Posted on 02/19/2009 11:41:26 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
MEGoody wrote: “The only true interpretation of scripture does not come from self but from the Holy Spirit. (Even scripture says that.)”
Scripture is writing by humans, whether the writers were guided or not by the Holy Spirit. Scripture needs human beings to read, interpret, and apply in new contexts and circumstances. From a Rabbinical standpoint, the scriptures originating in Hebrew can have their meanings changed if a character is out of place — that’s why Torah copyists use a numerical checksum at the end of each line and page before they’re even willing to insert any of the names of God. What then of translations when the King James can’t even get right one of the ten blessings conveyed to Moses, substituting the English word “kill” for the word “murder” which would be closer to the original Hebrew?
In other words, even if “the only true interpretation of scripture does not come from self but from the Holy Spirit” it takes considerable chutzpah for you to set yourself, your clergy, and your sect up as arbiters for the rest of us as who was listening to the Holy Spirit and who wasn’t. Call it hubris, pride, or the sin of the Pharisees — it all comes down to one human being bullying another human being with the statement: I know what God meant and you don’t.
As it happens, I have had direct contact with the Holy Spirit, which I’ve documented in an audiobook which you can read about and hear excerpts from at http://www.IMETGOD.com. Email me a private email address and a promise not to publish the secret link I’m willing to give you and I’ll let you listen to the audiobook, or read a text transcript, for free. My email link is jneil[at]jesulu.com — substitute @ for [at].
I’ll make this offer to anyone emailing me with the request and referring back to this thread on Free Republic.
Neil
DBeers wrote:
“Take a gander at “Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.” (link follows) and correct your flawed perspective: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ccehomosex.HTM “
First of all, not being a goose I’m not about to take a gander. :-)
Second, I have the same first given name (”Joseph”) and birthday (April XVI) as Pope Benedict XVI, my given name roughly translates as “Joseph the Teacher,” and twelve years ago this month God gave me a piece of his mind.
I am quite comfortable challenging clerical authority with a freethinker’s perspective.
Neil
SaintDismas wrote: “I praise God all day long for being raised Catholic.”
I’m pretty happy that I wasn’t raised Catholic. I can always convert if I’m ever instructed to by the Holy Spirit and this way I wasn’t raised with the scars I know I would have received from the teaching nuns. I was an incorrigible wise ass as a kid and would have carried a grudge.
On the other hand, half the women I’ve fallen in love with have been Catholic.
Neil
Hmmm. Maybe that’s your sign from H.S.
Yes, but God breathed. Of course, you may not believe that. If that's the case, then you can't expect those who do believe it to lend any credence to any interpretation you come up with.
In other words, even if “the only true interpretation of scripture does not come from self but from the Holy Spirit” it takes considerable chutzpah for you to set yourself, your clergy, and your sect up as arbiters for the rest of us as who was listening to the Holy Spirit and who wasn’t.
Since you pretty clearly stated that you are doing the interpreting yourself, it doesn't take any 'chutzpah' whatsoever. I'll take listening to the Holy Spirit over listening to you every time. It isn't me who is the 'arbiter' but the Holy Spirit, and he's already shown you are out on a limb with your 'interpretation'.
As it happens, I have had direct contact with the Holy Spirit, which I’ve documented in an audiobook. . .
Interesting then that you've only now bring this up after I point out that scripture tells us that the true interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but I'd rather spend time studying scripture than listening to your audiobook.
How dense are you, exactly? Their 'stuff' would go to whomever they Willed it to.
L
I’m sorry, I’ll make this clear, since you apparently didn’t understand what “intestacy” means. They don’t have a will. Assume they also don’t have living blood relatives. They have a spouse. Since the law under this scheme will not recognize marriage, who gets their estate? The State?
Well, you lost me right there. You are clearly not a gestational biological scientist. Since you are untrustworthy on this, then it is necessary to question your definition of a sexual act.
A human being is a human being from the moment of oonception, when the unique discreet DNA is formed. Makes no difference what the human looks like, it is still human, before, during, and after the birth. First breath does not limit humanity, any more than the last breath does.
I fear this is going to be a hugely long thread, with many people flattering you that you make sense. I despair of the forum, if you prevail.
PS, I am sure that Nancy Pelosi and her CINO buddies will be thrilled by viewpoints such as yours.
I do understand it. It's a fancy legal term for "morons who didn't plan ahead."
They don’t have a will.
Then they're idiots and the State will take the property in accordance with the Probate laws of said State.
