Pope: Saving world from homosexuality like saving rainforests

[b&wpac4]

There is no language on earth that can be 100% directly and accurately translated into any other language, that is fact.

This has been my basic point from the beginning. He fails to take into account that the color may be important for some reason. This is the perfect word of God, right? God chose that color for some reason, it should be important.

 

[bsd13]

There is no language on earth that can be 100% directly and accurately translated into any other language, that is fact.

It doesn't change the fact that in this case the nature of the horse, being Death's mount, was not changed by the color of the beast. It could have been translated as "neon pink" and it would still have the same nature. The passage would still mean the same thing.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

It doesn't change the fact that in this case the nature of the horse, being Death's mount, was not changed by the color of the beast. It could have been translated as "neon pink" and it would still have the same nature. The passage would still mean the same thing.

It does relate to the fact that there is no way that the bible is as it originally was in any language other than Hebrew.

 

[b&wpac4]

It doesn't change the fact that in this case the nature of the horse, being Death's mount, was not changed by the color of the beast. It could have been translated as "neon pink" and it would still have the same nature. The passage would still mean the same thing.

What if he wasn't riding a horse? What if it were a neon pink elephant with a rainbow shirt on? Then you could hate death that much more, because it may be a homosexual!

 

[bsd13]

It does relate to the fact that there is no way that the bible is as it originally was in any language other than Hebrew.

But the meaning hasn't changed. Homosexual acts are still an abomination before God. Sorry, but that's what it means no matter how directly the words were translated. Whether you agree with what it says or not at least be honest enough to acknowledge what it says.

 

[TheBear]

I don't remember saying you were gay.

And I never claimed you did. So, we'll chalk this one up as another red herring.

In fact I never even gave it a thought until you started ranting and raving about it.

Well, only you know what's going on in your mind. But your mischaracterization of my remarks, by calling them ranting and raving, needs to be pointed out.

Your choice of sexuality had no bearing on the question.

What did have bearing on the question, and particularly, the placement of the question? I'm just curious.

As far as being on the wrong forum, my remarks weren't directed to you specifically. They were directed to all religious people, including the Pope, who has never made such a 'rain forest' equivocation when it comes to pedophile clergy members.

 

[bsd13]

What if he wasn't riding a horse? What if it were a neon pink elephant with a rainbow shirt on? Then you could hate death that much more, because it may be a homosexual!

He could have been riding a monkey. What he rode wasn't/isn't important. It's what he does. It's like someone who drives around in a fancy sports car. It's not what he drives it's what he does.

 

[b&wpac4]

But the meaning hasn't changed. Homosexual acts are still an abomination before God. Sorry, but that's what it means no matter how directly the words were translated. Whether you agree with what it says or not at least be honest enough to acknowledge what it says.

Ok, I'll conceed the point. You are correct, the Bible is in the exact perfect condition in English through divine power, or whatever else happened to make it perfect in English.

Please now answer:


This does bring up an interesting question, and since this thread involves the Pope, let me just ask you this:

I am going to assume you are not a Catholic. If that is true, then you follow sola scripture. The problem is upon who's authority does your interpretation of the scripture rest? When I was a Christian, if I read the Bible and then you did, and we had some disagreements on points, who would be correct?

If I have a verse that points to my ideas, and you have one that points to yours, who is there to settle these differences? Different churches have different takes and interpretations, so who is correct? Why are they correct and not others?

http://christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=49905660

 

[OphidiaPhile]

But the meaning hasn't changed. Homosexual acts are still an abomination before God. Sorry, but that's what it means no matter how directly the words were translated. Whether you agree with what it says or not at least be honest enough to acknowledge what it says.

How can you know that when there was no word for homosexual, the fact is you cannot truly know and since as others have pointed out it was written by man you cannot tell me that each individuals own prejudices did not color what they wrote.

 

[MaxP]

 

[OphidiaPhile]

And your point is what?

 

[b&wpac4]

What is this for, Max?

