore catechism
Hey, there ya go, Ami...check that one out.
-
Other than in the Bible, I know of no other usage of the word 'wages' as a singular noun.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (c) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.:
Wages
Wa"ges\, n. plural in termination, but singular in signification. [Plural of wage; cf. F. gages, pl., wages, hire. See Wage, n.]
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright (c) 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company:
wage n.
- Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.
- wages Economics The portion of the national product that represents the aggregate paid for all contributing labor and services as distinguished from the portion retained by management or reinvested in capital goods.
- A fitting return; a recompense. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb: the wages of sin.
-
Hey, there ya go, Ami...check that one out.
Already have. Have you, since you're a Catholic?
-
A fitting return; a recompense. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb: the wages of sin.
Observe please that this is not OFTEN used in the plural, but just in this one, Biblical, case, which was my point. It's not often, that's all they got. The grammarians have refused to defy the priests.
Not really my point, but my point concerning the bogus-sounding grammar of "The wages of sin IS death".
-
Observe please that this is not OFTEN used in the plural, but just in this one, Biblical, case, which was my point. It's not often, that's all they got. The grammarians have refused to defy the priests.
I've used it as singular. If I'm referring to a single lump sum payment for multiple tasks, then it's a singular collective noun, and I would use "is" with it.
-
Finally, my wages has arrived.
My wages is less than I expected.
The wages for this year is less than the wages for last year.
All my wages is being sent to the bank from the payroll office.
================================
Excuse, but none of this sounds remotely right.
Perhaps you have an example that does. I just can't think of any.
-
Perhaps you have an example that does. I just can't think of any.
Wages for this project is $2000.
The wages for this year is less than the wages for last year.
And that one sounds fine to me.
-
Perhaps you have an example that does. I just can't think of any.
Wages for this project is $2000.
The wages for this year is less than the wages for last year.
And that one sounds fine to me.
I think we need Missus to weigh in on this, as our resident Grammar Police.
But I think that, in theory, you're right. If you're talking about wages for multiple projects, then it would be "wages are." If just one project and more than a single unit of a wage, then "wages is" is correct.
-
Wages for this project is $2000.
I would say the wages ARE $2000. But if I were proofreading it, I would dodge the issue and change this to SALARY or COMPENSATION.
==================================
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on Today at 08:55:03 AM
The wages for this year is less than the wages for last year.
And that one sounds fine to me.
Well, not to me. I would say WAGES ARE or the WAGE IS.
Or dodge the issue and use the word EARNINGS.
==================
I have actually been paid on numerous occasions for editing and proofreading in English. I suppose that the marketplace is at least one respected authority on this.
I think the authors of the KJV of the Bible were trying to emulate the structure of the Hebrew word here, and used a plural English word to translate a plural Hebrew word. And blew it. But the KJV has been around for so long that the bad translations and grammar in it have gained respect as an authority.
Like "The song of the turtle is heard in the Land."
Turtles, of course, are mute (at least most of them), lacking voiceboxes and all. I suppose someone could find an example of some rare turtle that makes deliberate tapping or clicking sounds here or there. But the one thing I thing everyone can agree on is that turtle songs are nonexistent. Never has a turtle sered as a Soprano, Alto, Tenor, Bass or Contralto. Turtles will never gain fame for their coloratura or yodeling.
This is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word that translates 'tórtola' in Spanish, and is ofter rendered as 'turtle dove' in English. There is no real kinship between turtles and doves. The term 'turtle dove' was apparently created to make the KJV's translators not lok like utter fools.
What it means is that "the sound of the cooing of doves" is heard in the land, ie the land is at peace. Pigeons have a tough time of it in wartime, as they make good targets for archery practice, and can be a source of tasty added protein in a soldier's boring diet of gruel or porridge. And as such, it makes sense, and the theologians can dispense with their mission to "walk the Bible " in search of turtlesongs.
Come to think of it, I am thinking that "Turlesong" might be at least as good a bizarre name for a singing group as "Barenaked Ladies" is for a group consisting entirely of clothed males.
-
I have actually been paid on numerous occasions for editing and proofreading in English. I suppose that the marketplace is at least one respected authority on this.
