Palin joins Fox - right where she belongs!

[tdslf1 0]

Great, PG understands different views point sometimes. Pg, interpretes the biblical phrase of "thou shall not kill" to extend to embryos. Most people interprete it to mean actual live, breathing human beings. Eureka, we have a winner, unless of course PG is a liar and we don't all get to interprete and take away what we will with that factual phrase and it is only her interpretation that is the right one.

[pattygreen 5]

Great, PG understands different views point sometimes. Pg, interpretes the biblical phrase of "thou shall not kill" to extend to embryos. Most people interprete it to mean actual live, breathing human beings. Eureka, we have a winner, unless of course PG is a liar and we don't all get to interprete and take away what we will with that factual phrase and it is only her interpretation that is the right one.

Yes, I do. I also interpret the many other biblical principles in scripture that teach that life in the womb is precious to God. You must read the 'whole' bible to understand it all. You can't just take a verse and apply it to any situation.

The Old Testament provides most of the information on God's view of life before birth, since it gives us the law. The law specifically addresses the issue of taking the life of a fetus in the book of Exodus:

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (

Exodus 21:22-23

)

Therefore, the law tells us that a man who induces an abortion or miscarriage is to be punished, indicating that God values life before birth. Eureka!

[pattygreen 5]

Kat, good one.

Btw, I believe that there are probably plenty of people who read patty's posts and agree with her wholeheartedly but do not want to join the fray and risk confrontation with those who might argue with them.

Some people take debate personally and find it totally distasteful. Very understandable. But for many of us it is a great outlet - especially since we are sometimes frustrated with what we read here or what we observe on television, radio or internet.

Actually, there are many people who agree with what I post and choose not to be confrontational. Some who only 'view' what's posted have privately emailed me to let me know that they are in agreement with what I say, and they encourage me to keep speaking, despite all the opposition to what I say.

I don't find debating distasteful. I find it fun and enjoyable. I don't take personal offense from anyone who talks with me here. (even though I am sure that some of you really can't stand me):drool: I am not out to make enemies or foes. I'm just speaking what I truly believe and live. I also pray for everyone that I talk with. I ask for blessings and 'good' gifts from God for all of you. I ask for his wisdom to be extended to you. I like posting and it is what I do when my work at home is done and I want to relax. I rarely watch TV. (except FOX news, of course.:w00t:) I go to the computer maybe 2 or 3x per day and just check my email and look up interesting tidbits of information. It's quite theraputic. :wink:

[tdslf1 0]

You pray for me? Good because I pray for you as well. Humility is a good thing that I pray for for you.

[BJean 16]

patty: "BTW, I don't agree with you about getting differing responses to the same book read. The phrase," Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart." means just what it says. If you delight (find joy, pleasure,etc.) in God, he will give you the desires (anything you long or hope for) of your heart."

Are just TRYING to be obtuse or is this just your way of TRYING to defend your point of view. Either way, it is obvious that you don't get it.

When you make your claim that the Bible was written by God and doesn't really have more than one interpretation, all of your other arguments go down the drain. Because you clearly are single-minded and think that you're the only one with any honest Biblical answers. That's often the trouble with some extremist fundamentalist religious folk... they are unable to open their minds to what is fully out there to learn.

They are stuck in limbo clutching their Bible, shouting to the world that they are right, no matter any evidence to the contrary.

My dad spent years disliking the Catholic Church. When Kennedy was elected, he was just sure that Kennedy was merely a tool of the Catholic Church being used to turn America into a theocracy led by the Catholic Church.

When I married a Catholic man, attended the church regularly and raised my children Catholic, he finally decided that he should read, listen and become knowledgeable instead of pre-judging (due to the things he'd been taught in his church) and keeping his mind closed to additional information about the church.

I wish this for you someday but will never be foolish enough to think that you will open your heart and mind to something beyond what you preach. Because, let me assure you, there is a much more beautiful life to be had than the small one that you confine yourself to.