Nothing in this scenario you posit requires the State to have anything to do with the institution of Marriage.
L
That said, I still don't agree with the elimination of marriage as a legal relationship, for a variety of reasons. However, I see no need to discuss those reasons here.
Then hire an attorney and have a Will written and that won't happen. It's not the job of the State to babysit people who are too lazy to take basic legal precautions.
That said, I still don't agree with the elimination of marriage as a legal relationship, for a variety of reasons.
Consenting adults should be free to register their wishes with the relevant Courts using Wills, Powers of Attorney, and Contracts as they see fit.
The State, however, should have no voice in approving or disapproving those relationships. It's quite frankly none of their business.
L
I disagree. "The State" is merely a construction of society, and a well-ordered society is built by family units, not individuals. Society is actually an organic growth of extended family units. Allowing marriage special legal privileges is a way of incentivize marriage, and thus create stable families, providing order to society. Where marriage has deteriorated most precipitously - inner cities - order has broken down as well. This obviously has a negative effect on society at large, and thus, to prevent this, we get back to society, through its construct of "The State," encouraging marriage.
I disagree. "The State" is merely a construction of society, and a well-ordered society is built by family units, not individuals. Society is actually an organic growth of extended family units. Allowing marriage special legal privileges is a way of incentivize marriage, and thus create stable families, providing order to society. Where marriage has deteriorated most precipitously - inner cities - order has broken down as well. This obviously has a negative effect on society at large, and thus, to prevent this, we get back to society, through its construct of "The State," encouraging marriage.
If you see the nuclear family as a political unit, this makes sense. Especially when you consider that the male-female couple can cheaply produce offspring without medical technology/extra bureaucratic paperwork of adoption, etc.
Remember one of the old Popeye cartoons? Where Olive Oyl dreams she's President? She comes up with her own "incentive package":
"I propose the Bachelor Tax
"I hope this motion is carried
"'Cause it will convince every man
"It's cheaper to be married!"
That is your right.
"The State" is merely a construction of society,
Nice to run into someone who actually understands the crux of the argument.
and a well-ordered society is built by family units, not individuals.
A family 'unit' can be anything that individuals decide it is. That can be a man and a woman, two men, or any grouping that several consenting adults decide it is.
Allowing marriage special legal privileges is a way of incentivize marriage, and thus create stable families,
Here's the flaw in your thinking. You assume that marriage creates a stable family. There is mountains of evidence to the contrary. Also, once you allow the State to give one group 'special privileges' you've opened Pandoras Box. There's absolutely no end to groups clamoring for their own 'special privileges' on the grounds that they benefit society.
For instance, the two lesbians who live across the street from me with their two children have a much more stable relationship than the people who live literally right next door to them in a State recognized 'marriage'.
Were I forced to chose I'd rather my son be raised by the two lesbians with their children than the alchoholic loser and his wife.
Where marriage has deteriorated most precipitously - inner cities - order has broken down as well.
You've neglected to factor in the State sponsored 'welfare' which has, in my opinion, and even more destructive effect on the production of responsible adults. Not to mention the outright evil pounded into their heads by our 'public education' system.
You haven't thought nearly deeply enough about this issue.
Once you grant the State the power to decide what is and what isn't a 'family', you give them grounds to interfere in all sorts of areas.
It's far better to the State to pound sand when it comes to what is and what isn't a 'family'.
Best,
L
Thanks.
A family 'unit' can be anything that individuals decide it is. That can be a man and a woman, two men, or any grouping that several consenting adults decide it is.
That changes the true definition of the word 'family.' A man and a woman, two men, or a group of adults are not a 'family.' By definition, a family is a man, woman, and their children, which can then be extended through direct bloodlines - that is the etymology of the word, and it is only very recently where people have tried to redefine it along the same lines you mention.
Here's the flaw in your thinking. You assume that marriage creates a stable family. There is mountains of evidence to the contrary.
There are mountains of evidence that marriage is the single most stabilizing force people experience in their lives. Do we want to get into the battle of the evidence?
Also, once you allow the State to give one group 'special privileges' you've opened Pandoras Box. There's absolutely no end to groups clamoring for their own 'special privileges' on the grounds that they benefit society.
But the State breaks the citizenry into groups all the time - murder laws separate society into murderers and non-murderers, draft laws separate society into the eligible and the ineligible. Different rules apply depending upon which group you are in. Further, simply because groups may whine about the privileges they want doesn't mean society has to acquiesce to those demands - again, society makes the value judgment as to whether those privileges comport with valid social objectives.
