Rev Phelps to Protest at Tim Mclean's Funeral

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Oh come on, it's pretty darn clear here (from King James):
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Even the article you linked to, it seemed like "Jesus couldn't have meant that we had to follow all 613 laws of the Old Testament. That would just be too darn hard."

You do realize that each of the Ten Commandments were repeated again in the New Testament, right?

Nice response regarding the article though. I guess you'll just skip over the exact problem I have with literal translations. The original text was in Greek, and by translating it into English, you a can get a whole slew of different meanings.

Its not as cut and dried as you think.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

But still, intolerance of homosexuality is pretty clear cut in mainstream Christianity.

I asked someone who knows a little more about it then I do....this is his answer.

Most Christians call it a sin because most Christians recognize the entire New Testament as being the Word of God, and not just the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality per se, but he did say that the Old Testament law is still valid in terms of what it teaches about right and wrong.

And other New Testament passages, in the epistles and in Revelation, clearly indicate that homosexuality is immoral. That said, it is no more immoral than quite a few other sins. Those Christians who consider it one of the worst sins around do not do so on the basis of New Testament teaching, but simply on the basis of their own traditions, or else on the basis of their own personal pride. (It is very tempting to consider a sin which is not your personal problem as the most henious, so that you can feel good about yourself and think that you have some kind of righteousness based on your behavior rather than only on grace.)

Of course, those who do not accept the New Testament as God's Word, or who do not accept the teaching of Jesus, or who do not believe that the Gospels correctly transmit the teaching of Jesus, will have differing opinions. That is entirely normal. The Christians who think homosexuality (and other forms of sexuality other than the faithful relationship of marriage) is sinful are generally those who accept the New Testament at face value.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Is there some reason the Canadian government couldn't stop these guys from entering Canada that anyone knows of.
Just put them on a terror watch list and tell them they expect their american friends to help out if they expect the same back.

Hate Speech is a bit different here than it is in the US. Or else the US Government would have long gone after Phelps and his crowd, considering they protest at the funerals of government employees.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It can't be both so long as you believe the Bible to be the perfect word of God, which by your first sentence you do not believe to be true. A true believer would have said that God would not let the old Hebrew texts be mistranslated.

Oh, so anyone who uses and common sense and realizes that translating a translation can usually result in a misinterpretation of a certain text is not a 'true' believer?

If you believe the Bible to be man-made and thus riddled with errors, then certainly it can be a smattering of contradictions. Which it most certainly is.

Again, here you go with the 'black and white' issue. Its not black and white. I believe the Bible IS the Word of God. But I also realize that one cannot take it literally, since it is IMPOSSIBLE that a translation of a DEAD language will always be 100% correct.

Given these contradictions, if you pick and choose the passages you want and ignore the rest, then certainly you can end up where the Phelps family is. But everything they preach is in there somewhere.

Really? I asked Thor to point it out too, but he refused, or is ignoring the question, so I'll ask you. Where in the 'New Testament' does Jesus teach ANYTHING about what Phelps and his crowd does?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess you'll just skip over the exact problem I have with literal translations.

I think I addressed the "translations" issue about 7 minutes before your post. If Phelps believes the Bible is the word of God and therefore there can be no mistranslations because God would not allow it... to believe that the Bible could be fallible and whole passages could be mistranslated would certainly undermine its power.

As for "where in the New Testament" my whole point is that it doesn't need to be in the New Testament if Phelps reads Matthew like I do.

[Dion]

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, here you go with the 'black and white' issue. Its not black and white. I believe the Bible IS the Word of God. But I also realize that one cannot take it literally, since it is IMPOSSIBLE that a translation of a DEAD language will always be 100% correct.

It is black and white. If God was guiding the hands of those doing the translations, then it would be perfect. If God was NOT guiding the hands of those doing the translations, then it would be imperfect and not the Word of God.

Either God wrote it or he didn't. It's black or white. The only possible grey is if he wrote Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Mark and ensured they remained correctly translated throughout the years, but left the rest to anyone who could chicken scratch.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I think I addressed the "translations" issue about 7 minutes before your post.

Really, where? All you did what quote a verse from where I don't know, that refers to 'commandments.'

If Phelps believes the Bible is the word of God and therefore there can be no mistranslations because God would not allow it... to believe that the Bible could be fallible and whole passages could be mistranslated would certainly undermine its power.

I never said it was 'fallible'....just that when translating texts from ancient languages, people tend to make errors.

You should really look up 'Biblical inerrancy'....and 'Biblical infallibility.'

Fascinating stuff, if you actually want to bother to read about the different viewpoints that people, instead of just throwing out statements that make the issue 'black and white.'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It is black and white. If God was guiding the hands of those doing the translations, then it would be perfect. If God was NOT guiding the hands of those doing the translations, then it would be imperfect and not the Word of God.

Either God wrote it or he didn't. It's black or white. The only possible grey is if he wrote Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Mark and ensured they remained correctly translated throughout the years, but left the rest to anyone who could chicken scratch.

Well there you go. Considering your mind is already made up about this, I see no further need to even try to explain to you what Biblical infallibility is.

[Azure]

Here, I'll give you an example of what I mean with 'translating' errors, or people misinterpreting the Bible.

Inerrancy of the Bible refers only to the original, autograph copies of each book, as written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew is an extremely ambiguous language. Some passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) may be interpreted in many different ways. At most, only one of those translations would be correct, and thus be inerrant. But there is no way in which we can know for certain which translation is the correct one. Consider Leviticus 18:22. According to one source, a word-for-word translation is:

"And with a male thou shall not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."

