Originally posted by lucifershammerHuh?
Then I'm clearly not getting it.
How would you provide a normative definition for "astronaut"?
Anyway,
The terms (or, rather, their cognates) in the OED definition for 'bigot' that are clearly normative are: 'superstitious', 'obstinate', and 'unreasonable'. Each of these predicates indicates insufficient sensitivity to reasons for belief; a viewpoint that is epistemically unjustified. The bigot is not just intolerant, but intolerant without good reason. This is how the term shoud be used, and this manner of use does not succumb to the counter-example given above.
Originally posted by bbarrYou just don't meet many Zen KKK members ...
I'm not a Buddhist, so what's the problem? Anyway, I'm sure that the Buddha (like all right thinking people) would agree that there are pernicious falsehoods in the Bible. Whatever the case, Zen Buddhism does not prohibit homosexual relationships, and I am unaware of any aspect of Zen that would entail that same-sex couples ought not have the same rights and protections of heteroxexual couples. Bigotry is very un-Zen.
Originally posted by Conrau KYou write only God can forgive sins.
The Pope cannot absolve sins only God can. The power given to Peter Matthew 16. Peters declaration of Jesus is also given to everyone in Matthew 18.
Then you write that St Peter can, too.
This is a contradiction by any definition of 'only' that I've ever heard.
Nemesio
Nemesio (or whatever the hell your name is), you're talking a load of crap. This Conrau guy knows what he is talking about. He'll probably contradict me on this one, but I believe that whatever it is that you were arguing gainst, God does it through Peter. So it's still God doing it really, isn't it?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by NemesioGod gives everyone the power to prohibt and permit (Mt. 18. 18). I never wrote that the Pope can absolve sin in fact I said the opposite. Perhaps you should read Mt. 18. 18. Also i believe Jesus was talking only to his disciples. Does that prevent that power being given to everyone, Any thoughts?
You write [b]only God can forgive sins.
Then you write that St Peter can, too.
This is a contradiction by any definition of 'only' that I've ever heard.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau KYou and WillAllen need to review the use of 'only' in common English
God gives everyone the power to prohibt and permit (Mt. 18. 18). I never wrote that the Pope can absolve sin in fact I said the opposite. Perhaps you should read Mt. 18. 18. Also i believe Jesus was talking only to his disciples. Does that prevent that power being given to everyone, Any thoughts?
usage. When a person asserts something like, 'Only God can forgive
sins,' then that necessarily means that no one else can do it.
For example, if I am the general of the army, and only I can
order it to march, then if the colonel orders the army to march, then
it will not listen. However, if I (the general) give the army the
instruction, 'The colonel can order the army to march, too,' then I am
no longer the only person who can order the army. I may have
delegated that authority, but I am no longer the sole person who can
do it.
Hence, to say that God is the only person to forgive sins is
demonstrably false as per a literal Biblical reading (confer: St John
20:22-23 and St Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
I never said the word 'Pope.' You did. You also said 'only God can.'
You should write more precisely.
The RCC holds that, because this power was conferred (by God) to
the Disciples, this was passed down (through Apostolic succession) as
a privilige of ordination (to hear confession and, through Christ, to
forgive sins). St James's comment in 5:16 seems to suggest that
any two 'brothers' are able to forgive sins, but I do not know what the
RCC feels about this passage.
Nemesio
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Thank you for actually responding to my question.
Whether it's legitimate questions or semantic observations, most
people don't respond in a reasonable fashion. Why do you have this
great expectation that people are actually going to debate?
Obviously, if they are struggling with the word 'only,' how reasonable
are you being in asking for a rational response?
I just keep trucking along.
In the Romans passage the greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated as natural and unnatural respectively. This is often interpreted as saying homosexuality is against nature.
However paraphysin is better interpreted as "action that is uncharacteristic for that person". In fact this very meaning is used in Romans 11:24 where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles.
This is another (some would say 'liberal'😉 interpretation of the issue
of natural/unnatural. John Shelby Spong looks at these (and all the
other passages) apparently addressing homosexuality in his book
'Is Homosexuality a Sin?' (or some title to that effect).
Literalists would assert that you are being absurd, of course, and that
the Holy Spirit was definitely not upon you when making your interpretation.
As for the arsenokoitai I always thought it was arsenokeeteh but no matter. It is a two part word meaning literally 'male' and 'bed'. In other places in the bible (sorry no reference) the word arsenokeeteh is used to describe prostitutes who engage in cultish sex acts of both homosexual and hetrosexual nature.
The two citations I gave you for arsenokoitai (with the spellings I gave)
were the only two uses of this word form in the NT. And, in the
first citation from I Corinthians, this word is used in addition to
male prostitutes, which suggests a distinction. And, any reference to
homosexuals in 'other places in the Bible' would be in a Hebrew
source, which makes transliterative comparison problematic, not only
because of the language difference, but the chronological separation
in the uses of each word.
Anyway, you raise essentially the same thing I did: is what St Paul
considered to be homosexuality (the sort of cultic, orgiastic
homosexuality of Greco-Roman culture) analagous to modern
homosexuality? If not, does the prohibition of it (or its theoretical
sinfulness) still apply?
Nemesio
I think a little dose of reality is neccessary here.
The bible is a hodge podge collection of books written by different authors over a paeriod of many hundreds (if not thousands of years).
Conrau, you're placing way too much conviction in words written in many cases well over 3000 years ago.
Now I know that of course that's the basis of faith - to place your conviction in something - but you need to recognise, as others have pointed out in these posts, that the bible contains innumerable contradictions, and directives that would clearly be outrageous to follow in our society - or indeed, in any society other than the middle eastern one in which it was written.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by amannionI completely agree. The bible is very contradictory but there are numerous explanations. I begin to find this subject a bit boring anyway.
I think a little dose of reality is neccessary here.
The bible is a hodge podge collection of books written by different authors over a paeriod of many hundreds (if not thousands of years).
Conrau, you're placing way too much conviction in words written in many cases well over 3000 years ago.
Now I know that of course that's the basis of faith - to ...[text shortened]... r society - or indeed, in any society other than the middle eastern one in which it was written.
St. Athanasius was credited with the selection of the 27 books for the New Testament. The rest were burned and some monks secretly preserved some books in Jars. Almost like an Agatha Christie book missing a few chapters. So how can we use it as a 'Bible'? Faith and Assumption. And assumptions are based on opionion. And my opionion of what God would think of Gay marriage is obviously an extention of what I would think of Gay Marriage. But I won't presume to be God. If God resigned from his position and made me CEO of Earth the situation would be different. I would recover all the lost books and recompile the Bible. And if it didn't say anywhere clearly in the new Bible that Gay Marriage is wrong then I would write it in myself.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by K0hlerThe bible is divinely inspired, supposedly. Many of the other bookd 'burnt' were considered aporcryphal. And if you thinks homosexuality is wrong then dont practise it, if you feel its right i don't think God cares. GOd sent his only son to be crucified for our own sake. If he loves us that much then this subject should not be an issue.
St. Athanasius was credited with the selection of the 27 books for the New Testament. The rest were burned and some monks secretly preserved some books in Jars. Almost like an Agatha Christie book missing a few chapters. So how can we use it as a 'Bible'? Faith and Assumption. And assumptions are based on opionion. And my opionion of what God would thi ...[text shortened]... ay anywhere clearly in the new Bible that Gay Marriage is wrong then I would write it in myself.