And this in no way should be read as an endorsement of the Catholic Church. I only used that as an example of how close minded people can be and how it can cut them off from learning and growing.

I'm just saying...

[pattygreen 5]

You pray for me? Good because I pray for you as well. Humility is a good thing that I pray for for you.

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your prayers.

[pattygreen 5]

When you make your claim that the Bible was written by God and doesn't really have more than one interpretation, all of your other arguments go down the drain.[end]

I am only trying to show you that your false claim of bible 'interpretation' is bogus. The problem is not in how the scripture is interpreted, for it reads just fine. The problem is in the sinner. Even God predicted in His word that man would turn from the bible and what it says.

( 2 Timothy 4:3) "For the time will come when man will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

The one who wants to have sex with the same sex will do anything and believe anything to do the things he or she wants to do. He will find a church pastor who will 'allow' his homosexual life style. He will even say "the bible doesn't say that." It is clearly written in the bible that it is an abomination unto God, yet you, and others like you, will try to tell us that it is all up to each individuals or churches interpretation of the bible. God could come down here and scream in his face that it is wrong, and he will say," that wasn't God, it was the wind". The bible could put it in large, BOLD print across its cover, "Homosexuality is SIN!!!!" and those who desire to live as homosexuals will say, "that's only your interpretation." Come on! The bible is very plain and simplistic to read. He did not desire for us to be confused about right and wrong when he wrote it for us. It is only confusing to those who don't want to adhere to what it says.

Believe me, I hated the fact that it repeats many times over and over that gluttony is a sin. But, do I say, "no. that's not what it says. That's someone elses interpretation of that verse, not mine." Do I find someone who will tell me that it's okay to be fat?

NO! I accept it. Gluttony is a sin. It's wrong to overeat. Not only is it wrong, but the consequences of doing it are dire. I could go on to list them all, but you get it. He made it a sinful act because of what happens to us when we over eat. We become unhealthy. Every sin has its consequences and God is only protecting those that he made and loves from those consequences. Like a parent who keeps their child from doing the things that will hurt them physically, emotionally, socially or spiritually. To say that you can't trust the bible because so many people interpret it differently is soooo wrong. You must take the bible as a whole, not bits and pieces. Just as you must read any other book from cover to cover before you get the jist of what the author is saying as a whole. You can't just read one verse on a topic and understand what God intended without reading it ALL. Throughout scripture, there is a principle being taught, one that is not outright written in a single sentence, but one that is taught as a whole when it is all put together.

I wish this for you someday but will never be foolish enough to think that you will open your heart and mind to something beyond what you preach. Because, let me assure you, there is a much more beautiful life to be had than the small one that you confine yourself to.

[end]

Why do you say that I confine myself to a small world?The bible and a relationship with your Creator is all that you will ever need in this life and the next one. I find the world to be beautiful and all of God's creation to be marvelous. I am grateful for what I know of God. I did not learn what I know of God from any church. God came to me one day and I picked up his words and read them for myself. I asked him to show me the truth about life and why I was here, and he did. I confessed that I was a sinner who was lost without him and he changed me from that day on. No one taught me about God, but Him. After 3 years of a private relatiuonship with God, I searched for fellowship among others who believed as I did and found it at a local church. They do not teach me my beliefs. the bible does that. they merely give me a family of believers to have a relationship with here while we all await His soon coming return to Earth to take us home.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

First of all, the bible was written by men, not God, not women and each man who has rewritten the bible has added his own interpretation of what the original words mean when translated into another language.

There ARE DIFFERENT interpretations of the bible. It is ever evolving what certain passages mean. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Turn the other cheek are two that have been given different and not literal interpretations. Religious scholars differ on what these and other passages mean. They base their interpretation on the language of the time the bible was written.

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John each wrote different accounts about Jesus's birth, yet they weren't there. The common story we now hold about the nativity is a combination of their versions. I don't recall any part of the bible where Jesus or anyone else tells the disciples the story of his birth. Did Mary? Did Joseph? How did they learn of it?

