This blog is Rev. Mother Superior approved.
Posted on 01/23/2013 7:24:58 PM PST by Morgana
No kidding: there are parts of the Bible that most of us would be ashamed to read out loud, never mind post in our blogs. (A certain passage from Ezekiel comes to mind. There's a reason the lectionary has an optional abridged version!) Are we guilty of Cafeteria Catholicism by not focusing on these texts, or making them foundational for theology and spirituality? Is that a kind of bowdlerization of the word of God? Are we presuming to "edit" the Bible and only highlight the nice, agreeable parts? What gives?
The fact is, there are some ways in which the Bible is like a family album. The pictures in the album tell you a lot about where the family came from, or the challenges it faced. Some of the pictures celebrate momentous events: the weddings, the baptisms, the graduations.
(Excerpt) Read more at romans8v29.blogspot.com ...
This blog is Rev. Mother Superior approved.
hum? Maybe the Catholic Bible is different than the King James Bible, because there is nothing in the KJB that I would be embarrassed to read out loud.
Do you mean Leviticus Chapter 20 verse 13?
Ezekiel 16 would be a tough read to a table full of 10 year-olds.
The Song of Solomon is pretty racy.
Is this week open season on Catholics? I mean it. I was recently banned from a so called christian dating site after they were Catholic bashing me and I kinda lost my temper. I reported the bashers but that site is ran by protestants so you know I don’t stand a chance in ____. I no sooner post this and our bible is bashed by some other jerk.
KJ, NKJ, RSV, NIV, I’m not embarrassed by any of them. The Bible is often very contextual, and that can cause some consternation on the part of some, but I’m not sure why the embarrassment.
Yes, but not embarrassing....
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Before everyone piles on the jokes, this could be the Next Gen version of “Erasmus and the Binding of the Will.”
I have been looking for that extremely erudite thread but seemed to have lost it. I provided a few modest posts to that thread but would love to reclaim it.
Let me stake out my territory here: I may not be a Catholic anymore but Catholicism has and should never be “cafeteria style.” If you want to broadly interpret the Bible to meet your individual circumstance — have at it. You just aren’t a Catholic: you are a Protestant.
Admit it, leave the Church and move along. Take Birth Control? You’re a Protestant. Lust in your heart? Lutheran (OK, that’s a joke).
You get the point.
I have always believed that Catholics BELIEVE in an IMMUTABLE set of standards. It doesn’t mean you are a bad person for not hewing (I left).
But if you believe that Catholicism is the Church upon which Peter founded Jesus’ church, you don’t get to pick and choose. And that includes Papal Infallibly.
The Bible will never be embarrassing — it is uplifting. The choices we make may very well decide the choices God makes when we pass on.
Salvation: I lost track of the other RCC folk but I am sure you have some great input on this important topic.
I was presenting the story of the the patriarch Joseph in a chapter by chapter Bible Study Blog. Suddenly, in the middle of the edifying Story of Joseph, there was a totally weird story about Judah and Tamar. I was embarrassed by the story and skipped over it to continue with the Joseph Story.
Later, when I hosted a series on the Book of Ruth, the story of Tamar was referenced. She is also mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. Ruth is also mentioned in the Matthew genealogy, and she was a descendant of Moab, who was born of a disgusting, incestuous liaison between Lot and his two daughters.
So, as embarrassing as these two stories were upon a first reading, further reflection and study indicates that these stories are essential to the history of the Amazing Redemptive Power of the Grace of God.
And it is a further Confirmation of the Divine inspiration of the Bible, as a People who were writing a history of themselves from their own perspective would not have included these incidents. (they are just TOO “Embarrassing!)
Just my humble opinion from a personal experience! Next time I do a study on Joseph, I will not leave Tamar out of the narrative.
I should not have left her out the first time! :-)
Narses, back-ping to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2981273/posts?page=11#11
I hope I am making sense there.
Like I said, I sort of lost track of the RCC group here at FR.
Each of us interprets the Bible based on our own knowledge and experiences. There isn't a part of the Bible that is embarrassing to me and certainly none I would be ashamed to read out loud. Perhaps your knowledge and life experiences are different than mine.
Good post, I agree.
Embarassing? No. Never.
Occasionally PG-13, you might say that, particularly if you understand the meaning of what you’re reading.
It’s a part of life and is therfore dealt with, sometimes in a very matter-of-fact way, sometimes quite beautifully and poetically.
If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
~ Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals".
It’s a love poem.
I have to disagree with the use of the word “embarrassing.” There is nothing embarrassing in the Bible.
Some passages are more significant than others. Some passages are more in need of interpretation. Some of the Hebrew laws, such as dietary laws, are no longer applicable to Christians (as discussed by the Apostles in the Book of Acts), but still are of interest.
But I can’t think of any embarrassing passages. Yes, passages that need to be explained and understood—but not innately embarrassing.
My nine year old had been flipping through an art book and was asking about the story of Susanna tonight at dinner in front of her four younger siblings—PG 13 is about right on the whole, though perhaps the last few chapters of Judges and some other bits rate R. Dismembering one’s concubine’s corpse after allowing her to be gang raped to death isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. I wouldn’t censure it, and it does provide a valuable theological lesson, but I don’t want my kids hearing about it fron the pulpit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.