Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
http://www.yourdictionary.com/about/substantive.html says that:
Is it "judgment" or "judgement"?
The English spelling system is a nightmare (see "The Chaos" in our library) caused by inconsistencies in the spelling system. To remain on the side of the orthographic angels and help our children learn to spell words in the language more accurately, YourDictionary.com is committed to as much consistency in spelling as the English language allows. To spell "judgement" without an "e," while spelling "abridgement," "acknowledgement," "arrangement," "engagement," and the 40 other words in English with a soft "g" before -ment with an "e," is an act of bewildering inconsistency that makes learning the spelling system unnecessarily difficult (See Dr. Language's article on the equally puzzling but ever popular editorial error, "an historical" for the correct "a historical".)It is not a new problem; both spellings have trailed this word throughout history and all English-language dictionaries assure us that both are acceptable. However, we are offering a reasoned resolution to the dilemma that allows us to spell all such words accurately and consistently, making our kids' task of learning the language just a bit easier. We should use the "e" after "g" and "c" (e.g. "advancement" when they are soft and omit it when they are hard (e.g. "segment," "pigment"). By the way, we have William Shakespeare and all our British brethren on our side. Not bad company to keep.
Shakespeare and the British brethren? I said proper English. It is apparent that you are unacquainted with it. Not that I blame you - you are not alone. No wonder Americans like Obama look so foolish when they venture out into the civilized world and attempt to interact with their betters.
It's interesting to note Roman Catholics appear to be habitually incapable of saying they (or their church) have erred in anything.
Not sure where you go this: when I am in error, I admit it. I have been wrong a couple of times in our discourse and have admitted publically and, usually, several times.
“From extant copies of variants we can see apt tern applied by Church scribes in trying to diminish or eliminate various divergent doctirnes based on variant copies of the Gospels and other NT books. Specifically, older versions of the NT were changed to reflect Church doctrine more closely.”
The experts I’ve read disagree with you. Folks working on the text are trying to get it as close as possible to the original, not trying to make changes to create false harmony.
Changes come with time...older versions are not the changed ones!
The only place where “judgment” (and for that matter, acknowledgment) are preferred in my experience is in law. We were rather stridently warned not to use that extra ‘e’ in any filings, because some judges are rather famously pedantic.
Very simple cure to this problem is to attack another religion.
My first choice is to start targeting Muslims no matter how peaceful they appear.
“Pity that you are wrong, since attending Sunday Mass alone will result in one going through the whole Bible every three years;”
Actually, 41% of the NT for Sundays and major feasts, 90% for attending weekdays as well. The OT figures are 4 / 14%.
That is a big improvement from pre-Vatican II: 16% & 1%.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2375781/posts
I have the advantage of growing up where the English spelling was rather more common, rather than the common American spelling. I agree with my previous post's source that the soft 'g' should be followed by an 'e' in order to maintain common rules of spelling. I normally use 'colour' and 'labour' and so forth. Some judges are simply tin pot dictators, drunk with power, as well. If they'd pay more attention to abiding by the Constitution rather than concentrating on what they consider superfluous 'e's, the judiciary in this country might be held in slightly higher esteem than it is.
Interesting; and thanks for the update. It appears that I have been overestimating it. It is in the verses used versus the verses available; hmm. Although, the entire Bible has been covered, not all of the verses from each chapter have been covered. I wonder if there are any studies which outline which ones are excluded and their effect on doctrinal understanding...
You wouldn’t happen to have any comparable stats from, say, your Baptist church, or any other Protestant study, would you?
So far, however, no signs yet of sceptical.
No I am not. You said God made it only more obvious. Which is silly. God could have softened his heart and opened his eyes, but then the drama and theatrics would be lost. The God of the Bible could have fostered better, kinder humanity but he didn't. Because we need shock and awe, don't we?
Thus the text Erasmus put together had flaws - flaws many men have laboured hard to remove. And we have largely been successful
Yes, we have been successful in making sure our copies conform to the earliest church acceptable copies (those that were not chuch-acceptable miraculously disappeared!). It's an artificial concordance and it does not prove that this is the original or that the version we have is God-breathed.
The divinity of Jesus is clearly taught throughout the NT
No he is not. Only in John's Gospel written at the end of the century.
