Can you feel the peace on your back? I'm sure she can
Glad to see there're moving forward as a society. :thumbsup:
Printable View
Can you feel the peace on your back? I'm sure she can
Glad to see there're moving forward as a society. :thumbsup:
A society cannot move forward when an oppressive religion is holding them back. I am afraid that unless they move past islam and get rid of sharia law, things like this will continue forever.
Here is another really sad one. :sad:
This is also a problem in America, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Islam isn't the issue, it's the jurisprudence applied, the same with Dark Age Europe or Puritan collonists.
Education and access to scripture, in its original language and form, are some of the answers to reforming a theocracy. Bemoaning the current religion is completely pointless.
I'm glad we're funding and arming these barbarians.
It is the interpretation of the religion, but all religions suffer from in essence being based on events hundreds of years ago, and those that are more progressive basically try to "interpret" the in many cases clear cut statements that were made: women are less than men, gays are evil, etc etc.
~:smoking:
Blanket criticism of any religion will get you nowhere... if anything such criticism makes people cling to thier religion even stronger, reform of the religion is the hope, that people will suddenly abandon religion is nothing more than an atheist fantasy.
The saudis have got to be one of our worst allies, in terms of the treatment of its own population... what should be done about saudi arabia ??
the article gives some hope though... mention of reforms near the end of the article..
How can you compare the Puritans to Wahhabists? They were strict and God-fearing but they never supported a theocracy in the Saudi sense (remember why they ended up in the US), and their ideals were based very much on the equality of all people (so a man can't rape a woman and the victim goes to prison). Plus any Puritan would balk at the tradition and legalism of Wahhabist practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And the Puritans were reformed (I don't mean Reformed, though obviously they were), because they made sure people got access to scripture.
Not a very fair comparison I think. :no:
As far as I know most American Puritans could not read Latin, let alone Greek or Hebrew. So that isn't access to Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Generally speaking Puritans tended to try to derrive law and doctrine from translated scripture, often in a litteralistic way. They were fundamentalists who hung or burned witches.
I think it's quite apt.
Ow, that's not fair.
Burning witches is fun, and it makes Salem a great place.
Questions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN Article
1) Was the trouble with proving "son-ship" the failure in finding three male witnesses who saw the woman breastfeed the guy 24 years ago?Quote:
... In his ruling, the judge said it was proved that Fahd is not Sawadi's son through breastfeeding.
2) How should the delivery of the bread to the woman have gone, instead? Recruit some female member to deliver?
3) Does the lash-master have any discretion? Could he make a lash of 10 strings of nerf-balls to slide across her back 4 times? Or are lash details spelled out?Quote:
... court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes
4) Does the Syrian government have any standing in the matter? Could they intervene for mercy? Will she face additional puishment there, upon deportation?
Salem witch trials 1692Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
The lashing of 75 year old woman for having 2 unrelated men in her house 2009
Close.
I do hope you are not merely bating. Because that is what seems you are exactly doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The two were basically perfect comparisons. Both were ultra-conservative "purist" sects who saw themselves as beacons of hope and truth among the general "sinfulness" of the society around themselves. And while 40 lashes might seem horrific (the woman may not survive) the Puritans performed witch trials and burning, something that had no chance of survival. The trials had two outcomes: death and death. Little comfort it was to know that you were innocent while suffocating.
So, heck, in this respect, the Wahhabists are better than the Puritans. At elast they have some semblence of fair trial. Exceedingly harsh, but fair in their own twisted way. Of course, the Wahhabists are also four hundred years more modern, but that is another debate. Puritans did support theocracy. The pnly reason US did not go that way because it was flooded by hundreds of thousands other immigrants. Plymouth and Mayflower were small specs of land in an ocean of immigration.
It will end sooner or later. Saudi Arabia's days like this are numbered. Oil consumption will eventually be reduced almost to zero within our lifetimes (judging no one here is over 60). Without that money that whole peninsula's economy will collapse and they will find it difficult to maintain such a tight control over their population when they have no money any more. Its all a waiting game at this point, if you want to do something after reading stories such as this, do your hardest to reduce oil consumption and promote renewable energy. Ruining them financially will do more to undermine their backward laws and society then any invasion force. Not trying to sound radical here, but it really is the easiest and most efficient way of standing up to awful regimes like this.
