Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

Boy I would hate to hear your interpretation of going through the eye of a needle.

Let's assume some things and see what happens.

1. Jesus was actually trying to be obtuse or mysterious like an oracle. Well, no wonder there is so much debate about particular meanings. I must have found 20 different writings all on that one previous verse. Why he would want to do that, I don't know. Maybe Jesus wanted to fool everyone into believing whatever they felt best about. I can certainly see some advantages to teaching the sheeply flock by leaving them to decide what he meant.

2. When Jesus said things that sounded severe, he was actually "just kidding." They just forgot to put that in. Whether he was just making an analogy to broader meanings, he didn't mean you to take it severely, because, he was just kidding. Well, there is that possibility.

3. Number three! When Jesus said severe things he meant them to sound severe as they were, or when he said milder things he meant to sound mild. Whether he was talking about the thing or a thing that could be an analogy, it was straightforward that he was severe or mild. When he was dead serious he wanted you to know it.

Now I favor one of the above more than others. What do you think?

Quote: rxwine

Let's assume some things and see what happens.

1. Jesus was actually trying to be obtuse or mysterious like an oracle. Well, no wonder there is so much debate about particular meanings. I must have found 20 different writings all on that one previous verse. Why he would want to do that, I don't know.

He was probably a conman. Fake messiah's abounded
in those days. You could make a living conning people
with vagueness and a cool manner. Much as the fake
swami's do in India. Jesus went too far and paid dearly
for his deception. He became an urban legend and his
story was embellished for decades before anything
was even written down. Like every con, if you're
gullible, 75% of the con's job is already done. If
you're say, an atheist, no amount of the con's snake
oil will sell you.

Quote: FrGamble

Are you saying this passage suggests rape?




No. 1Cor was written around 52AD and at that time Paul and many early Christians believed the Lord Jesus would return very soon. 1Cor15:51-52 mentions this as does the premise of this whole chapter about his advice of people staying in the state they are in. Paul's first letter was 1Thess. and you can see his eschatology clearly taught. This idea gradually developed and changed over time. To get the context of Paul's writings you need not only read 1Corinthians but know of his other writings as well. I do commend you once again in reading the text and researching it for yourself.

I'm suggesting that you can interpret that passage as suggesting rape at the worst, and taking into account the other things I found and posted here, lack of consent, which I believe is another way of saying rape.

1 Corinthians 15 does not suggest when the lord would return.

So, can we selectively disregard anything that Paul and the other apostles wrote at that time (I think it was a fair amount) by labeling any statements we want as being in the context of the imminent return of the lord?

And you seemed to have skipped this question - it wasn't rhetorical - how could the disciples of Jesus, the people who actually walked the earth with him, have been so wrong about the timing of his return?

Quote: rxwine

Now I favor one of the above more than others. What do you think?

I think you favor number three. I do think that when Jesus wanted to sound severe He was and used language and images that expressed the seriousness of His teaching. There are lots of clues in the Scriptures about when He was doing this. The thing you have to be careful to avoid is fundamentalism or a literal interpretation of the Scripture. I think by far your biggest problem is that you do not know and love the Lord Jesus. Knowing the person of Christ helps you avoid fundamentalism and helps you to recognize instinctively what certain Scripture passages must mean and refer to. It's kind of like if your best friend gets quoted in the newspaper saying something strange you know that he didn't really mean that or that it was taken out of context even before you read the whole thing or find out the real quote. Trying to use, twist, and prooftext the Scriptures to paint Jesus in a certain way is like that.

Quote: Dalex64

I'm suggesting that you can interpret that passage as suggesting rape at the worst, and taking into account the other things I found and posted here, lack of consent, which I believe is another way of saying rape.

You would be dead wrong.

Quote:

1 Corinthians 15 does not suggest when the lord would return.

Yes, but for Paul and the early Christian community it could be at any time. Actually for us it could be anytime too, but they thought it was imminent and it effected the advice Paul gave to that community.

Quote:

So, can we selectively disregard anything that Paul and the other apostles wrote at that time (I think it was a fair amount) by labeling any statements we want as being in the context of the imminent return of the lord?

WHOA there horsey! No, that is not what I am saying at all. The explicitly given advice of Paul to the Corinthians is not to be disregarded, nor is anything that Paul wrote. I'm only trying to tell you why he was suggesting that people stay in the state they are if they can. Let's not get crazy here.

Quote:

And you seemed to have skipped this question - it wasn't rhetorical - how could the disciples of Jesus, the people who actually walked the earth with him, have been so wrong about the timing of his return?

Jesus explicitly taught the disciples that they were not to know the day or the hour so it is not like they didn't ask or that they misunderstood Jesus. I think if you were as close to the actual event of the Resurrection and Ascension and saw and felt the persecution the early Church went through as well as the faith spreading like wildfire around the known world you too would expect a quick return. The power of that moment of Christ's victory over death was so real and amazing that it seemed like the new Heavens and the new Earth were right around the corner. They were excited and longed with their whole being to see the Risen Lord again, so powerful was His impact on them. I wish I and all of us could long with the same intensity for the Lord's return.

