Eh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_the_right
Posted on 05/09/2015 7:44:31 AM PDT by RnMomof7
He is TOO a sweetie!!!
—Mrs_Elsie(I have to live with him!)
People absorbed by MONOLITHIC interpretation are likely to get sidetracked into quibbling over doctrinal differences of IMPLEMENTATION and generate schisms within the Catholic community, rather than focusing on bringing everyone together and improving their holiness and happiness.
...of beer on the wall
Kelsey salutes you!
Not me!
Show me EVIDENCE!
Eh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_the_right
Good one!
Time for more kicks then!
Leviticus 5:17-19
17 “If a person sins and violates any of the Lord’s commandments which must not be violated (although he did not know it at the time, but later realizes he is guilty), then he will bear his punishment for iniquity 18 and must bring a flawless ram from the flock, convertible into silver shekels, for a guilt offering to the priest. So the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his error which he committed (although he himself had not known it) and he will be forgiven. 19 It is a guilt offering; he was surely guilty before the Lord.”
Genesis 13:13
HMMMmmm... where was THIS 'defined'?
Allegory: a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory
ALLEGORY: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory
Wikipedia extracts for Parable: ...may sometimes be distinguished from similar narrative types, such as the allegory ...Like the parable, the allegory makes a single, unambiguous point. An allegory may have multiple non-contradictory interpretations ...the object of both parable and allegory “is to enlighten the hearer by submitting to him a case in which he has apparently no direct concern, and upon which therefore a disinterested judgment may be elicited from him ...Medieval interpreters of the Bible often treated Jesus’ parables as allegories ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable
Concerning the many morally ambiguous items in scripture, which a doctrinaire, literal (Fundamentalist) reading would have to accept as divine will, you state that there is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that such practices should be reinstated, which again raises the point that you did not resolve. Do you reject the old testament?
You avoided addressing my previous point (saying “I have no reply” is no real reply - except to an extreme literalist, unconcerned with substance)- Is the Old Testament no longer scripture in your view? It explicitly prescribes rules concerning slavery practices. Jesus did not specifically address slavery in the New Testament, except to use cases of slavery to make other points, as I cited previously.
If you are being literal, it is right there in black and white. Exodus 21:20-21, When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are (this is elsewhere explained to only cover Israeli slaves, foreigners are kept indefinitely). This rule is not specifically rescinded in scripture - people changed this practice based on their own moral judgement, informed by the broad sweep of the New Testament teaching, rather than literal reading. Slavery continued in the Christian world long after Christ. Slavery practices are explicitly defined in scripture but not revoked, so to a fundamentalist they should still be in place, no?
Genocide is repeated in the Old Testament - God does it (Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, Plague of the Firstborn of Egypt) and he commands that it be done to the Canaanites in Dueteronomy, and the Amaklekites in 1 Samuel 15 (utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling).
Rape has many prescriptions: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman Deuteronomy 22:28. If you want to a literal fundamental reading of scripture, then either you do away with the old testament, or you carry over a bunch of war crimes, tortures, stoning, slavery and so on. A lot of it reads like the Quran.
It was not the New Testament itself that literally did away with these many archaic atrocities - people later moved beyond literal adherence to elements which were morally indefensible, based on a new moral standard promoted in the New Testament - love your neighbor as yourself, for example.
So it boils down to these choices:
1. Reject Old Testament outright.
2. Accept the Old Testament prescriptions as scripture - therefore they should be reinstated.
3. Make moral judgements about what to accept and how to interpret conflicts - therefore reject fundamentalism.
Yeah; he counts how many bananas you've picked.
I did not need a link to figure out that was Harry Belefonte, which shows how old I am, but I still have to give you respect, as the elder statesman here. 😂😀😆😅
Yes, this is mainly what I have been arguing - that the Bible must be interpreted to be consistent, and ultimately, if it is to serve its purpose of helping people come closer to God.
Conflicts must be resolved, and a consistent moral and logical framework constructed based on its intent, rather than an intellectually blind, literal reading of each word.
Is it censorship that are you seeking then? And perhaps even only pro-Catholic censorship?
Are you seeking censorship then - specifically pro-Catholic censorship?
This isn’t a site that is dedicated to one Christian denomination, and it is for free discussion. With people of different denominations posting their beliefs, there are going to be disagreements.
You are also personally attacking RnMomof7’s motives, not discussing the issues.
I recall that on another thread recently, you remarked that (paraphrasing) the Catholic Church shouldn’t be criticized because it was taking time away from opposing Muslims and atheists. I replied to you about it, as you may recall. Now you bring up that the Catholic Church shouldn’t be criticized because you believe that negatively affects fundraising. What are you proposing then, censorship? And specifically, pro-Catholic censorship?
www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm
Lutheran didn’t introduce anti-Semitism into Christianity. It was a longtime Catholic practice.
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.