My point is that the bible is absolutely open to interpretation of the words, their meaning when translated and viewed in the context of the time it was written.

[TN_girl21 1]

You know what I say????? I say let's get back to talking about Palin joining Fox! lol :w00t:

Edited January 17, 2010 by TN_girl21

[pattygreen 5]

First of all, the bible was written by men, not God, not women and each man who has rewritten the bible has added his own interpretation of what the original words mean when translated into another language.

WRONG!!!

There ARE DIFFERENT interpretations of the bible. It is ever evolving what certain passages mean. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Turn the other cheek are two that have been given different and not literal interpretations. Religious scholars differ on what these and other passages mean. They base their interpretation on the language of the time the bible was written.

These are NOT difficult to understand. Rod is discipline, and to turn the other cheek means responding to an agressor without violence. How do people interpret it differently? You don't need to be a scholar to get it!

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John each wrote different accounts about Jesus's birth, yet they weren't there. The common story we now hold about the nativity is a combination of their versions. I don't recall any part of the bible where Jesus or anyone else tells the disciples the story of his birth. Did Mary? Did Joseph? How did they learn of it?

From the Holy Spirit. Once you become a Christian, God's spirit reside within you and He gives you an understanding. This is how they learned of it.

My point is that the bible is absolutely open to interpretation of the words, their meaning when translated and viewed in the context of the time it was written.

All scholars of the bible have no problems with interpeting the scriptures that teach what is conscrued as 'right' and what is conscrued as 'wrong'. It is those who want to do what is wrong that have the problems with the bibles interpretation. There may be some slight, and I mean slight, interpretation differences among some people who read something and then discuss it, but for the most part, when it says:

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) " Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Can you interpret that to mean something else? How about this? Can it mean something else?

(Romans 1:26,27) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

There are other scriptures that condemn homosexuality, and there is NO interpretation problems with them. Those who want to engage in homosexual acts will tell you that they 'interpret' it differently, but they're not fooling anyone. The scripture says what it says.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

If Jesus had wanted to write a "bible" he would have done so and handed it to his disciples and said "here is my word that I have written. Pass it on." But he didn't. The writing of the bible was left to mere mortals who wrote it as they recalled the events and words.

And the following shows that religious and other scholars do interpret the bible differently:

Ads by Google Holyland Pilgrimage

Come to Discover the Roots of Christian Faith

www.holyland-pilgrimage.org

Bible Colleges Seminaries

Earn a seminary degree online from Liberty University-Enroll Today.

www.LibertyOnlineSeminary.com

Master's Divinity School

Earn a Recognized Ministry Degree Associate - Doctorate 100% Online

www.mdivs.edu

Bible College Degrees

Apply and Enroll Now Receive Instant Rebate!

www.summitbiblecollege.com/

Turn the other cheek is a biblical reference mentioned in the New Testament in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus enjoins his followers, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” In the Sermon on the Plains in Luke, the same sentence is repeated. Turn the other cheek is often interpreted as not responding with aggression or fight to aggressive attacks; the answer to violence is passivity and humility.

Ads by Google

Study The Bible Online

Earn an Online AA, BA, Masters, or PhD. Request Free Information!

www.eLearners.com/Bible

Faith Based Schools

Offering Online Programs & Degrees Learn More Today

www.BaptistCollegesOnline.com

Such thought is not only present in Christianity, and certainly exists in other religions. The idea of Ahimsa, an important part of some sects of Hinduism and Buddhism that existed for centuries prior to the advent of Christianity expresses that acting with violence incurs very bad karma. You can also find this idea outside of Christianity in the work and philosophy of people like Mahatma Gandhi.

Biblical interpretation of turn the other cheek varies. Is Christ counseling his followers to never act in violence, even in self-defense? Some Christian sects, such as the Quakers believe this fully. There is no act of violence that can be praised. Other modern Christians would seem to act in full non-concordance with this philosophy. For instance, supporting the death penalty would seem in direct conflict with the concept of turning the other cheek.