Quote: Nareed

Because you're out to hurt, damage and otherwise bring misery to large numbers of people.

This is what you don't get, FrG.

You brought up examples like being fat and using tobacco as an analogy, and stated it was love that makes people try to make you change your ways. What you're missing is the difference, and yes, it makes all the difference in the world.

See, because your examples are fact. Medical fact, scientific fact, whatever you want to call it. It can be tested, proved, replicated, that being obese puts undue pressure on your circulatory system. It wears out your musculoskeletal system quicker. It leads to hypertension, diabetes, and on and on. This is fact, it cannot be denied. The same goes for tobacco. The heart disease, gum disease, lung disease, cancer, all of it can be proven. Some may say it's not "completely proven", as EB does, about the link between tobacco and cancer. Be that as it may, it's provable the same way gravity is. We might not have every bit of info needed, but damn if we don't have enough to say it is so.

Does gay sex lead to problems? Damn straight it does. There is damage sustained that doesn't happen in hetero sex. There is a link between the ease of transmission of STD's that points to anal (not necessarily "gay") as being more risky. Because of the nature of the lower intestine, there is a higher risk of bacterial infections. We could go on, but we won't.

The problem here is that, for some reason, you have named yourself the arbiter of what is wrong and right, good or bad. The above? That's no reason to decry something as "worse" or "unnatural". Do you come here and try to convince me to play flag football instead of contact under the guise of loving me? You seem to have enjoyed my storied of traipsing through untouched wilderness over cliffs and fjords, not once did you suggest maybe sticking to a nice, safe county pond. Why? I imagine it's because you have an appreciation for that stuff, and if you do have a concern, it's mostly kept to yourself because, well, it's none of your business. You can probably tell by now that I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want regardless if you or anybody else is "concerned", so maybe you just sit quietly and "hope" I take care of myself.

It's the same damn thing, man. For sure there are gays who engage in gay stuff that is hurtful or damaging. That is not a "gay thing". That's a people thing. I know, long ago, I slept around trying to fill a hole in my heart and in my soul. That stuff you would say is a "bad thing", and I'd be right there with you. I, too, would like to help someone out who is engaging in behavior like that, because it IS damaging to that person. But you extend your "care" far further than is warranted all because of a book of fables you decided to put your stock in. That's not cool, not at all. Many here have followed my journey over the years with Ash. You came with us on trips to BVI, watched us pursue my dream of racing, or just enjoyed a day out on the lake. I dare anyone to challenge our love for each other, how happy we were with each other, or how much we made the other grow and blossom. All of that was done under severe sin. Living together unmarried, lusting for each other, having sex, the list goes on. It's every bit as bad, according to the book, as the gay stuff. Yet I ain't heard a word in protest. Why?

Bigotry? Maybe. It's none of your business? Surely. And that's what this issue all boils down to. Your book gives people permission, nay, it encourages people to discriminate against those who conduct themselves in conflict with your book. And it does so for no goddamn reason whatsoever, other than some hippies in the desert 2,000 years ago say so.

Yes, that is worth going to war over.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Quote: Face

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Good ol CS Lewis. You left off the preamble to
your quote:

"My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse."

They might indeed act even worse. They
beat you down with their good intentions,
bludgeon you with what's 'right'. It's their
self appointed calling in life to be better than
everybody else, to pile the guilt on your
shoulders that no matter what you do, it's
never quite good enough in the eyes of their
silly arrogant made up god.

Face, when you come calling bro you bring it!

I don't know what to say and I should probably take some time to really pray over your heart cutting post. I don't want to the arbiter of what is wrong and right, good or bad. I only want to proclaim what I believe to be true based on my faith not just in the Scriptures but in the Church that the Risen Lord Jesus founded. The problem may be that this Church and its fallible ministers like me imagine that this teaching needs to extend to all the world. I get so caught up in what I have experienced as true and life giving/changing in my life and the lives of countless others I am too eager to foist it onto others who don't understand it, haven't experienced, and want no part of it. In trying to defending why and what my Church believes I make it seem like everyone should immediately recognize how true and wonderful it is. It wasn't seemingly true and wonderful to me when I first discovered it, it seemed like the cross. Now that it has lead me to the Resurrection I forget far too often those first struggles I had with the challenging teachings of Jesus Christ.

Can I backtrack here and really say that I don't want and shouldn't expect Nareed or anyone else to say, "Okay you are right." Nareed has her belief system and is living her life the way that brings her, I hope, happiness and peace. Who am I to call that unnatural or disordered? However, what usually begins these fruitless back and forths is a claim that what I believe or what my Church believes is motivated by some hatred or bigotry. This is what gets me and why I feel the need to speak out and defend the Lord I love and His teachings. They are not meant to torture or cause anyone pain and suffering. They are meant to and do lead to an awesome happiness and peace as well. However, that doesn't happen unless someone first comes to know Jesus is baptized and believes in Him. It can't be forced on anyone through reason and sure as hell not on some internet forum.