Not in the same league, since it doesn't involve horsewhipping, but this demonstrates that irrational punishment on religious grounds is not the exclusive province of the Muslims:
Nine-year-old girl has been raped by her stepfather since she was six. Finally she gets pregnant with twins. If she attempts to carry them to term she will probably die. (The human body is amazing and flexible, but no nine-year-old girl is ready to bear twins.) Anyway, mom helps her procure an abortion. Bishop excommunicates mother and doctors, but not the girl.
Cardinal Re, who heads the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told La Stampa that the archbishop had been right to excommunicate the mother and doctors.
"It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said.
"Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified."
Note: I am not trying to derail this into yet another abortion thread. I just wanted to point out that rigid adherence to religious dogma is a universal danger.
Excommunication is a bigger deal in MTW2 than in real life. It's almost like a gift these days, now you have an excuse to change religions
The Catholics I know in RL wouldn't be the least bit happy about it.
Wow, Lemur. I never thought something like this happened these days. Vatican sure tries hard to earn its bad publicity. First the Holocaust deniers and now this... There is always some sort of scandal around them.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
Excomunication is a very serious thing however:
1. It is a medicinal punishment, which should be lifted as soon as the excomunicated person makes reparation and seeks Absolution.
2. It does not prevent the administering of Extreme Unction, so that the penitant's soul is not placed in peril.
So, MRD, not a reason to change religion.
As usual, however, the British press presents this as some great cursing and casting out.
I've been technically excommunicated since 1972.
The pope answers none of my letters.
I'm crushed.
(and damned?)
Is that like being a little bit pregnant?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Uh really?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
As I understand it (and that's not fully) you aren't damned, unless you've been convicted of heresy.
I guess so. The facts remain static, but the judgment prevails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I am doomed to hllfire. No one should listen to me.
The cat was dead anyway so i may as well ask... why ?
Incase you didn't guess that is directed at Kurki's excommunication...
Married outside the Church (a Dutch Reformed girl), then (gasp!) divorced, then married again outside the Church (a Baptist), then divorced, then married a reformed Morman girl - all whilst professing a dis-inclination to believe a need for Savior-ism, in writing, to Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Either I am :a:an excommunicated fornicating apostate, or :b:an insignificant single dude who has never been officially married. Rome says :a:, sez Padre Julio, my local priest (and I agree).
Weird how ex-commun-ication happens more on married stuff than theological stuff, huh?
I rather think you're mistaken. The Puritans used English bibles (Geneva and King James Version), of course, because Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic Church. You have heard of the big protestant religious struggle, right? The Reformation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Really? How often did they do that?Quote:
Generally speaking Puritans tended to try to derrive law and doctrine from translated scripture, often in a litteralistic way. They were fundamentalists who hung or burned witches.
I think it's quite apt.
Now, in your first post you said:
Which of course it is not and has never been on the same scale as Saudi Arabia and only existed as a small problem before America, as a country, was ever formed! That statement is completely wrong.Quote:
This is also a problem in America, actually.
Or any physical punishment at all. It doesn't deserve mentioning in the same thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
This isn't a barbaric punishment; that's an insult to barbarians. It's an inhuman punishment, for both the woman and the men.
CR
I think that it is disgusting. Why? They were not doing anything wrong. But a very strict, rigid, and insane interpretation of scriptures, which most sane people seem to think are open to more liberal interpretation, has led people to override their own judgment and minds, and conform to authoritarianism.
Blind following of any sort of rule negates the possibility of morality.
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting and morally unjustifiable.
well they didn't find dead babies buried in their church basement I'm sure. Not yet, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It's culture, they have it, you just got to respect that. If anything imho this calls for intercultural dialogue, we can really learn from eachother.
What did they send you a letter? I don't know all the rules, but marriages to non-Catholics are often considered non-sacramental in nature. You can't receive the sacrament of marriage more than once(unless a spouse dies), but if you never received it in the first place.... :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I guess, I'm just wondering how you know that you're excommunicated....
:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It does not matter whose religion is worse.
Humans have a built-in sense of what is right and what not. Both mentioned cases, the Islamic and the Catholic one, are wrong.
Religion manages to mess up with our inate sence of justice and leads to such barbaric acts...