There are multiple interpretations of how turn the other cheek is meant, and when it’s acceptable to not act in accordance with these teachings. Some, for example, believe that violence in self-defense is absolutely moral, especially if you use a small amount of violence to escape someone who would hurt you. Striking someone down, but not killing that person, may help you prevent a person from acting in an unrighteous manner. If you knock someone out cold, who is attacking you, you may prevent him or her from killing you, a greater sin than simply attacking you. Alternately, running away instead of allowing someone to continue hurting you is viewed as viable and imminently sensible.

Some argument against this teaching focuses on how “turn the other cheek” has been used in the past to sanction the violence of the oppressor. In abusive homes, pastors might counsel wives to behave better so they would not be beaten, instead of counseling them to flee a marriage where a wife or her children’s safety was at constant risk. As more has been understood about the nature of spousal abuse, this counsel is seldom given in most mainstream Christian churches. Too many women and children, and sometimes men, would pay the price for putting this philosophy in practice, turning the other cheek instead of escaping to safety.

Some scholars argue that to turn the other cheek is a highly metaphoric phrase. It isn’t to be taken literally but instead means that there is benefit to not using aggression when it can be possibly avoided. This is the stance of people like Gandhi and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Instead of sanctioning violent overthrow of the status quo, they advocated nonviolent resistance. The many sit-ins, walkouts, and deliberate acts of passive civil disobedience were viewed as a means of turning the other cheek since no violence was offered in this disobedience. Instead people quietly stood for what they believed, taking the full slap of the law on the other cheek without engaging in violence.

Again, my point for different interpretations by those who study the bible is proven.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

Again, my point for different interpretations by those who study the bible is proven.

A better way to get my point across to you is to say that scholars tend to not disagree on what sin is. The bible is clear on what is right and wrong. There will always be those who will interpret what God is saying to suit their own desire to do the things that God deems sinful.

[Kat817 19]

My point was that people DO interpret and understand things differently. It is not a divine understanding you get when you believe. I have had this same bible discussion with many----from others just interested as myself, to preachers, and even a catholic Nun. The one word those TEACHERS used, every single one of them, was Faith. You just have faith that this is what it is meant to be.

I have no problem with that, but I am not going to buy the idea that every word is exact truth, and in exact form of how it was originally written. Questioning is not disbeleiving. To question implies belief.

For instance away from the Bible---because believe it or not this is NOT a bible thread----we will take a simple sentence, and show how people say it and mean it make it mean totally different things, even tho it is the exact same sentence.

"Oh my God, I am pregnant!"

Said along with jumping up and down and tears of happiness by the couple who had been fighting infertitlity for years, it is a happy statement.

The same sentence uttered in fear by an unwed HS girl, is still the same sentence, but means a world of different things.

Literal translations CANNOT be done. You said I love you in French is I love you in English------yet you said them both in English!

My point was the EXACT translation is not possible. For simplicity use Spanish, and White House becomes Casa Blanca---or literally translated House White. Which would HAVE to be switched to make the sentence make sense in the other language---and in the simple act of moving the words, destroys the EXACT translation. No one could even guess at the simple, necessary changes the books of the Bible have gone through.

Quote:

First of all, the bible was written by men, not God, not women and each man who has rewritten the bible has added his own interpretation of what the original words mean when translated into another language.

WRONG!!!

What part of her statement do you consider WRONG!!! And why?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

PG: You have used the quote below to prove that God opposes homosexuality. The following is a rabbi's interpretation and I would think he was well versed and knowledgable:

DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY?

Jacob Milgrom

____________________________________________________________

The biblical prohibition is addressed only to Israel. It is incorrect to apply it on a universal scale.