The best I can hope for, and I hope I haven't ruined this already, is to try to help people see that while they might be disgusted and offended by what I believe and the Church teaches - it is not taught because God hates gays or the promiscuous. Think of it as misguided and based on ancient fables, what have you, but please do not say it is because I or anyone else is a bigot or prejudiced.

Another problem is the Church's influence and desire to change public policy for everyone. This is what leads to the imaginary war that we all are needlessly fighting. I think this is brought about by the same fear we both have. One side is fearful that the Church will force them to live the way we teach and the Church is afraid that we will be forced to give up our teachings and how we want to live. Maybe a firm recommitment to religious freedom would be the peace treaty we are all seeking. Allow the Little Sisters to not provide contraception to their employees and allow Catholic adoption agencies to try to place children first and foremost in homes with both a mom and dad and allow me to in Church only witness the marriages of heterosexual couples. The Church of course should also not try to use or influence secular enforcement of religious teachings upon people who do not believe or are not members of the Church. This is not to say we shouldn't still engage in cultural 'warfare' and evangelize and try to show people why we believe what we believe. If we were free to live what we believe without being labeled using disgusting labels I imagine evangelization would not be done by words but rather by how we live our lives. As St. Francis famously said, "Preach the Gospel always and only when necessary should you use words." That is the medium we are forced to use here on this forum and it is very frustrating for all. I don't see Nareed and her happiness and she doesn't see me and my service to people and my efforts to fill their lives with the same happiness. If I could see her I would never want to cause her pain and we would hopefully just play craps and talk more about stopping Donald Trump than gay marriage. I also don't think she would want to stop my joyful efforts to strengthen and help those I work with either.

Thanks Face, lots to think and pray about.

Quote: FrGamble

I think you favor number three. I do think that when Jesus wanted to sound severe He was and used language and images that expressed the seriousness of His teaching. There are lots of clues in the Scriptures about when He was doing this. The thing you have to be careful to avoid is fundamentalism or a literal interpretation of the Scripture. I think by far your biggest problem is that you do not know and love the Lord Jesus. Knowing the person of Christ helps you avoid fundamentalism and helps you to recognize instinctively what certain Scripture passages must mean and refer to. It's kind of like if your best friend gets quoted in the newspaper saying something strange you know that he didn't really mean that or that it was taken out of context even before you read the whole thing or find out the real quote. Trying to use, twist, and prooftext the Scriptures to paint Jesus in a certain way is like that.

So untwist the scripture

Quote:

Matthew 7:13-14 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

It sounds serious. And you've agreed that things that sound serious were meant to be taken seriously.

So the above is not about destruction versus some getting eternal life and how few will get there? God doesn't lie right? Then what is it about? Please use actual support material that is IN the scriptures not rewritten by Catholics. If you can't do the last part I'll assume it can't be done and you're simply twisting the meaning yourself without support.

For me, the big clue is both god doesn't lie and right there he said few will enter. It's not god may be fudging on this when god says it. Not unless god lies.

Quote: FrGamble

Yes, but for Paul and the early Christian community it could be at any time. Actually for us it could be anytime too, but they thought it was imminent and it effected the advice Paul gave to that community.

WHOA there horsey! No, that is not what I am saying at all. The explicitly given advice of Paul to the Corinthians is not to be disregarded, nor is anything that Paul wrote. I'm only trying to tell you why he was suggesting that people stay in the state they are if they can. Let's not get crazy here.

Jesus explicitly taught the disciples that they were not to know the day or the hour so it is not like they didn't ask or that they misunderstood Jesus. I think if you were as close to the actual event of the Resurrection and Ascension and saw and felt the persecution the early Church went through as well as the faith spreading like wildfire around the known world you too would expect a quick return. The power of that moment of Christ's victory over death was so real and amazing that it seemed like the new Heavens and the new Earth were right around the corner. They were excited and longed with their whole being to see the Risen Lord again, so powerful was His impact on them. I wish I and all of us could long with the same intensity for the Lord's return.

Ok, so if no one can know the hour that the lord will return, and that is the basis of the advice that Paul gave the Corinthians, and we are not to disregard that advice, then how do you disregard the advice that single people should remain single?

Thought of another way, what information do we have now to suggest that the lord's return is not imminent, so the advice given to the Corinthians can be safely disregarded?

That leads me back to one of my original questions - if we know that the lord's return is not imminent, what other advice in the bible should be disregarded, because it was given in the context of the lord's return being imminent?

If it is "none", and/or responding to "whoa there horsey" then we are back to why do we disregard the advice of Paul to the Corinthians re: remaining single?