I'd say it's not religion; it's ideology as a whole or more precisely the fact that such things tend to remove our own personal responsibility for such acts through the notion that a higher power has taken authority and will be accountable. Thus we are freed from the burden of culpability and morally are satisfied, regardless of how barbaric the act may actually be.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
[/Ramble, Ramble, Ramble, Waffle, Waffle, Waffle]
The Geneva and KJV largely follow the Latin, not the Greek so much. Anyway, you siezed on that and ignored my larger point. No Gree or Hebrew, ergo no direct access to scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
About as often as English Puritans, probably. Salem is just the worst example, the fact that the judges gave such credence to wide-ranging and absurd accusations says a lot.Quote:
Really? How often did they do that?
Are you sure? One of the problems Obama had was the charge that he was not a Christian and he had to plug into the Black Church community in Chicago to get elected. Religion is big buisness in America, it has determined the election of the last two presidents at least.Quote:
Which of course it is not and has never been on the same scale as Saudi Arabia and only existed as a small problem before America, as a country, was ever formed! That statement is completely wrong.
Sorry if this discussion on Puritanism seems off topic, I'll leave it up to the mods if they think it deserves a thread of its own.
I don't know why you would not consider an English Bible to express the scipture effectively. In any case, the Reformed doctrines which the Puritans followed were created by theologians who could read Greek and Hebrew perfectly well. While checking the meaning of a word in Greek here or there can be helpful when seeking to understand a passage, I cannot think of one mainstream Protestant doctrine which could not be derived either from an English or Hebrew/Greek translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Which mainstream branch of Christianity did not burn witches? Puritanism outlasted the witch-burning craze just as any other denomination did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Well I was just responding to a point someone made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Puritans were not 'conservative', they were really pretty radical, and made religion something that every individual can participate in equally. Also, the Puritans didn't see themselves as a beacon of light in a sea of sin, if anything they were harder on themselves than any non-Christians, that's why they became so puritanical in the first place. The idea of not judging non-believers, but at the same time judging each other to ensure they were working out their own salvation, was pretty central to their beliefs. And again, the witch hunts were carried out by all branches of Christianity. The more sober Puritans were more condemning of such supersitious practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The Puritans did not support a theocracy, they believed in the seperation of church and state, although they thought that both had their role in society. Certainly, they would not enforce Beliefs as the Wahhabists do, neither would they be irresponsible as Christians in allowing any belief to go unchecked (see my sig). Also, the Pilgrims that went to New Plymouth were not Puritans, nor were they recognise as such at the time, as unlike the Puritans, they refused to take part in the Anglicanised Church of England in the wake of the Restoration in 1660, hence their fleeing to America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Anyone that views a book that had more excluded from than included, was finalised hundreds of years after the event and hasn't added any new information that has been found over the years is highly suspect where reliability is concered. The apocrypha is many times longer than what is included. And even this is miniscule considering the levels of literacy at the times being addressed and the spread of Christianity from the Middle East to first Italy and then further afield.
Of the 12 apostles we have 3 books under their names, and one compilation. Far more time is spent pandering to St Paul's ego with the letters than anything approaching contemporary works.
It is a good insight into seeing what the Roman Emperors wanted to be known, but little more.
~:smoking:
:whip: :whip: :whip:
Whip it! Whip it Good! Whip it! Whip it Good!
:whip:
Religion is a factor of course but what we have here is a (religiously inspired) juridical system in a society with laws that are highly unfair towards women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
As a Greek speaker let me tell you one thing...
...not only have they not translated it properly (i.e word for word) but you can even see phrases added and missing allover the place. The New Testament translations are pretty much worse than the subtitles you find in an illegal Chinese made movie DVD...
He's not excommunicated unless this formal step was taken by the church. By removing himself from communion with the church, he has initiated a state of de facto excommunication by choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
He is most probably an apostate, possibly a heretic as well depending on adherence to a non-sanctioned doctrine or the specific denunciation of some accepted doctrine.
Also, Kukri seems to be a standup fellow with whom I'd enjoy the chance to chat whilst consuming an adult beverage.
You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
On tops the writer of the english Bible could speak ancient Greek as well as Hebrew, he was a converted jew if I am not mistaken. Edit, nope. William Tyndale, not a converted jew but proficient in the old languages including hebrew, not that hebrew matters for the new testament, nor Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Ah, more incorrect smugness.Quote:
It is a good insight into seeing what the Roman Emperors wanted to be known, but little more.