No, someone so clearly assumed, at the core of their being, that Jesus is divine, made an error in copying and didn’t notice it because it didn’t register as a possible error
Only in your make-believe world, it seems. I am reading Vulgate and it doesn;t have God (Deus) but who (quod) in 1 Tim 3:16
et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria
How come no one assumed it there? I will tell you why: because forging it in Latin was not a simple dash away, as it was in Greek! That's why.
So, we have older Greek manuscripts without it and we have Latin Vulgate without it. No one knew it was 'wrong' until some anonymous zealot took it upon himself to play God and 'correct' it.
However, the divinity of Jesus doesn’t rest on that verse.
The forger obviously believed it did, especially with Gnsotcis and Arians presenintg an alternative and a competitive threat.
Jesus is God. He lived as a man. He is both Son of Man and Son of God. I believed in him and was saved
I guess that makes it true, because Mr Rogers says it's twue, it's twue...Should I quote someone by the name of Mr Rogers who says "Making an assertion does not prove the assertion"?
The main marks of a Christian, what identified him as such, were baptism and Eucharist. Many church fathers who taught ‘real presence’ also discussed it as metaphor.
Which ones? And I hope you have many.
The experts disagree with your experts. I was talking about early Christianity. We actually have copies of variant scriptures. What are you denyng?
As for hamronizing, there was every bit an effort to harmonize modern copies with the oldest extant copies of official Church-approved versions. That does not mean the original NT, just the "closest" to the oldest approved copy.
The Orthodox Church is even worse in that regard. On Sundays the OT is never read; only weekly at vespers (evening prayers), and during the 40 days of Great Lent. New Testament Deuterocanons are not read (except maybe on feast days, such as St. Jude, etc.)
The regular liturgical Randee's are Pauline Epistles, read by laymen (and people sitting in those churches with pews, ala Greek, Antiochan) and Gospels, read by an ordained person (deacon, priest, bishop) with everyone standing. Only select Epistle and Gospel verses are read.
The Orthodox Church, as the Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church did, has a liturgical calendar with selectreaidngs on a one-year cycle. The verses are read and re-read every year at on a given day.
These are cherry-picked verses the Church felt were the most 'essential' for the health of our souls.
There is some evidence that since the earliest copyists were more freelance than supervised, many of the first copies that went out were rather, shall we say, paraphrased to some extent, rather than rigourouly quoted.
Kosta is also correct in that the level of conformity in the current (last 1500 years or so) of Bibles (with the exception of a number of recent vulgarities that call themselves Bibles), is that they have been forced into that conformity and that disagreeing or nuanced versions have been eliminated if they seemed to support the Gnostic, or Arian, or other heretical position.
Even with that said, the NT does not overwhelmingly indicate the divinity of Jesus. I have had a running conversation with another poster who rightly has posted a great number of subordinationalist proofs from the NT. If it wasn't for John, and the Church's extraction of divine excerpts from him and the extrapolation of divine position, we would have a view of the Godhood much closer to the LDS than the current position.
One thing that is missing, though are Psalms, which does skew things a little, but not much. The Psalms are in every Latin Mass. But what is not understood by many is that Scripture was the result of the Church's doctrine (in selection and in content), not vice versa.
These are cherry-picked verses the Church felt were the most 'essential' for the health of our souls.
Were they wrong? You and Kolo have said that the Faith is strong and the knowledge of the Faith is great amongst even the unlearned peasants. Indeed, one might make the case that as the Europeans became more and more literate, their Faith decreased. Certainly it is the case in NA. Look at the recently electrified valleys in which the magic of literacy has been brought to the people. Catholic faith is increasing as a percent of the population based upon immigration and upon the increasing Orthodoxy in the Vatican. Yet, all the mainstream Protestant faiths are losing members; and Protestant numbers as a percentage of the population are at record low numbers and falling.
After reading some of the antiCatholic diatribes here, I sometimes feel like heading to the loo for something else. A somewhat English educated wife. Good for her, and for you. :)
“You wouldn’t happen to have any comparable stats from, say, your Baptist church, or any other Protestant study, would you?”
Baptists don’t read scripture, per se, in church. We teach from it, and we encourage folks to read it daily, but it isn’t a formal part of the service. Many will use some form of a daily Bible, although not always - I’ve read it thru a number of times, but sometimes have gone years without doing so.
