Comments on: Speak Out Bravely Here

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:34:40 +0000

You need to read a little wider Jayson.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:08:38 +0000

Rebecca, if you dispute where the Bible came from, and which books are legit, then read this book:

“Where we got the Bible”by TAN books

https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/Where-We-Got-The-Bible

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:31:52 +0000

First you make false extrapolations, now disingenuousness RSD.

If you cared to make even a limited observation of the disparate scriptural claims across various various elements of faiths, you would understand what I said.

The catholic church is not significantly better in this regard.

By: RSD

RSD — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:10:43 +0000

“I try to find out why there is such blatant selectiveness, misrepresentation and hypocrisy stemming from it’s use.”
———————————————————————-

Is this confusion based on your own understanding of the scriptures or someone else’s interpretation?

As mentioned earlier, we, in the Catholic Church, have the
Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) and the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) to guide us in understanding the true meaning of the scripture passages.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 03:49:07 +0000

I didn’t mean last week Elizabeth. Or last year. Or last century. But it’s not what it was about the BC/AD turnover or preceding that.

So you don’t find language such as ‘remain silent ‘, ‘not allowed to speak’, ‘must be in submission’ or ‘ it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church’ a put down of women? Is there such language and tone in regard to men?

I quote scripture because I try to find out why there is such blatant selectiveness, misrepresentation and hypocrisy stemming from it’s use.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:07:24 +0000

Too recent? The truths of the Church have not changed in recent years.

As for the 1 Corinthians verse, St. Paul speaks about the fundamental equality of men and women in Gal 3:28. So, the 1 Cor. verse does not put down women, but concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly: the role of ministerial priesthood is limited to men, and each member of the Body of Christ has a different role.

Also, good for you for quoting Scripture and in some sense, trying to find its real meaning.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:35:51 +0000

What you are using is still too recent Jayson. It still stems from material which has questionable accuracy and origins.

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

By: Jayson

Jayson — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:12:54 +0000

“cite someone professing to be able to deliver the ‘correct’ interpretation of this topic”

You see Rebecca, this is why so many Protestant churches can’t agree on some of these topics, because all the different pastors interperet the Bible in different ways. Us Catholics have the authority of the Holy Spirit who speaks through the Church and the Pope and his bishops.

“When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you in all truth” John 16:13

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:49:15 +0000

Hi John. So you – a scriptural adherent – cite someone professing to be able to deliver the ‘correct’ interpretation of this topic. His piece wanders around the topic, glances at it, talks around it with the occasional dive right in, and selects aspects which support his version.
‘I don’t particularly have any desire to specifically rebut Miss Yockey’ – why not? If you are so correct?
“some parts of the Mosaic law are still parts of the New Convenant, others are not.” – why not? Selective application to suit peoples’ prejudices?
‘Our Lord said He didn’t come to erase the law, but to fulfill it, which, whatever it means in the details, obviously means that some of the specifics will remain and some will not.’ – how contradictory!
‘…only even arguably mentioned about four times in the New Testament, and a condemnation of them is never actually the point being made.’ – wander, meander.
‘that’s exactly the way to discern Tradition — the That Which Does Not Have To Be Argued For, the Premise So Obvious That It Can Remain Unstated.’ – how convenient!
‘ The very fact that St. Paul and St. Jude don’t argue for the immorality of homosexual acts because they don’t have to — the “dropped in” quality of the references, without elaboration or argument or detail, proves they could assume automatic assent to the statement “homosexual acts are condemned” and “those who commit them are damned.” – more convenience.
‘And keep in mind, the Apostles weren’t shy about changing the details of ritual and practice, if they thought the New Covenant reversed anything in the Old.’ – some things never change do they.
‘After all, they even moved the day of Sabbath’s observance (one of the Ten Commandments).’ – this says so much about so many things being somewhat less than confirmed.
‘Natural-law philosophy has always been invoked against homosexual acts…’ – this is just not true.
The variances of adherence to the Old testement created by the New is really a dilemma don’t you think?
Overall it’s not a very convincing argument is it?

By: John

John — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:22:49 +0000

Rebecca— Regarding same-sex acts and Leviticus, etc., one of my favorite bloggers (he goes by the pseudonym CourageMan) offers a brilliant treatment of this in a post entitled "The 'God Hates Shrimp' Fallacy".

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:45:57 +0000

No Jayson, I’m not, don’t extrapolate to suit yourself. Here is an example of what I have come across, there are vast numbers of such references on a range of topics –

‘The passage you’re talking about is found in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. This particular text was changed during the translation of the King James scribes. The original text stated that the act of a ‘man lying with a man’ is ‘toevah’. Toevah does not mean ‘abomination’. It does not even mean ‘sin’ or ‘unlawful’. It means ‘non-traditional/against tradition’ that is, it was against tradition for Jewish men to have homosexual sex.
Christians do not abide by the vast majority of the Levitical Laws, and Jesus himself takes a stand against them in Mark 7:1-23. He says the laws are ‘traditions of men’ not of God. Thus, God never said gay men were an abomination–let alone gay women’

So what about the following Jayson, are you an adherent? –

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 – “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

By: Jayson

Jayson — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:53:53 +0000

So you’re saying that there are verses in the Bible that encourage behavior such as homosexuality, even though it clearly has verses against it….right

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:53:18 +0000

Atheists only argue aspects of scripture to demonstrate the selectiveness, misrepresentations and hypocrisy displayed when people of faith use it to support their argument.

From topics as diverse as raising children, through homosexuality and to political interference; the common element is that you cling to the sections or versions of scripture which best suit your personal prejudices.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:35:02 +0000

Thanks Elizabeth!

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:06:58 +0000

Folks, as far as the bible is concerned, I see no truth i whatever guise it may be presented.

It is factual that selections, translations, interpretations and misrepreresenations have ‘clouded’ aspects of scripture since before the supposed time of jesus.

I don’t hold any ‘beliefs’ Elizabeth, that’s the point. I simply question yours because it is non-evidential, variable and mainly fictional.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:10:16 +0000

Rebecca, you’re wrong when you say that Doctrine has changed. DISCIPLINE (practices such as what language Mass is celebrated in, regulations for fasting and abstaining from meat, etc.) can change, but Doctrine does not, and has not changed.

And Jayson, I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head when you say Rebecca wants the truth to conform to her beliefs, instead of visa versa.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:04:51 +0000

Rebecca: maybe the truth of Jesus Christ has been under your nose for the past 2000 years but you just keep trying to change it to suit your own interests and beliefs. Maybe you aren’t reading the texts correctly.

You want the truth to conform to what you believe instead of seeking out the truth, understanding it, and conforming to it’s beliefs.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:44:28 +0000

Jesus may have tried to show you the truth for 2000 years but unfortunately a rather extensive game of chinese whispers has taken place. Do you realise how much change in doctrine and behavior has occurred in the church in that time?? Popes were married at one stage.

Maybe the early church fathers didn’t read the original texts correctly either. And you are talking about a group of men who did much of what they did for certain reasons other than pure evangelical religious guidance.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:15:21 +0000

Rebecca, Jesus has been guiding the Catholic Church and will continue to. He said himself that he “will be with us always until the end of the age”. It might be hard for you to understand our trust in him, but he won’t foresake us. He has shown us the truth for 2000+ years

a side note—–if you think that early documents and texts supported homosexuality, just read the works of the early church fathers who condemned abortion, contraception, and homosexuality from the beginning of the church.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:56:36 +0000

You have just said so much RSD. You really have.