Oh please. The differences are not so great that the people didn't have access to the scripture.Quote:
The Geneva and KJV largely follow the Latin, not the Greek so much. Anyway, you siezed on that and ignored my larger point. No Gree or Hebrew, ergo no direct access to scripture.
So you're just assuming here? And that's supposed to be the foundation for your argument?Quote:
About as often as English Puritans, probably.
You're comparing our tendency to elect Christians to whipping a 75 year old woman for getting bread delivered by a man?Quote:
Are you sure? One of the problems Obama had was the charge that he was not a Christian and he had to plug into the Black Church community in Chicago to get elected. Religion is big buisness in America, it has determined the election of the last two presidents at least.
What crazy, moral relativist world are you coming from? How could those things be compared?
It always amazes me the lengths moral relativists will go to.
And adult beverage, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/...500665full.jpg
Sorry :sweatdrop:
CR
I decided I wasn't going to point out my doubts about rasforos being a biblical scholar. Didn't seem fair.
You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...
You wouldn't be able to read english from 70 AD ?
Sure its changed a bit but with a little knowledge im sure people could make something out of it...
Ah, more incorrect smugness.
Was it not Constantine who held the (forgetting the right word) 'convention' at nicea ?
Like when the Roman Catholic Church only officially incorported 12 of the apocryphal books at the Council of Trent in 1546 because they backed up their teachings?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Before then, those apocryphal books were usually printed in Catholic Bibles (as with the early KJVs), but in a seperate section from the OT and NT, and were not considered useful for doctrine.
Nope. Especially considering that English did not exist at that time. Don't need to go that far though, just try reading Chaucer in his original writing. Late 14th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Council. What about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Nope. Especially considering that English did not exist at that time.
I suspected as much... point stands all the same...
Don't need to go that far though, just try reading Chaucer in his original writing. Late 14th century
I have seen some fairly old texts in english and it seemed mostly readable with a little knowledge, now ill admit im not sure when these works date from....
Council.
I was so close with convention! thanks.
What about it.
It shows a roman emporer having a big influence in the construction of the bible..
You will be surprised how little Hellenistic Greek differs from modern Greek...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
The Greek language has very good continuity so anyone with a good enough vocabulary and knowledge of the slightly different grammatical rules can read the New Testament. Classical Greek and Homeric Greek are a different story though.
So yes I can read it from the prototype.
And it is very different from the English translations. You can accept it or you can not accept it but I would appreciate it if you were not trying to be ironic.
Must be hard for you in everyday communication...
Hmmm bait...pass.
Did little to the bible only church hyrarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
edit: that is total bull shame on me
My dad, who lives in Greece, can read ancient Greek writing. AFAIK the alphabet has changed marginally since ancient times. One or two extra letters added and others in which the pronuniation had changed. So yes, modern Greeks can read and talk, more or less, as they did when Jesus was a lad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Hope that helped clear things up for you.
What doctrine interpreted through the KJV does not stand in the Greek translations?
Ok, look there's a lot of mis-information going on here.
Firstly, Constantine did not influence the formation of the Bible himself, Nicea was concerned with doctrinal matters and the Old Latin Bible was already in existence. With that said, the first systematic expression of canon which was accepted universally was the Vulgate. This is why I mentioned Latin, the decisions of canon and attendent arguements are recorded in Latin.
As far as translation goes, any translation is a misrepresentation. So you cannot derrive doctrine from a translation. You can read it, but you can't do serious theology with it.
It doesn't matter, though many of the passages on homosexuality etc. are corrupt. The text itself was produced from what are now known to be faulty manuscripts and is also corrupt in that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Consider one example, the difference between WORD and LOGOS.
Are you implying that God's word is so shallow that it can only be properly expressed in one language?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
One small example I unearthed really quick messing up with Revelations. The last verse reads:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.'
Now look at the prototype:
'Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.'
The grace of Lord Jesus Christ with all the saints, amen. <--- Direct translation word by word
Now you can see that, even if you translate saints as 'the christians' or 'the faithful' (and that is fine since the word 'αγιος' did not have the meaning it used to) the verse is quite badly, and not word to word, translated.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Considering that verses 22:18 and 22:19 are copyright notices sentencing to eternal damnation whoever adds or removes words from the book then you can see that something is amiss here. I will be the Devil's advocate here and think that the word was omitted to comply with the protestant view about saints.
There are other discrepancies that you can find online but I do not want to plagiarize.