____________________________________________________________

This past Yom Kippur, September 25, 1993, my synagogue invited me to explain the afternoon scriptural reading, the list of forbidden sexual liasons in Leviticus 18. I chose to focus on what is today one of the most frequently quoted passages in the entire Bible, "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

What I said may be both good news and bad news to my Christian friends, depending on their position on gay and lesbian rights. This biblical prohibition is addressed only to the Jews. Non-Jews are affected only if they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing exhortation in Leviticus 18, verses 24-30). Thus, it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale.< /span>

But I spoke to my fellow Jews, who are required to observe this prohibition. What is the rationale for this prohibition? In a previous column, I noted that the Bible's impurity rules are part of a symbol system representing the forces of life and death. Israel is required to avoid these impurities and adhere to the laws commanded by God, who promotes the forces of life. Thus in the same chapter we read, "You shall heed my statutues and my rules, by doing them one shall live" (Leviticus 18:5). A man who discharges semen, whether intentionally or otherwise, is declared impure and must purify himself by bathing (a sort of re-baptism) before he is permitted to enter the Temple or touch sacred (sacrificial) food (Leviticus 15:16-18). Why? Because semen stands for life, and the loss of semen symbolizes the loss of life.

Note also that in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST LESBIANISM. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbians existed and flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite) Babylonian text and in the work of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c. 612 B.C.E., during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island of Lesbos (hence lesbianism). But there is a fundamental difference between the homosexual acts of men andwomen. IN LESBIANISM THERE IS NO SPILLING OF SEED. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and therefore lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.

My argument ostensibly can be countered by a more comprehensive biblical injunction. The very first commandment, given to Adam and repeated to Noah, is "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1,7). The descendents of Noah--the entire human race--are duty-bound to fulfill this commandment. But the truth is that we have not only filled the earth, we have over-filled it. This does not mean, however, that the commandment should be thought of as no longer in force--especially among Jews, who have lost a third of their members in our lifetime. I recall an incident during a premarital interview from the early years of my rabbinate. The starry-eyed bride declared her noble intention to have twelve children to compensate for the tragic loss of six million killed in the Holocaust. I gasped, "Must you do it all by yourself?"

I have since come to regret my flippant reply. This couple regarded their forthcoming marriage as a sacrament not just between themselves, but with the Jewish people. The problem has worsened for American Jews. Because intermarriage is rife and the Jewish birth rate is low, American Jewry, once at zero population growth, has dipped into the minus column. Were it not for a steady stream of converts, the extinction of American Jewry would be even more imminent. For us the divine command, "Be fruitful and multiply" is truly in force.

To Jewish homosexuals I offer an unoriginal solution. As compensation for your loss of seed, adopt children. Although adoption was practiced in the ancient world (as attested in Babylonian law), there is no biblical procedure or institution of adoption. As a result the institution of adoption is absent from rabbinic jurisprudence. Yet there are isolated cases of a kind of pseudo-adoption in the Bible. For example, Abraham, long childless, complains to God that Eliezer of Damascus, his steward, will inherit him (Genesis 15:2). And barren Rachel beseeches her husband Jacob, "Here is my maid Bilhah--go into her that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children" (Genesis 30:3). Adoption is certainly a possibility today. Lesbian couples have an additional advantage. Not only do they not violate biblical law, but through artificial insemination each can become the natural mother of her children.

Thus from the Bible we can infer the following: Lesbians, presumably half of the world's homosexual population, are not mentioned. More than ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of male Jewish gays subject to this prohibition. If they are biologically or psychologically incapable of procreation, adoption provides a solution.

I hope the Eternal, in love and compassion, will then reckon their spilled seed as producing fruit.< /span>

Jacob Milgrom.

Another interpretation and I assume different from yours. Again proving my point.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[TN_girl21 1]

Kat, your example is great! And you are right on point because there is more than one way to take that statement! And I, too, have talked to many people who agree that people do interpret the Bible differently. Even my grandfather (who is a Pastor!) says so. And here's a thought (if it's already been mentioned, I'm sorry!) the Bible has been translated sooo many times!!! Who is to say that the translator had to maybe change the wording because it could not be translated LITERALLY???