Desperate measures

[Husar]

To Tribes' original question, no, I wouldn't say so.
Scripture is a way to spread knowledge or information in general and quoting it isn't desperate. In one way or another most of our knowledge comes from scripture or things other people told us (which they may also have written down in scripture), our brains add a bit of our own logic usually but in the end we handle a whole lot that didn't originate in our own brains so quoting scripture or whatever is quite fair.

That said, your particular example is almost hypocritical IMO since when you take swords to mean guns then you also have to take arms to mean nukes and thus the second amendement etc. blabla.

Also Don's last post is entirely correct again.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The quote had validity. Someone stated that Jesus would have "probably" been pro-gun control, CR stated a contrary interpretation with a little more weight in the same area.

Any statement that is deemed to be misleading or short sighted should be countered in an informal debate forum. If I were to say that Indiana Jones was based on the life of Biblical archaeologist Vendyl Jones (due to extreme similarities) and someone knew that Spieldberg and Lucas verbally denied this in more than one interview, they should speak up. We can likely never know the truth, because Lucas and Spieldberg may just be trying to cover their butts from a lawsuit, but It holds documented validity regardless of its weight in the overall discussion.

In addition, a number of people oppose gun ownership BECAUSE they believe violence in general to be a terrible thing BECAUSE Jesus was against violence. Same with Christian vegetarians or Christian Tee-To-tallers. If they try to say that Jesus was a vegetarian or that he didn't drink, they are countered by scripture.


Anyway, I like to hear little known facts, analogies, and euphemisms when I visit this forum, especially when the topics veer off a bit.

[Geoffrey S]

In this particular example, I think Crazed Rabbit did an excellent job in showing that any subject can find some kind of quote in the Scriptures which appear to support a particular modern policy, illustrating quite clearly that they contribute very little to a meaningful debate, where the emphasis should be on facts rather than what other people have said.

[Gregoshi]

In this particular example, I think Crazed Rabbit did an excellent job in showing that any subject can find some kind of quote in the Scriptures which appear to support a particular modern policy, illustrating quite clearly that they contribute very little to a meaningful debate, where the emphasis should be on facts rather than what other people have said.

Geoffrey obviously agrees with me that the octosquid threat is a hoax dreamt up by End-of-the-World-ers desperately groping for something since the Cold War ended.

[Geoffrey S]

I'll readily admit that I don't think the Scriptures make mention of Octosquids, no...

[Odin]

Geoffrey obviously agrees with me that the octosquid threat is a hoax dreamt up by End-of-the-World-ers desperately groping for something since the Cold War ended.

Odd, I thought that was all resolved when Bush won a second term.

[Gregoshi]

Odd, I thought that was all resolved when Bush won a second term.

That second term made George an OctoBush.

On that awful note (and before the lynch mob arrives), exit, stage left...

[Husar]

If they try to say that Jesus was a vegetarian or that he didn't drink, they are countered by scripture.

I once had a priest say at a marriage that he didn't believe Jesus made wine and that it was probably just grape juice and that we all shouldn't drink alcohol etc. I thought it was bollox of course, he just wanted to drive his own agenda.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I once had a priest say at a marriage that he didn't believe Jesus made wine and that it was probably just grape juice and that we all shouldn't drink alcohol etc. I thought it was bollox of course, he just wanted to drive his own agenda.

Priests are generally not allowed to abstain from alcohol all the time. They need a special dispensation to drink "mustum" rather than table wine during Mass. INTERESTING FACT ALERT

NORMS FOR USE OF LOW-GLUTEN BREAD AND MUSTUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
August 22, 1994.

In recent years this dicastery has followed closely the development of the question of the use of low-gluten altar breads and <mustum> as matter for the celebration of the eucharist.

After careful study conducted in collaboration with a number of concerned episcopal conferences, this congregation in its ordinary session of June 22, 1994, has approved the following norms, which I am pleased to communicate:


I. Concerning permission to use low-gluten altar breads:

A. This may be granted by ordinaries to priests and laypersons affected by celiac disease, after presentation of a medical certificate.

B. Conditions for the validity of the matter:

1) Special hosts <quibus glutinum ablatum est> are invalid matter for the celebration of the eucharist.

2) Low-gluten hosts are valid matter, provided that they contain the amount of gluten sufficient to obtain the confection of bread, that there is no addition of foreign materials and that the procedure for making such hosts is not such as to alter the nature of the substance of the bread.


II. Concerning permission to use 'mustum':

A. The preferred solution continues to be <communion per intinctionem>, or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.

B. Nevertheless, the permission to use <mustum> can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.

C. By <mustum> is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

D. In general, those who have received permission to use <mustum> are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of <mustum>, while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated.

E. In the very rare instances of laypersons requesting this permission, recourse must be made to the Holy See.


III. Common Norms

A. The ordinary must ascertain that the matter used conforms to the above requirements.

B. Permissions are to be given only for as long as the situation continues which motivated the request.

C. Scandal is to be avoided.

D. Given the centrality of the celebration of the eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders.

E. Since the doctrinal questions in this area have now been decided, disciplinary competence is entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

F. Concerned episcopal conferences shall report to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments every two years regarding the application of these norms.


With warm regards and best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect

[Husar]

Ohoh, maybe I shouldn't use the term "priest" that loose but it was sort of a protestant priest.

[Tribesman]

Priests are generally not allowed to abstain from alcohol all the time. They need a special dispensation to drink "mustum" rather than table wine during Mass. INTERESTING FACT ALERT

An interesting side topic , priests having to cover several parishes for Mass and the proposed introduction of a zero alcohol limit for driving .

In this particular example, I think Crazed Rabbit did an excellent job in showing that any subject can find some kind of quote in the Scriptures which appear to support a particular modern policy, illustrating quite clearly that they contribute very little to a meaningful debate, where the emphasis should be on facts rather than what other people have said.

That is a good answer .

The quote had validity. Someone stated that Jesus would have "probably" been pro-gun control, CR stated a contrary interpretation with a little more weight in the same area.

That however isn't a good answer since the flaw is in the use of a single line from a passage wheras the passage carries a different weight entirely .

[Papewaio]

Wordplay and partial quotes are fairly standard for a debate. If it was a scientific lecture it wouldn't be up to par, but for a bit of verbal fun it was spot on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That however isn't a good answer since the flaw is in the use of a single line from a passage wheras the passage carries a different weight entirely .

I don't think it is a big deal that the quote was out of context. As in most things in the bible, it is debatable whether the line was literal (sell what you've got and go buy a sword) or figurative (get rid of what you've got and earn the courage and strength to follow God)

People always say "out of context" when they disagree. The bible was meant to be read out of context. Some of Jesus' disciples carried swords. This is not really disputed, is it? I'm sure that they never wanted to use them. I feel the same way about guns. The problem is when you live by the sword.

[IrishArmenian]

Quoting scripture out of context is generally something that should be avoided when debating non-religious issues.