For instance, the two lesbians who live across the street from me with their two children have a much more stable relationship than the people who live literally right next door to them in a State recognized 'marriage'.
Were I forced to chose I'd rather my son be raised by the two lesbians with their children than the alchoholic loser and his wife.
Okay. But those lesbians cannot perpetuate society into the next generation, which is one of the foremost goals of society, is it not? The loser and his wife can at least bring forth new life, even if they shouldn't.
You've neglected to factor in the State sponsored 'welfare' which has, in my opinion, and even more destructive effect on the production of responsible adults. Not to mention the outright evil pounded into their heads by our 'public education' system.
I haven't neglected them, but they aren't really pertinent to the discussion of marriage as I see it. But you'll find me in complete agreement on both those points.
You haven't thought nearly deeply enough about this issue.
That seems a bit presumptuous.
Once you grant the State the power to decide what is and what isn't a 'family', you give them grounds to interfere in all sorts of areas.
But the very nature of the State gives it the power to do just that - what areas do you believe are suddenly subject to State power if the State recognizes marriage?
Here's a short list:
Taxing them differently, ie 'the marriage penalty'.
Forcing children into State schools. (remember, it's in the interest of Society..)
Deciding what is and isn't 'safe' for the Family, ie firearms ownership.
The list goes on and on.
a group of adults are not a 'family.'
Are you seriously arguing that my wife and I, my mother, father, and our grandparents aren't a family?
Sorry my friend, but you need to seriously reexamine your premise here.
We'll have to continue this another time. I'm off to bed.
Best,
L
MEGoody wrote: “Yes, but God breathed. Of course, you may not believe that. If that’s the case, then you can’t expect those who do believe it to lend any credence to any interpretation you come up with.”
Having experienced God’s breath personally and discovered in my own writing things I didn’t come to know or understand until after I wrote it, I’d say I’d qualify as a believer.
But that also means I know the limits and fallibility of being a scriptwriter on the receiving end.
“It isn’t me who is the ‘arbiter’ but the Holy Spirit, and he’s already shown you are out on a limb with your ‘interpretation’.”
Really? The Holy Spirit posted a reply to me in this discussion? What is the message number and the Holy Spirit’s FR User Name?
Oh, wait. You’re probably referring to some other human being such as yourself who has the temerity to substitute his own fallible interpretation of scripture for that of anyone who disagrees with your personal conclusions. What comes next, friend, for those who don’t accept the Gospel According to MEGoody — burning at the stake, stoning to death, or all the way to crucifixion?
Or maybe you’re a liberal and just want me shunned, tarred and feathered, or exposed in the stocks.
“’As it happens, I have had direct contact with the Holy Spirit, which I’ve documented in an audiobook. . .’
“Interesting then that you’ve only now bring this up after I point out that scripture tells us that the true interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but I’d rather spend time studying scripture than listening to your audiobook.”
I’ve told anyone who will listen to me about my experience for at least ten years, my book has been available for close to four years, and I’ve offered it to readers of Free Republic like you at no charge several times before.
But I get you. No new prophets allowed. Let’s muzzle the voice of God and not allow the Holy Spirit to inspire anyone from the current generation. Close the patent office — everything’s already been invented. Mohammed was the last prophet. Nothing in the last 2,000 years has happened that might require a software update for the human condition.
You know what? You’ve made the Book into a graven image (printing, by the way, is by definition “engraved”) and worship it. What a brilliant way for the devil to make God’s children deaf to His Voice.
I’m not saying I got everything God told me right. I’m only human. But what would I be if God took the trouble to communicate with me and I kept it to myself?
Neil
Judith Anne wrote: “A human being is a human being from the moment of oonception, when the unique discreet DNA is formed.”
Well, there goes Jeremiah 1:5.
Neil
Judith Anne wrote: “PS, I am sure that Nancy Pelosi and her CINO buddies will be thrilled by viewpoints such as yours.”
Let’s suppose for a moment that Speaker Pelosi calls me to thank me. Or, since I’m a Nevadan, it might be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
I think the thrill will fade somewhere around my second sentence when I start talking about putting the U.S. back on the gold standard, or vouchers parents could use in any school (including parochial schools, or even for home schooling), or how the Second Amendment is the palladium of liberty.
You really don’t know what books I’ve written, do you?
Neil
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.