 

[bsd13]

Ok, I'll conceed the point. You are correct, the Bible is in the exact perfect condition in English through divine power, or whatever else happened to make it perfect in English.

Please now answer:


This does bring up an interesting question, and since this thread involves the Pope, let me just ask you this:

I am going to assume you are not a Catholic. If that is true, then you follow sola scripture. The problem is upon who's authority does your interpretation of the scripture rest? When I was a Christian, if I read the Bible and then you did, and we had some disagreements on points, who would be correct?

If I have a verse that points to my ideas, and you have one that points to yours, who is there to settle these differences? Different churches have different takes and interpretations, so who is correct? Why are they correct and not others?

Have you ever heard the saying "Scripture interprets scripture"? It is a principle of hermeneuticswhich means that the passage you are looking at is evaluated

1. In the sentence it appears in
2. In the paragraph it appears in
3. In the section it appears in
4. In the book it appears in
5. In other books by the same author
6. In other books from that time period
7. In the other books of that testament
   
8. In the other books in the Bible

When you look at any scripture using that method there will ALWAYS be clarity of who is right and who has it wrong. You are correct I am not a catholic.

The authority of scripture rests on the scripture itself. It proves itself out. False, heretical teachings can not stand when you use that hermeneutical principle.

That's how we know that when someone says "God told me to kill..." they weren't from the God of scriptures. Because scripture time and time again forbids murder. It doesn't forbid war or capital punishment, but it forbids murder. As an example.

To cut the answer down to size if we were both reading the Bible and had a disagreement on certain things within we would search the scriptures until we had the right answer. It would be clear to both of us which position, if either, the Bible supports.

 

[ALiberalTeen]

The important lesson here is never pay attention to grumpy old German men

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I haven't either, but I'm pretty sure it involves all the things I mentioned in my earlier post.


To any and all homosexual couples reading this -

If I'm way off and flat wrong in assuming that your relationship involves love, compassion, companionship, sex, caring, support, selflessness, sharing, doing things together, traveling together, learning from each other, helping each other, missing each other when the other is away, and a lot more than just "sex acts", please let me know.

Mr. Bear - you are right on target, and doing a fabulous job!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Does anyone have an extra irony meter? Mine just blew up.

tulc keeps LOTS of extra irony meters on hand for just such an occasion.

(BANG!!)

 

[TheBear]

To cut the answer down to size if we were both reading the Bible and had a disagreement on certain things within we would search the scriptures until we had the right answer. It would be clear to both of us which position, if either, the Bible supports.

Seeing that there are a plethora of differing Christian denominations, sects and teachings, the reality of that statement is null and void.

 

[b&wpac4]

Have you ever heard the saying "Scripture interprets scripture"? It is a principle of hermeneuticswhich means that the passage you are looking at is evaluated

1. In the sentence it appears in
2. In the paragraph it appears in
3. In the section it appears in
4. In the book it appears in
5. In other books by the same author
6. In other books from that time period
7. In the other books of that testament
   
8. In the other books in the Bible

When you look at any scripture using that method there will ALWAYS be clarity of who is right and who has it wrong. You are correct I am not a catholic.

The authority of scripture rests on the scripture itself. It proves itself out. False, heretical teachings can not stand when you use that hermeneutical principle.

That's how we know that when someone says "God told me to kill..." they weren't from the God of scriptures. Because scripture time and time again forbids murder. It doesn't forbid war or capital punishment, but it forbids murder. As an example.

To cut the answer down to size if we were both reading the Bible and had a disagreement on certain things within we would search the scriptures until we had the right answer. It would be clear to both of us which position, if either, the Bible supports.

Why was this not employed until after the Reformation?

 

[bsd13]

Mr. Bear - you are right on target, and doing a fabulous job!

Why am I not surprised that you would applaud his march to destruction?

You have traded the truth of scripture for the comfort of human adoration.

 

[TheBear]

Mr. Bear - you are right on target, and doing a fabulous job!

Thank you, kind Sir.