Are those discrepancies present in the Latin translation?Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Sorry but I cannot speak Latin :no:
It is odd that a Protestant denomination would do that, since the literal translation is much more Calvinistic (and the message is more consistent with the rest of the scripture). What denomination removed the Greek word?Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
When it says 'book', is it not referring to the book of Revelation as a whole? That is one argument used by the churches which use the apocrypha, and they are correct in that sense. Although I still believe the apocrypha are not divinely inspired. As I said, both Protestants and Catholics acknowledged the apocrypha, they were just polarised after Trent, eithering incorporating them more fully or removing them completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Not at all. It's trying to read english from 1500 AD. Hence my assumption about Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Sorry for making an ass out myself on that count. I still would like to see what a bible scholar/translator would have to say about any specific issues rasforos has.
The page belongs to the Apostolic Pentecostal Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Firstly I apologise if some of the information is inacurate because I do not know a lot about protestant christianity. If the said church is not protestant then please accept my apologies.
This is the link http://www.christianity.gr/apokalyps...hp?kefalaio=22
You can scroll down and see that the verse '21' under 'αρχαιο κειμενο' = 'ancient text' says:
Η χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ᾽Ιησοῦ μετὰ πάντων.
This is false. The ancient text says, as we mentioned:
Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.
So we have an intentional change in the original by omitting part of the final verse.
No, I'm quite explicitely saying there is no one near competant enough to produce the translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I believe that particular one originates with Jerome. Early Protestants essentially tried to Ape the Vulgate quite a lot. So you can add "flawed method" to "bad sources".Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This is why Greek and Hebrew are necessary for serious theological courses.
Any church with 'Apostolic' in its name is probably not that likely to reflect the views of mainstream Protestants. Since Apostolic usually equates to Episcopal (although not always), it tends to mean Catholicism without the Pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Also the Pentecostals are quite an unorthodox bunch. And they make a very strange combination alongside the apostolic tradition. :shrug:
Calvin used Greek and yet the 5 points of TULIP are all evident within the KJV. Similarly you could teach Catholic doctrines with a KJV, or Orthodox doctrines, or liberal doctrines, or any doctrine you want, just as surely as you could do it with a Latin or Greek translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I have yet to see any doctrine interpreted through a KJV to be proven inconsistent with other translations.
Looking into the original Greek/Hebrew words can help clarify minor points of detail (there are some gems supporting the Trinity for example), but I really don't think it is necessary to understand either the message of the Bible, or any broad Biblical outlook.
Actually, all the largest Protestant Churches are Episcopalian. Consider, the largest denomination in the world after Catholicism and Orthodoxy is Anglicanism. Also, "Catholicism without the Pope" is very different to "with the Pope".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Catholic religion is hardly something to be sniffed at, and it is much better than a lot of the Christian alternatives. Unless you prefer Phelps.
Which is, frankly, putting is mildly. I'm not going to discount visions and profecies any more than the ability to cause a man to a explode by pointing and cursing him. I'll even buy into demons and witchcraft, but not that often.Quote:
Also the Pentecostals are quite an unorthodox bunch. And they make a very strange combination alongside the apostolic tradition. :shrug:
You mean the five sola's? The KJV was explicitely written to confirm them, part of the problem.Quote:
Calvin used Greek and yet the 5 points of TULIP are all evident within the KJV. Similarly you could teach Catholic doctrines with a KJV, or Orthodox doctrines, or liberal doctrines, or any doctrine you want, just as surely as you could do it with a Latin or Greek translation.
You're missing the point, when you translate something you inflict your prejudices upon it. Therefore no translation is safe. As I said, a WORD is not the same as a LOGOS. In order to read the Bible as it was intended you need to learn and inhabit it's text, the same as anything else. Demanding that it conform to you is a bit much if you think it's infallable.Quote:
I have yet to see any doctrine interpreted through a KJV to be proven inconsistent with other translations.
Looking into the original Greek/Hebrew words can help clarify minor points of detail (there are some gems supporting the Trinity for example), but I really don't think it is necessary to understand either the message of the Bible, or any broad Biblical outlook.
Am I the only one here who thinks she deserves it?
Hmm... Tough call. On one hand she's clearly guilty of being a moron and not following the laws of the country she was visiting, after all, when in Rome.... On the other hand, she's 75 and 40 lashes might kill her. Death sentence for mingling would be harsh even by Saudi standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
She was obviously trying to score some young sausage and those guys obviously have a thing for baseballs in socks. I bet the breastfeeding part happened when he was 15.
