gs, neocon, sjt, and mur now have someone to vote for!
- Thread starter lawgator1
- Start date
gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 11
VOLatile
BRB Pooping
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,622
- Likes
- 805
Boss is on commission and who said I screw off all day? I get my stuff done when I'm told. I'm just incredibly efficient so I have a surplus of time. Besides, my job is based solely on the number of people that walk into the shop. I can't go out and cause accidents to draw patrons, can I?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
KiffinKiller
We are Delusional
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,448
- Likes
- 2
VOLatile
BRB Pooping
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,622
- Likes
- 805
KiffinKiller
We are Delusional
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,448
- Likes
- 2
gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 11
I have no idea. I do know that Christian nations enforced extreme religious oppression against Jews, Muslims, and other Christians all the way up until about 1950. Now the religious oppression is not as overt, but there are still distinct traces of it.
Maybe, as a Christian, you should remove the plank of wood from your eye first. Unfortunately, all the great teachings of any religious text are overshadowed by inane actions of the so-called followers of such texts.
It is their right to oppose it. Under the original application of the USC, it would be the state's right to grant or deny the petition based on their own Constitution.
However, the conception of the USC and almost all derived state constitutions is to protect the rights of minorities and dissenters. Liberals generally hate this principle while they are trying to make society "fair"... however in this instance, they are right.
If the objection is based solely on the religion without any foundation in public security or interference with the rights of others... then it should be denied.
The entire process is unconstitutional, in my opinion. When a person or an entity purchases property, they should be allowed to develop it in whichever manner they see fit. The only reasons that any type of intervention should be engaged upon, would be a very obvious public safety concern (i.e., if someone purchased a lot and decided to dump nuclear waste there).
I also think that any judge and/or counsel should have immediately thrown out the initial complaint which included an assertion that Islam is not a religion. There was no reason to continue through any drawn out process because some jackass wanted to file non-sense.
I agree. That takes a process. And while the complaints may be hollow and manufactured... the process has to play out. Unfortunately, if they have a good lawyer... it will take awhile.
Actually that is a valid complaint drawn directly from the teachings of Islam. Muslim theology... even moderates if I am not mistaken... do not draw the clear distinction between civil and religious law that we do in the modern West.
It is a religion but MANY Muslims also hold it as a political belief as well.
You may disagree with the assertion but there is meat on that one that comes directly from the teachings of Muslims themselves.
We live in a country where the IRS threatens conservative Christian pastors if they talk about politics from their pulpits.
I know you have alot of antagonism toward Christianity... but don't let that blind you to the fact that Islam DOES NOT divide civil and religious governance the way we have.
I have the same amount of antagonism toward Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism (all are ridiculous when taken as divine and as revelation).
There are plenty of theocratic and civil-politico principles in Judeo-Christian texts (hence, the political conglomerate that was Christendom and the political government that was Hebrew-Jerusalem).
That is your opinion... perhaps your familiarity with Christianity heightens your contempt.
Nope. Fundamental Christianity is founded on the NT. The earthly theocratic principles of the OT were completed in Christ when he was rejected as King of the Jews. He said His kingdom was not "of this world". While ministering during the time of tremendous political oppression... He said very little and NEVER commanded His followers to overturn the political system through material efforts. He established and taught a spiritual kingdom... that DID and DOES have a positive effect on the political and social conditions of the places it is practiced.
The NT and early church existed very consistent with Christ's principles. Paul didn't even allow for political resistance to slavery commanding that slaves/bondservants should serve their masters for the glory of God.
It is noteworthy that even without direct opposition from Christians... the growth of Christianity coincided with the decline and elimination of that system of slavery.
The more fundamental (Bible believing/obeying) a Christian is the less likely they would use oppression or force to advance their religion. The more fundamental (literal on the teachings of Islam) a Muslim is the more likely they accept the use of force to advance the cause of Islam.
To deny this is to deny that words have meaning.
You can pick and choose what it is you want to be literal in the Bible; however, if you take everything literal in the Bible (as fundamental as possible) you end up with an entanglement of contradictions; therefore, even a "fundamentalist Christian" must pick what passages they are going to give priority to. A fundamentalist Christian could easily choose to give precedence to Jesus's assertion that the Law (the Jewish Law) will not pass away until the end of time (in fact, not even one letter will pass away); this same person could easily reconcile that belief with the teachings of Paul regarding women and their roles.
You choose to say that you are a fundamentalist Christian and then choose to ignore anyone else who claims to be a fundamentalist Christian yet believes in a radically different "literal" reading of the Bible.
I have read the Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas and Upanishads. If I took the majority of what I read as literal in either of those texts I would feel that I would have one of the most despicable and evil dispositions of anyone I've ever encountered (I have encountered persons in my life who I feel are truly evil).
RespectTradition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,831
- Likes
- 7
This is an incredibly simplistic point of view. You can't pick and choose. The parts of the bible to be taken literally or figuratively, with only a very few exceptions, that are not immediately obvious to even the most casual reader are very rare. The only way to find contradictions in the bible is to choose to interpret certain passages in a manner that would force such a conclusion. If an alternate explanation is available that does not lead to a conclusion, then that explanation is more likely to be accurate. Take the 'contradiction' that you wanted to use in another thread about Gen1 and Gen2. If the person/persons that wrote that document were too stupid to realize that they were putting two back to back creation stories that could not be reconciled, then they were seriously stupid. If however, the author(s) knew that two different things were being talked about and expected the readers to be able to discern that, then any contradiction lies only in the mind of the person determined to misread the text. This is true of just about any other 'contradiction' you might want to find.