I am a current editor for the Guild Companion (http://www.guildcompanion.com/auxx/about.html).
-
Good for you.
Are you the only Austrian with the surname Caldwell?
-
Are you the only Austrian with the surname Caldwell?
Nick is at Cambridge. My name is Mario Butter.
-
Any travel brochure is a lot more specific.
Mark 9:48 Isaiah 66:24
"...and be thrown into hell, 48where
" 'their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.'"
That it is miserable is enough to know.
God is just , which is really our problem.
-
Hey, there ya go, Ami...check that one out.
Already have. Have you, since you're a Catholic?
What do you have to say about the site, then, if you have checked it out?
-
What do you have to say about the site, then, if you have checked it out?
Purgatory is official Catholic policy. From the Baltimore Catechism, "Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins."
If you are Catholic, part of your belief system includes purgatory. Did you not study this for your Confirmation?
-
IT is amazing how the Holy Mother Church claims that the basis for all belief is faith. Faith in the irrational, faith in miracles, faith in the most preposterous occurrences imaginable.
And then, because they seem to have an obsession with logic, they have to invent all manner of "logical" constructs: Limbo, Purgatory, a Holy Spirit, a Trinity, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, who also had to be 100% Pure to be Jesus's mom.
And their reasoning, no matter how silly it might be, can't be debated, once they have established it, because to disbelieve is to lack faith.
-
What do you have to say about the site, then, if you have checked it out?
Purgatory is official Catholic policy. From the Baltimore Catechism, "Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins."
If you are Catholic, part of your belief system includes purgatory. Did you not study this for your Confirmation?
It was a small part of my RCIA back in 1992,yes. But purgatory has been on the debate table for many people-Catholics and the like. Purgatory is an interesting "policy" as you put it, but I am more interested in discussing the scriptural truth with other Catholic/Methodist/Messianic Jews etc....than reading what I already know is POLICY. ;)
But, such a debate is really meant for another message board made up of believers in Christ to really tap in depth, that is.
I am glad to hear that you are reading more about the issue, albeit not as a believer. Finding such resources is all well and fine, Ami, but it doesn't get into the meat of the subject that students of theology chose to take because they are truly passionate about such a debate.
But, I appreciate your attempt to try to go there with me, I do.
-
I am glad to hear that you are reading more about the issue, albeit not as a believer. Finding such resources is all well and fine, Ami, but it doesn't get into the meat of the subject that students of theology chose to take because they are truly passionate about such a debate.
But, I appreciate your attempt to try to go there with me, I do.
I don't need to read more on the subject; I studied it quite thoroughly already many years ago.
-
I am glad to hear that you are reading more about the issue, albeit not as a believer. Finding such resources is all well and fine, Ami, but it doesn't get into the meat of the subject that students of theology chose to take because they are truly passionate about such a debate.
But, I appreciate your attempt to try to go there with me, I do.
I don't need to read more on the subject; I studied it quite thoroughly already many years ago.
Studying is one thing....but..
Hey, glad to hear that you are aware of the facts, ;)
-
Studying is one thing....but..
Yes; it is apparently the one thing that adherents don't bother with.
-
Studying is one thing....but..
Yes; it is apparently the one thing that adherents don't bother with.
Explain why, Ami .....please.
How do you know they do not bother to study...perhaps your idea of "study" must be defined in a one size method of study.
The statement that adherents "don't bother"...is broad stroking, if I do say so myself. Perhaps the parameters are not broad enough for this kind of sophisticated study, Ami.
Talk to the nearest theologian...not the nearest computer programmer, if you will.
So, where will you google the answer to this one, Ami?
You say adherents DON'T BOTHER?
Prove it.
-
You say adherents DON'T BOTHER?
Prove it.
Based on my observation of how many adherents don't even know what the foundations of their particular branch of religion are. Purgatory is an example; if you are Roman Catholic, you should believe in the infallibility of the Pope in religious matters. The Pope has said that purgatory exists, and what it's function is. All Roman Catholics should agree with this. If they do not, they either have not studied their own religion, or they should not claim adherence to that religion.