(The word "abomination" is a mistranslation, in terms of modern English. The Hebrew word means something like "ritually impure". Some other examples of "abominations" are: a person eating lobster, the offering of an animal which has a blemish for ritual sacrifice, a man getting a haircut or shaving his beard, or a woman wearing jeans or slacks, a person eating a cheeseburger.) This passage is normally interpreted in English as something similar to:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (RSV)

That rendering would condemn all male-male sexual activity. Or, if the translators really wanted to stretch the meaning of the passage well beyond what the original Hebrew states, they might want to write a condemnation of lesbianism into the translation, as in:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (NLT)

But it could be argued that an equally accurate rendering is:

"Men must not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination"

That is, homosexual activity is only condemned if it is done in the wrong location: on a woman's bed. Bible translators, scholars and individual believers debate endlessly over the precise meaning of individual passages such as this one. If people attribute multiple meanings to various verses, then only one (perhaps none) could be inerrant. We can try to compare a passage with other similar verses in the Bible in order to determine which interpretation is most likely. But, we have no absolutely reliable method of determining which interpretation is true.

And if you actually want to bother to look...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm

[photon]

Out of the 5400 manuscripts found of the NT written in the original Greek, where they contain the same scriptures, no two agree. Not even the smallest credit card sized pieces.

Most of those errors are punctuation and grammar, but there are some pretty significant differences as well, entire chunks of books missing (or added), sometimes even with notes in the margins from scribes annotating the differences.

Maybe when DA is talking about biblical infallibility he's talking about the general view of fundamentalists in that every word in the Bible is inspired and is to be taken exactly literally.. that religious tolerance page that talks about the ways errors could be introduced would be seen as heretical to such.

Some view the Bible as inspired by God in the same way that a beautiful woman inspires a song or a painting; fully created by humans in their quest to understand and express their views on God.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Out of the 5400 manuscripts found of the NT written in the original Greek, where they contain the same scriptures, no two agree. Not even the smallest credit card sized pieces.

Most of those errors are punctuation and grammar, but there are some pretty significant differences as well, entire chunks of books missing (or added), sometimes even with notes in the margins from scribes annotating the differences.

Exactly.

Maybe when DA is talking about biblical infallibility he's talking about the general view of fundamentalists in that every word in the Bible is inspired and is to be taken exactly literally.. that religious tolerance page that talks about the ways errors could be introduced would be seen as heretical to such.

If you think the Bible is inerrant, you instantly refuse to acknowledge that numerous errors with just the writings. I don't think they had a spell checker back then.

[Antithesis]

There is apparently a facebook group (and event) set up for a type of counter-protest tomorrow during the funeral. I sincerely hope it goes well and that the family's wishes are respected. These protestors, in news stories, sound surprised to be meeting such resistance here in Canada.

[Eddie Bronze]

Let me get this straight.

Phelps is an American saying, "God is punishing Canada."

Most recent murder rates:
USA: 0.043 per 1,000 people
Canada: 0.015 per 1,000 people

Good call Reverend. Apparently they don't teach math in church.

[Nuje]

Murders aren't a crime to these people. They are payback. Homosexuality, sex in general, freedom, hair dye, piercings. tattoos, The Beatles, marujuana......THESE are crimes. Murder, rape, nuclear warfare, terrosit attacks, and any crime committed by a priest, those are all payback by god.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Those poor people. Shouldn't have to deal with either demonstrators nor counter demonstrators. The latter probably being the bigger circus (if only because that mob will be ten times larger). Not to mention media and the riot squad.

They should just quietly re-schedule the funeral and not tell anyone but friends and family.

Christ, that's just sad that a family can't grieve without all this extra crap.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Eddie Bronze

Let me get this straight.

Phelps is an American saying, "God is punishing Canada."

Most recent murder rates:
USA: 0.043 per 1,000 people
Canada: 0.015 per 1,000 people

Good call Reverend. Apparently they don't teach math in church.

He also beleives that God is punishing the States. so its not just Canada. He does bogus stuff like this all over the States as well

[onetwo_threefour]

NM - already discussed above

[Azure]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

In order to accept the reasoning offered in that link, you pretty much have to be trying to reach your desired conclusion. Basically the argument, as already mentioned, boils down to, you'd have to be crazy to think that Jesus actually meant people to keep to 613 laws.

Jesus wasn't around in the Old Testament. And no, it has nothing to do with that. Point is that there was a 'new' covenant created between man and God. And it is centered around Jesus Christ. That is why Christianity is based around the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and not around the Old Testament.

And yet, that's precisely what the old testament had apparently required of mankind for hundreds or thousands of years predating Jesus.

Actually, it only 'required' that of the Jews. But, I get what you're saying, although it really has nothing to do with any of this.

So was God crazy to have imposed the 613 laws in the first place? Is God then fallible.

If you want to call it that.

God said that I will make a new Covenant. Heb.8:7-8: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.” V.8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” He’s saying the first covenant was not perfect and needed to be changed, replaced with another.

I think the reasoning in that article is terrible as much as they try to present it as beng a logical context driven analysis, it ignores a blatant inherent contradiction and creates a fallible God.

I thought you said you didn't read the article?

I haven't clicked on your link yet, but does it deal with this..

Which you edited out.

In fact, I have no idea how you even came to your conclusion. The passage I quoted from the article was referring to the original translation, and how easy it was to misinterpret what it really means when you read it in English.

But go ahead, take it literally if you want. Since its obvious you want to do exactly that.

[Boblobla]

This thread is why I try to avoid theological debates with in text form on teh intrawebz. Do we have an update as to how many of these crazies got through??