Some Catholics may do likewise. I don’t know. An online daily bible in an easy format is here:
http://www.oneyearbibleonline.com/oneyearweekly.php?version=46&startmmdd=0101
I like to use the very simple CEV (4th grade reading level) because it makes the longer OT passages read easier...a daily bible is to give one the sweep of scripture, not verse-by-verse study. Many other versions are available there.
Oh, the horror of it. I was almost ready to concede that you guys were Christians after all. :)
As Kosta has previously indicated, we do read Scripture in Mass, and the Church has the related OT (1st reading), Psalms, NT (other than the Gospel) (2nd reading) and the Gospel reading all set up so that we harmonize the entirety of the Scripture and make sure that we all understand that Scripture consists of the entire Bible.
There are local Bible studies and small group initiatives and other kinds of activities, but what I've tried to outline here is weekly or daily Mass readings.
“You said God made it only more obvious. Which is silly. God could have softened his heart and opened his eyes”
I said what scripture states - that he hardened his heart, not that he changed it. And since I don’t believe God makes us believe or not, I don’t believe God would force someone to believe.
“Yes, we have been successful in making sure our copies conform to the earliest church acceptable copies (those that were not chuch-acceptable miraculously disappeared!).”
Nice to see you know what exists, even though it has disappeared. It is much easier to make your case if you can simply claim the Church made alterations, and then got rid of the originals.
I’ve argued with MarkBsnr on the issue of the divinity of Jesus before. I say it is clearly taught, and not just in John. When Jesus said, “I AM”, the Jews wanted to stone him. I think the Epistles make it clear, as well.
I see no value in rehashing that here. Suffice it to say that until a few months ago, I had never met anyone who doubted that the NT teaches the divinity of Jesus. It seems plain to most folks I’ve met who just read the scriptures. I’m sorry it confuses the two of you.
“So, we have older Greek manuscripts without it and we have Latin Vulgate without it. No one knew it was ‘wrong’ until some anonymous zealot took it upon himself to play God and ‘correct’ it.”
The older manuscripts have it ‘he. The Vulgate has it ‘he’. Someone later than the Vulgate - which continues to be the ‘official’ version for the Catholic Church - changed it to God, by mistakenly adding a small dash. That is a copier’s error, which he didn’t catch on review because it seemed obvious that ‘God’ fit.
Modern translations and versions of the Greek text have been corrected. But if the Catholic Church had changed it in a plot to ‘make’ Jesus God, they would have changed the Vulgate as well...so your Dan Brown-like conspiracy theories don’t fit the facts.
“I guess that makes it true, because Mr Rogers says it’s twue, it’s twue...Should I quote someone by the name of Mr Rogers who says “Making an assertion does not prove the assertion”?”
The sentence you mention described my beliefs. I did not say that stating my belief was proof of them. I was describing my beliefs, and doing so accurately. Not everything is a conspiracy meant to mislead kosta50.
Concerning more than one way of looking at the Eucharist...consider:
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2379242/posts
Those who also taught ‘real presence’ were not quite as dogmatic about it as some would have you believe. They often taught both ideas, or maybe even more.
Jesus' statements of I AM only occur in John. The divinity of Christ is not stated overtly other than in John.
Those who also taught ‘real presence’ were not quite as dogmatic about it as some would have you believe. They often taught both ideas, or maybe even more.
Not really, not to the extent that you hint at. The point is that we have letters from Church officers explicitly on the Real Presence.
“Jesus’ statements of I AM only occur in John.”
My error. Sorry. Good catch.
Happily, we have excellent texts of John, dating back to about 200 AD, with small fragments earlier. Not much chance that the Catholic Church was sneaking in false doctrine via the Gospel of John!
A few points from the Synoptics, then:
“And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”
“11And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him.”
“29And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
I could go on, but kosta50 has already told me he doesn’t read what I quote from scripture...but only God commands the angels. Only God deserves worship. Jesus applies ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ in a unique way to himself. The demons ask if he is here to execute judgment...and the High Priest understood his claim to be blasphemy.
The Synoptics need to be understood in light of the OT, being written from a Jewish viewpoint. John was written later, and for a Gentile audience, and is more explicit for those who haven’t studied the Old Testament.
Real presence as taught by various church fathers is varied, but includes teaching that would not conflict with transubstantiation. However, the scripture passages, either in support or in rejection, are not disputed as texts, but in interpretation. We disagree about real presence, but not about what the words of the texts are...
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.