Those laws are in place for a reason, they are tried and tested and true. If it weren't for such social regulation, most places in the Middle East would be backwards, oppressed, hungry and uneducated.
Largely due to the fact that the Reformed churches tend to fragment much more, so no one denomination can claim to have a large membership. I would consider the Anglican Church to be no more than a rival Papacy, since it effectively stuck the king in place of the Pope. And I agree the Catholic Church is not to be sniffed at. It's a real enigma for me, because on the one hand it is Christian and can spread the message of salvation, on the other hand it doesn't do this as effectively as other churches, and I believe that it will be the harlot church of revelation. This isn't a particularly anti-Catholic view, since many of the early Christian writers accepted that Rome fitted the bill for the future apostasy within the church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Suggesting Phelps is the only alternative to the apostolic churches is quite unfair. :no:
Same, I think we agree its sounds pretty dodgy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I was referring TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverance of the saints). And the monarchy at the time was not favourable to the Puritans and their Calvinist views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I know, like Jeremiah 31:33 says, the law of the New Covenant is written on our hearts, not tablets of stone at with the Old Covenant (nor is the New Covenant simply written in the hearts of the Bishops of the apostolic tradition, so I don't need their opinions to create doctrine thank you very much). I accept your point that the word is open to interpretation when we come to translate it, but I still challenge you to disprove the accuracy of the teaching of any Calvinist or Reformed doctrine through the Greek translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
IMO the English is perfectly adequate for conveying the message of the Bible, any theologian worth the name would know to check up on the original Greek/Hebrew versions before establishing a major doctrine. I do not think this is a sufficient reason to deny the average person the word of God, and place all the power in a select priesthood, we know where that led to before...
I know MRD is channeling Swift, but I can't tell with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I thought I was quite clear. A law might be dumb, but it's still a law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
And Luther was a drunk, a heretic, and an antisemite. This isn't a particularly anti-Protestant view, but merely a a historically accurate statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
She was having bread delivered to her.
Presumably for sustenance, and not to complement the young sausage.
Are you saying that she should starve to avoid 40 lashes? Furthermore, since she's a Syrian native, is it possible that she was ignorant of how the ridiculously complex Wahhabist nonsense works?
As a side note, I vote we test the weapons systems we sell to the Saudis on their religious police.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with her. Wahhabist ideology is sickening, their methods are an insult to any sensible human being, however, Saudi Arabia is *their* country and they can run it whichever way they want. If they try to impose their ways on other countries, THAT is where I would see a problem. The way it is, I cannot dictate to them how they should and should not live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
All true to an extent, although the heretic bit is more personal opinion I would say. Luther really didn't like Calvin for what its worth, although Calvin said "If Luther a thousand times calles me a devil, I will ever acknowledge him to be an industrious servant of God"Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Calvinism has spent too long on the defensive and its reflected in the churches today, for all the talk of anti-Catholicism, Calvinists have always shown a respect to other denominations within the bounds of Christianity that is rarely shown in return.
Without Luther there would be no Calvin. It all stems from Luther.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
And credit to him for it, he did great work for the Christian faith! But he would have identified more closely with Catholicism than Calvinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If schism and discord is "great work", then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
He didn't just cause a schism out of badness. Calvin devoted his life to freeing the scripture from past traditions and superstitions, to the point he lived in a constant state of mental and phyiscal exhaustion. He actually did work hard to reconcile with Luther, through the work of Melancthon, who both Calvin and Luther respected. Unfortunately, Luther was a bit crude at the discussions table, in fact he went so far as to scrawl scriptural verses all over it when Calvin tried to explain his viewpoint on the eucharist to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So yes, I believe Calvin served the Christian cause very well, and tried to work as well as he could with fellow Christians, while remaining true to his beliefs.
EDIT: Wait, I think you mean Luther. He also worked hard to reconcile with the Papacy, unlike Calvin he merely viewed himself as reforming it. He wasn't so keen to work with Calvin though. I'm guessing you are Catholic so probably you would agree with him in this respect.
So you're a 'let the genocide happen' kind of guy, as long as it stays strictly in-country?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get a moral pass for letting injustice happen without doing anything just because they're in a different country.
CR