-
Based on my observation of how many adherents don't even know what the foundations of their particular branch of religion are. Purgatory is an example; if you are Roman Catholic, you should believe in the infallibility of the Pope in religious matters. The Pope has said that purgatory exists, and what it's function is. All Roman Catholics should agree with this. If they do not, they either have not studied their own religion, or they should not claim adherence to that religion.
=====================================
People's ties with groups they claim to belong to are often not baed on any sort of logic. Generally it is an emotional tie of some sort. If the Holy Mother Church were to expel everyone that disagreed with any of its may beliefs, there would be a whole lot fewer Catholics. The same is true for other religions, sects and political parties.
I find it amusing that the bit about how the Pope was infallible on doctrinal matters was only passed in the 1860's, though I think they made it retroactive to previous popes.
"The Roman Catholic Popes: Infallible since 1870" is not that great a slogan, if you really think about it, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility)
The Mormon prophets seem to have the jump on the Catholics, who still have not elected to declare that the Pope has a direct pipeline to the Supreme Deity. It would be a nice touch, but they'd have to make that one retroactive as well, and some of those old popes couldn't make the cut, I guess.
-
You say adherents DON'T BOTHER?
Prove it.
Based on my observation of how many adherents don't even know what the foundations of their particular branch of religion are. Purgatory is an example; if you are Roman Catholic, you should believe in the infallibility of the Pope in religious matters. The Pope has said that purgatory exists, and what it's function is. All Roman Catholics should agree with this. If they do not, they either have not studied their own religion, or they should not claim adherence to that religion.
Clarifications: He is only infallible when teaching or speaking "ex cathedra." Offhand comments about faith and morality, and basically anything short of official teachings is not.
-
Based on my observation of how many adherents don't even know what the foundations of their particular branch of religion are. Purgatory is an example; if you are Roman Catholic, you should believe in the infallibility of the Pope in religious matters. The Pope has said that purgatory exists, and what it's function is. All Roman Catholics should agree with this. If they do not, they either have not studied their own religion, or they should not claim adherence to that religion.
=====================================
People's ties with groups they claim to belong to are often not baed on any sort of logic. Generally it is an emotional tie of some sort. If the Holy Mother Church were to expel everyone that disagreed with any of its may beliefs, there would be a whole lot fewer Catholics. The same is true for other religions, sects and political parties.
I find it amusing that the bit about how the Pope was infallible on doctrinal matters was only passed in the 1860's, though I think they made it retroactive to previous popes.
"The Roman Catholic Popes: Infallible since 1870" is not that great a slogan, if you really think about it, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility)
The Mormon prophets seem to have the jump on the Catholics, who still have not elected to declare that the Pope has a direct pipeline to the Supreme Deity. It would be a nice touch, but they'd have to make that one retroactive as well, and some of those old popes couldn't make the cut, I guess.
Generally it is an emotional tie of some sort.
That sort is a "spiritual tie".
No one ever said that all the human Popes following Peter on the rock were to BE Christ, himself.
Mankind is fallible but with Christ's and the faith in God through Christ, mankind has the chance to be more Christ like.
I find it to be a stretch of an argument when we expect humans to be exactly like the God they believe in 24/7.
I suppose it make those that come from a logical stream of being---shake their heads.
There is also the element of having faith in a God, which I suppose becomes lost in the translation for those who chose not to have faith.
-
Clarifications: He is only infallible when teaching or speaking "ex cathedra." Offhand comments about faith and morality, and basically anything short of official teachings is not.
Purgatory is official.
-
Clarifications: He is only infallible when teaching or speaking "ex cathedra." Offhand comments about faith and morality, and basically anything short of official teachings is not.
Purgatory is official.
Yea! I alway thought it was a good idea.
-
Yea! I alway thought it was a good idea.
Been that way for a long time.
-
Clarifications: He is only infallible when teaching or speaking "ex cathedra." Offhand comments about faith and morality, and basically anything short of official teachings is not.
Purgatory is official.
Of course it is. I was simply clarifying on infallibility as it is so often misunderstood.
-
Yea! I alway thought it was a good idea.
=======================
Purgatory exists, or it does not exist. If it does exist, then it has existed since the very beginning of the universe
It does not owe its existence to any human having decided that it is a good idea.
Or so, at least, the Holy Mother Church claims.