Like the example you just used. Let's look at it and see that you took part of a quote out of context:
Matthew 5
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Hopefully, you will forgive me for using something as plebeian as dictionary.com, but
fulfil or fulfill (fʊlˈfɪl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
vb , (US) -fils, -fills, -filling, -filled
1. to bring about the completion or achievement of (a desire, promise, etc)
2. to carry out or execute (a request, etc)
3. to conform with or satisfy (regulations, demands, etc)
4. to finish or reach the end of:
Since Jesus fulfilled the law, and to fulfill it means to complete or reach the end of it, then the idea that the law had been completed and its end had come is the actual meaning of his statement. The exact opposite of what you assert.
literalism, n.
Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈlɪt(ərəlɪz(ə
Etymology: < literal adj. + -ism suffix. Compare earlier literalist n.
1. The disposition or tendency to accept a text, statement, etc., literally; the result of this, the interpretation of words in their literal sense. Occas. also: an instance of this.
2. Literal translation; this as a principle; (also) a peculiarity of expression due to this.
1833 H. V. Hemmings Literal Transl. First Bk. Thucydides 83 (note) This phrase‥appeared so apposite‥that the translator could not forbear adopting it, though aware that he may be charged with deviation from literalism.
1833 in tr. E. Swedenborg Delights of Wisdom Publisher's Advt. 3 A literal translation of this work‥cannot be perfectly accomplished; and the effort to do it has introduced some literalisms not perfectly agreeable to an English ear.
3. In art, literature, etc.: (adherence to) realistic or literal representation, without idealization, distortion, or aesthetic interpretation.
1860 Westm. Rev. Oct. 504 A peculiar risk will attend the artist who should make his first studies in the school of minute literalism.
1892 Critic 13 Aug. 83/1 He [sc. Zola] is accused of a coarse literalism in his writings;‥he claims, however, to represent human existence.
1917 E. C. Farnsworth Ideals Mod. Art i. 35 He was instinctively opposed to the literalism of his two colleagues and could not but idealize in his painting.
1988 P. Brook Shifting Point (1989) 191 When we were filming, I decided to see if it was possible, despite the merciless literalism of photography, to allow the spectator this double vision.
2007 A. L. Morgan Oxf. Dict. Amer. Art & Artists‎ 145 His popular portrait style combined romantic stress on individual spirit with contemporary‥literalism in exactingly detailed, unidealized faces
OED
Once a reader begins to discern what the text means, aside from the literal definitions of the terms and the literal sense in the way such terms are arranged to form sentences and paragraphs, one is no longer taking a text "literally".
No one can stand upon the principle of Biblical literalism without encountering contradictions; yet, there are persons who consider themselves to read the Bible literally and admonish those who read it allegorically. Unfortunately for these literalists, they are either not real literalists and are therefore only arguing degrees of allegory and not any principles, or they are arguing for absurdity (which is what it is to accept contradictions as truth).
Feel free to provide the Wikipedia definitions for me, though (or, better yet, Dictionary.com...any source that will conform to your definition of "literal").
By the way, your translation of Matthew 5:18 is debatable. "Donec omnia fiant" does not necessarily mean "fulfilled" and is translated "until all be" in accordance with the Vulgate.
Here is the original Greek:
"ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται." "Fulfilled" does not appear. It is "until all things be".
So, here is the translation from the Catholic Bible (NAB):
"Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
Nothing about fulfillment. Feel free to throw out the Greek and the Latin, though.
Here is the original Greek:
"ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται." "Fulfilled" does not appear. It is "until all things be".
So, here is the translation from the Catholic Bible (NAB):
"Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
Nothing about fulfillment. Feel free to throw out the Greek and the Latin, though.
RespectTradition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,831
- Likes
- 7
According to Strong's, the word is plēroō (πληρόω
and means:Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
emphasis mine
So, according to the most respected standard in biblical scholarship, it does indeed mean to to fulfil.
According to Strong's, the word is plēroō (πληρόω
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
emphasis mine
So, according to the most respected standard in biblical scholarship, it does indeed mean to to fulfil.
So now you are changing verses to defend your point considering "literal" interpretation? You obviously have not the slightest clue what "literalism" means.
There is a theological reason behind the different interpretations here. Catholicism carries over some of the OT that fundamental Christians do not. It is necessary for instance to leave the law incomplete to justify a priesthood that makes intercession for believers.
Fundamental Christians who take the Bible in its normative meaning believe that each believer has become a "priest" empowered to approach the throne of grace on their own.... basically because that's what the NT literally says.
Fundamental Christians who take the Bible in its normative meaning believe that each believer has become a "priest" empowered to approach the throne of grace on their own.... basically because that's what the NT literally says.
I would say it is a fair wager that RT knows much better than you what it means. Someone who is a "literalist" is NOT someone who does not recognize figurative language in the Bible. It is someone who takes the text consistently in its "normative" meaning with ultimate respect to context. A literalist is someone who will typically say, "Let scripture interpret scripture".
RespectTradition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,831
- Likes
- 7
I have already made the point that someone who calls themselves a "literalist" is not actually standing upon a principle of "literal interpretation"; therefore, they are simply arguing how much of the Bible needs to be interpreted apart from the actual meaning of the words; thus, they are standing on allegory.
Feel free to wager on RT's Wikipedia and dictionary.com knowledge and then his coy move to defeat my Greek interpretation by changing verses.
According to Strong's, the word is plēroō (πληρόω
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
emphasis mine
So, according to the most respected standard in biblical scholarship, it does indeed mean to to fulfil.
πληρόω appears in Matthew 5:17, not 5:18. Why would a different word be used to signify "fulfilled" (esp. when it does not mean fulfilled) just one sentence apart? It is quite ridiculous if taken literally.
VN Store
